Youtube comments of Gakusangi (@Gakusangi).
-
3200
-
1100
-
966
-
898
-
790
-
The worst part is, this is the place we get set now. We can't have what was going to be, because they've committed to THIS. They will try to sell us on less than what was promised so long as it's more than what we currently have. All the DLC, free or otherwise, all the patches...it's not gonna transform it from a looter-shooter into some deep RPG like we wanted it to be. We'll always have level-locked clothes and weapons, when they have no place in this game (because making a hundred versions of the same weapon is easier than making a wide variety of weapons). We probably won't get combat chems, since they devalue the cybernetics, we get more co-op with companions likely, I'd be impressed if any car customization went further than aesthetics... I just don't see them making the game that was advertised because of the sheer amount of stuff that would have to be entirely overhauled and remade. The game is out, so we can only have an improved version of what it is, we can't have what we wanted it to be, what was advertised.
739
-
652
-
414
-
370
-
346
-
341
-
325
-
307
-
287
-
214
-
214
-
177
-
168
-
144
-
131
-
125
-
124
-
120
-
118
-
113
-
103
-
96
-
87
-
86
-
79
-
79
-
75
-
75
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
65
-
64
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
54
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@zebulon3044 I love how people make these comparisons when they clearly don't know anything about the history of the Holocaust or how it came to be. For one, we're dealing with a country that's suffered a horrendous loss and need a scapegoat. We don't need illegal immigrants to be a scapegoat because we're directing all of the blame squarely on the people responsible and that was the current administration. They're not on the way out and the new one we want is coming in, so no-one can shift the blame over to a bunch of people that don't deserve it. We don't blame the illegal immigrants for our illegal immigrant problem, they didn't let themselves in, they didn't make our borders less secure, that was everyone at the top that we decided to vote out.
Then you have the whole matter of who's being targeted. Regimes like those in Nazi Germany and the USSR didn't have a problem with illegals because their borders were already secure, instead they were turning their military on the citizens. It started with ushering in new management, killing off or otherwise removing the previous managements and any political rivals, which hasn't happened here. We basically didn't renew the previous administrations contracts, we didn't have them mass executed. Now we're moving on to deportation of people that didn't come here legally or make any effort to obtain citizenship any time afterwards, which means they aren't citizens of this country.
Then you have to factor in the reason it was easy to facilitate all of this was because propaganda and control of whatever media you were exposed to was all handled by the state, so they could tell you anything they wanted and you just swallowed it up because you had no better authority. We don't live in an age like that, we have information freely available from all sorts of sources, but we have had people that tried to control it and push only the things they wanted people to see and hear. It was the last guys we had in office and it's part of why we voted them out and replaced them.
But yeah, keep comparing us to socialist/communist dictatorships.
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@robosergTV That's two ways of false equivalency there, buddy.
1) The Witcher 3, was a massive triple-A title, with a ton of money and marketing behind it, and two previous games to help the developers work out what sort of game they wanted to make, it wasn't anything very brand new, it wasn't made with a tiny team of developers, and it wasn't made on a tight budget.
2) The GotY edition is after the game the base game was already successful. It includes all of the bug fixes, and some of the DLC content (if not ALL of the DLC content) and is a version that cannot even be compared to Vanilla Withcer 3, let alone a game like Greedfall, which hasn't even had time for a couple of patches yet. The fact that the GotY Edition is selling for the same price ($49.99), is because it's already been out for years, and been successful that whole time, so they needn't charge any more for it. Greedfall is brand new, and the devs are trying to make sure they make back the money before they start thinking of putting the game on sale.
As I said, false equivalency, these two games are NOT equal to each other at all in the way they were made, or who made them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@AngelOfDæth_4 And it isn't just a matter of overblown expectations like people want to write it off as, it's not just a matter of the bugs either. I had realistic expectations, set for me by games that came previously like Fallout: New Vegas, the newer GTA entries, and Red Dead. These featured fleshed out systems with a lot of immersive side features, and mini-games that made the world feel alive and always gave you something to do. They were also very open, allowing for multiple approaches, lots of dialogue options, and a variety of equipment you could just pick up and use if you found it or bought it. These aren't high expectations, they're simply what you SHOULD have, what people would expect from your competition in this genre.
CDPR made it clear that they have almost no idea how to make a game like this. It isn't just the bugs, it's how they've designed this game from the ground up. It isn't just unreasonable expectations, it's a failure to meet a standard that's already been set by other games.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So, just as a counter-point, while everyone is talking about the tariffs will increase the costs of living, lets actually talk about why President Trump thinks they'll DECREASE the cost o living. Everyone has the other side covered, so I'll throw in a few points here.
1) By imposing tariffs, Trump aims to make imported goods more expensive, thereby encouraging consumers and businesses to purchase domestically produced items. This protectionist approach is intended to support American manufacturers and reduce reliance on foreign products. We know a big push he's been making is more domestically produced goods, to make us more INDEPENDENT and more export focused. So he's hoping that because the tariffs will, in turn, encourage more costs put on us for imports, that suppliers will then pivot over to domestically produced goods instead. We make a LOT of products here in our own country and we CAN make even more and we see this move already with how Trump is trying to revive the auto industry here in the US. So this is all part of a plan to make us more self-sufficient since we DO have the resources and that can lower our costs, dramatically. Especially when you consider that it's being further pushed by the fact that domestically produced goods will have a lower tax cost as per his other policies. He wants us to be LESS dependent on others.
2) Tariffs serve as a source of income for the government. Trump has suggested that the revenue generated from tariffs could be utilized to fund various domestic initiatives, potentially offsetting the need for other forms of taxation. We've seen how his policies are cutting off more funding we send outside of the country than what we do to benefit citizens IN our country, which is why the funding freeze didn't target direct individual benefits like Medicaid and SNAP, instead it was targeting funds being sent out to other countries. He also has various policies he's putting in place to reduce income tax and, as stated before, taxation on domestically produced goods. As money flows into our economy, everyone can benefit as the amount of money in circulation within our country that isn't being sent outside of it.
3) By imposing tariffs, Trump seeks to pressure other nations into engaging in fairer trade practices, aiming to create a more level playing field for American businesses. FACT, other countries need the US more than the US has ever needed them. We've been a major cash cow for various nations, always paying the lion's share and always backing up our allies to the point of them never needing to spend their limited resources for the sake of security. We always accept the worst deal, the short end of the stick. We don't have to. We've never had to. It's only been that way because we've allowed it to be. Well, why should we? Why shouldn't we get a fair deal if so many other countries rely on OUR business. By imposing the tariffs, people can make a big show of imposing them right back on us and trying to force up to make up the difference, but if we produce good domestically that we're more than willing to switch over to, that won't last. They NEED our money to sustain. So they'll cut us a deal, they'll actually make prices competitive, because if they don't, they're in a lot more financial trouble than we ever will be.
Just thought I'd put that out there because everyone can talk about how the prices can go up, but no-one is actually talking about what the PLAN is here and why it CAN work. WILL it work? We'll have to see, but right now we're in the best position to try.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Always put the link Charlie, it looks better when it looks like you're giving due credit, not trying to hide the facts... as you can see, it's worse doing that because then you give them an excuse to attack you for that. You - are - not responsible for your community jumping on someone, especially when you've told them NOT to do that. I mean, you don't have direct control over anyone's actions and if they really wanna do that then you couldn't stop them anyway.
DarkViper picked very deliberate language, if that wasn't the interpretation he wanted people to take, then he should have worded it differently. It was intentional to make that mental connection, no amount of "hyperbole" covers for that. It's a BS excuse for a BS analogy and he has to take the heat for that now. You make specific statements, expect specific responses and deal with the specific consequences. This is presentation and debate 101.
Also, it's nice to see DarkViper's integrity when he claims you're presenting misinformation and misrepresenting his arguments, while doing his little Ctrl+F stunt and very specifically not looking for the words he actually used int he document to hone in on that section in question. Yeah, he wrote it, he knows what he wrote and he's intentionally using words he didn't use to try and make a point when you were commenting on the ones he did, which you pointed out more than once in both your video and this follow-up.
DarkViper didn't include references to his own research and statistics which leaves people reading his document to conclude that he has no sources. Again, it's almost like he intentionally kept vital information to himself just so he could whip it out in his defense when- inevitably -people started to criticize his arguments. He doesn't get to pull out the statics and data now and act like it was all there in his presentation, it wasn't. Therefore, no-one but him could have had a clue where he was getting that information from or validate its legitimacy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What works with this administration is that it's a collection of very proactive people. Seeing people that want to get work done is a major factor in why they're so popular, they look like they're actually doing their job.
On the subject of going after corporate billionaires instead of illegal immigrants, you effective take care of both at the same time. A lot of those high-ups have managed to make so much money for themselves by utilizing cheap, available labor. By removing the illegals, you've forced them to hire withing US standards, which requires certain wages, certain benefits and their rights are protected by the labor board, which is a level of regulation they wouldn't normally have to deal with. Two birds, one stone.
As far as the comment on the party that's increasing taxes, the Trump administration is advocating for the extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which is set to expire at the end of 2025. This includes maintaining reduced individual and corporate tax rates. Trump has proposed eliminating federal income taxes on tips and overtime pay, aiming to benefit workers in the service and hospitality industries. Trump is seeking to repeal the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions, which would primarily benefit residents in high-tax states. So... I don't know what the hell that person was talking about. Trump is doing a LOT of reduce the amount of taxes we're paying out XD
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DaniTheHero That 70hrs thing, that wasn't me, that's someone else in this discussion that said they requested a refund, and got one, and YES it was Cyberpunk 2077, he's been the person I've been defending in their decision to get a refund this whole time. I have 200+ hrs in this game. I'm waiting on the patches that should have been brought in at the end of February before I decide if I'm refunding. Because then, all of the bugs will be fixed and hopefully things will be re-balanced. But if I still don't like it by then, you bet I'm requesting a refund. I would have given this game every chance to be worth my money by then.
Again, that you use the words "most people" proves my point. Because "most people" is not EVERY person, see? I exist, therefore I am counter to your point. The guy that got his refund after 70hrs, is also counter to your point, and evidence to the contrary, which is why you can't make it a rule that so much time invested or so much of the game complete means that it can't be bad or that we're not entitled to get our money back. I'm sorry, but you have been proven WRONG in this very comment section. Accept it and move on to next point if you have one. You're the only one constantly repeating yourself with nothing to back it up. Meanwhile I have evidence that can be referenced right here in the comments.
The movie reference absolutely works. It's an example of seeing something through to the end before deciding you don't like it. People do that all the time, not everyone gets up and leaves the theater half way or a quarter of the way through a film. Just like some people don't refund a game until they've seen everything the game has to offer...see?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The keep arguing due process, how much does a guy get? He's a confirmed illegal, that's process 1, his case was reviewed by an immigration judge to determine further that he's in a country illegally and it confirmed it was a known affiliate of a criminal organization and given a removal order, that's due process 2. Then after that, he was reacquired by federal agents and identified as the same individual, being processed under the Alien Enemies Act, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court to be legally in play, which is due process 3. This man has been seen, he has been heard, he has been convicted and he has been deported. Due process complete. Do deny it at this point, is to deny reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thorin1045 It's not a matter of the anti-virus, it's not a matter of the predatory monetization, it's not a matter of general drops in quality, it's not a matter of gutting the content to stagger a steady release of it instead of all together, it's not a matter of increasing prices, it's not a matter of exclusivity, it's not a matter of poor refund policies, it's not a matter of shoddy upkeep that results in hackers and bad connectivity, it's not a matter of no long owning the thing you buy and having the risk of it disappearing forever... it's all of those things. When you put all of those small things together you get a really really big problem with industry, how it's being managed and how it will inevitably crash all over again.
It's about who you want to be when that all happens, the person that took precautions and warned everyone, or the person that has to suffer the consequences of ignoring it. If you're the latter, you fall into two sub-categories. The people that pretend everything is fine when it's not and the people that complain while having done nothing to prevent what happened to them.
2
-
2
-
@krookedvulture I didn't say it would magically fix it. Logically, it would. If they make no money they'd stop producing games. And as the indie gaming community shows, there's people willing to deliver something based on the demands and desires of the customer-base, the gamers. They'd essentially move in to become the new AAA industry in the wake of everyone else f-ing off because they can't maintain their companies with this idea of perpetual growth.
Publishers have only been around so long because they moved in and convinced everyone a long time ago that they were necessary and then they've managed to keep themselves around because they keep pushing the envelop on what they can get away with and people have let them do that. Now they're finally hitting a wall. There's some push back and it's definitely made some ripples. They'll either have to change to sustain or they'll have to abandon ship and cut their losses. Either way, I call that a big win for us, and a piracy would most certainly play a role in that if more people did it. It doesn't instantly FIX anything, but also doesn't hinder what we actually want to happen, change. More specifically, change for the better.
We already see other industries also starting to take these hits. Movies and comics are a great example. Western comics are getting trounced by alternatives that display better quality and greater creative vision, with manga and BD's. Massive movie franchises that have steadily been turned into money machines are now failing to make significant gains to their costs. See the failure of Star Wars and Marvel in the past few years. Yes, they'll kick and scream and fight it out as long as they can, but eventually it will change and we, as the people that have the agency to choose where our money and support goes, plays a major role in that.
THAT is my point. Piracy is just a part of that in gaming.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So a few things that people that really like the franchise that the Drinker probably missed. Some people might call these nitpicks, I call it a clear indication of the shows quality and the investment the makers had in it.
1.
I'm going to disregard the absurdity of the opening bombing sequence for the most part, the one thing I will touch on is that in the show the bombs go off in the afternoon at some point on the West Coast. Well, we know that on the East Coast the bombs dropped around 9 almost 10AM (this is even referenced in Fallout 4), meaning that the bombs on the West Coast went off around 5 - 6AM. Seems like a small thing, but the small things add up as you continue.
2.
A personal problem I have with the plot concerning the Vault Dweller, Lucy... didn't we already do the main plot of Fallout 3 in Fallout 3? I mean, looking for your missing father? We're really doing that again? It wasn't that engaging the first time, and you're literally reusing that plot. He's even going to have previous connections with the outside world despite seemingly living in a vault at the beginning, why didn't they just cast Liam Neeson again while they were at it?
The Geiger counter thing was stupid with the raider. They were literally surrounded by other vault dwellers with pipboys and holding it up to him from across the room got a high reading instantly. They should have been found out immediately the second they showed up. If you can apply some critical thinking to even smaller flaws in Star Wars, I don't think it's a stretch to be critical of stuff like this. Smaller things have been eviscerated on this channel. This doesn't even require knowledge of the lore for the series, we see how it operates in the show and yet it only worked that way at that exact moment.
3.
The USA iconography with the Brotherhood makes no sense. They are a faction that broke off from the United States and they are in a rivalry with the Enclave who are the last remnants of US government and ideology. They would not have flags that even resemble the US flag and they certainly wouldn't fly a US flag at their bases and camps, which you see them do in the show.
Also, the cult-like representation is... it's just not the Brotherhood. They're technophile isolationists and should be so few in number by now that they're completely unable to defend themselves from the NCR and other larger factions at this point. I don't know who this faction is in the show, but it's not the Brotherhood of Steel, they just have power armor and not even lore accurate power armor at that.
4.
Okay, I wanna put a fork in this once and for all. Ghouls are NOT ZOMBIES! They are not actually undead. They require things like food and water and oxygen to survive. There's even a quest in the first game entirely oriented around their water purifier because they need water to live. I don't know why there's this retconning going on that's insistently changing what ghouls are, but they aren't zombies, they're lot more interesting and nuanced than that, even the feral ones that basically fill zombie role. Pretty much everything to do with The Ghoul in his introduction was bad, save for the actor they got playing him, who is a good actor that I do like.
I'd like to point out that all of this was in episode ONE, this was the FIRST episode of the show. It's not a very promising start, it would have to get really damn good to just ignore things like this and enjoy it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ It's not exactly the same thing, no. Taking a stance to negotiate is not the same as surrender, it's a shame a lot of people seem to feel that way. A lot of people are of the mindset that you either win or you lose with no nuance. After being invaded, Zelensky COULD have met with Russia and started negotiating terms, but we'll never know how that could have turned out either. Right now, it's clear deals can be made, because that's exactly what Trump is doing for the two of them. Surrendering would have been just laying down and handing their sovereignty over, something that if it isn't clear now, wasn't even the goal Russia ever had. They want what Ukraine has, not necessarily Ukraine itself. And if Trump gets his way, that's what Russia will get too. Some of the wealth, Ukraine keeps its sovereignty and the USA gets a deal out of it as well. Making it a three way profitable venture for everyone involved. Yes, even Ukraine. Because they'll never be part of NATO, but they can partner with the country that is essentially NATO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
So... because Elon is very outspoken, somehow it's different than any other time a corporate tycoon has ever backed up a political party? I mean, he still didn't answer the question, he just showed a goofy clip. I'd love to know, dollar to dollar, which candidate had more money actually thrown at them, but they won't say that.
"You don't have to be super sophisticated to see how corrupt this might be", love the softball language, "might", also love how it still doesn't address the previous times this has happened and how different this really is. Like it's been stated already, they act like we're not aware of this sort of collusion in politics all of the time. I guess he thinks we're just not "sophisticated" enough to have noticed it a long time ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, it's all be racism and segregation with a new coat of paint. The best part was tricking everyone into thinking that it was actively battling those two things instead of promoting them. Believe it or not, level heads in these minority groups have been saying this for years, because they know who's pushing these policies and why. Unfortunately, there were too many others that wanted to use it to get ahead, their short-sighted goals pushing things back decades as far as equality, normality and tolerance. Hopefully, the next four years can make major steps to actually make a difference and put us back on track. Unity, not division. Equality, not equity. Love for your common man, not appeasement. This was understood up until bout 12 or so years ago, there's been a lot of damage to people's minds to make them fall victim to this stuff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonorlan I like how you're thinking about this, allow me a few bounce points:
1. I don't expect this to happen tomorrow, in fact I expect prices to go up before they ever go down, because the infrastructure for this just isn't there. However, you can't build that infrastructure without starting it and that's the whole idea is that we start this transition into becoming independent. There are some exceptions, things that CANNOT be produced here, but I'll get into how that gets offset. Also, keep in mind that the US is making moves to seize trade routes for ourselves for a better deal and more control, that being the Panama Canal and the Greenland purchase. This effectively not only put the US in a better position, it helps weaken our major trade competitors (Russia and China).
2 Understand that for most of those valuable imports their value is largely generated by the US market. We are the largest consumers of those goods, so you can't just cut us or threaten to make it not worth buying from you either. When you go that far, you actually end up hurting your own ability to profit because you just gutted your main customer-base. When you say we don't have leverage despite how big we are economically, that's the flaw in that logic. Since we are the largest economically we have the most money to spend on these goods and generate most of their perceived value. It's the exact same reason why we're very likely to become part owners of TikTok. Without us, it makes almost nothing, with us it makes a massive profit. The people that export their goods to the US, they're gonna meet us in the middle if not completely fold after all their threats of tariffs after one conversation with their foreign trade advisers.
3. Yes, there is a reason why we own farms in other countries because it helps with labor costs and providing suitable environment for off-season produce. Those are still subject to tariffs as well because it's about the country it's coming from. However, the US is one of the three (if not the largest) supplier of food products to the rest of the world with key exports being: Soybeans, Corn (I'll talk more about this in a bit), Beef, Pork, Dairy Products, Wheat, Fruits (some), Nuts and our largest, Processed Food and Beverages. Things we more or less entirely dependent on other countries for: Avocados, Seafood (our waters have been over fished), Coffee (Hawaii makes some, but not enough), Chocolate, Bananas and Olive Oil. The prices of these things are likely to fluctuate, but once again we're a major consumer of these goods and threatening to cut out one of your biggest customers isn't a threat, it's a bluff.
4. I wanna largely keep this on the topic of tariffs and trade, because you can easily rabbit hole into a lot of other things going on. I'll just say, I don't think we're relying as heavily on the tariffs to work as people think we are. I think this is more to cut us a better deal than to actually generate revenue. The threat that we are ready to commit to this and will is enough to make other nations meet us on our terms because we aren't bluffing, we WILL do this, because they'll break before we do. If the past like nearly decade isn't an indicator enough, we will put up with it and reduce costs wherever we can until someone is ready to come to the table and deal. However, and like I said I want to keep this mostly on topic, the tariffs are only part of how the US stimulating the economy, cutting off expenditures and getting more money to our citizens. This includes things like backing out of alternative energy which has been a massive money sink for the US, who was paying the lion's share of any other nation. Opening up domestic drilling to no longer be reliant on Russian and Arab oil, and in fact become a major exporter of it, forcing more competitive prices globally. Issuing a freeze on foreign funding, especially in cases where its clearly been abused and not implemented as intended (condoms to Gaza?). Removing a number of persons that are taking residence in the US illegally from the country which will bring down consumption, energy costs and the expenditure State/Federal benefit resources, meaning that supply will start evening out with demand and drive more prices down. It's all part of a bigger picture.
5. The way I put it was a bit overly simplistic, but let me go a little more into it. While the US isn't done over a barrel in every agreement they make and, in fact, have made pretty crap deals for others to take, when you look at the top spending by nation in various global agreements and alliances such as NATO, WHO, the Paris Climate Agreement, etc. it isn't hard to see how negotiating the US's share can easily get a massive surge of money back into the country. In particular, the US had already cut a better deal with the World Health Organization during Trump's first term and then went back to a worse deal when the next administration stepped in. Trump is doing exactly what he did last time, he's threatening to just leave and that's going to force another deal again just like last time he did it because they obvious need US dollars. There will be other cases like this in which we very much have all the leverage because who else is putting up that kind of money. People discount the economic size of the US, you can't. You can't because that's money everyone else wants and needs. We have the most, therefore we can spend the most, that makes any business with us GOOD business.
I think the problem that I see more often in comment sections and forums is the inability to really talk all of this out. People want to jump to it's good or it's bad and never go in-depth on either. More often, depending on the content creator or whoever started the forum post, you're going to get a slanted perspective as well with no-one willing to even talk about what the other side of the topic is or what the other outcomes could be.
What I'm saying is, thank you for the actual discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacksoncordray1593 You are NOT talking about a "normal", "fully-there" person. You're talking about someone whose abuse started when they were a young teenager, who was easily manipulated, intimidated, and not operating on a mature, adult level. You're also disregarding who this is she was a the victim of. This man got away with two attempted murders and various other crimes, the authorities were entirely ineffective, so what could she have done? She probably didn't even realize that by going back to him, she would end up getting him off on the one charge that might've stuck, instead she was just trying to make him stop chasing her and threatening people she knew. She was scared and traumatized... does that sound like "normal, fully-there" person to you?
Please stop trying to apply the "outsider looking in" logic to this, you have no idea what she went through. And you're leaving out vital information to why she came to her decision and thought she had no other choice. You're acting like she some well-adjusted adult when she's anything but that.
1
-
@jacksoncordray1593 So you by your logic, a child running back to their abuser isn't a victim of abuse anymore. They made the decision to go back even if they knew they didn't like what was happening and knew it was wrong, so they can't be a victim anymore, right?
Oh, and before you try to say this was different. She was a teenager when she went back to him, she was even younger when he started abusing her. She is a child. And wouldn't you know it, when someone grows up into adulthood, in an abusive, psychologically manipulative household, they don't grow up to be "normal, well-adjusted" adults either. Please stop trying, this is a really stupid hill you're trying to die on here, and it only shows up little you know about the effects of abuse and the relationships cultivated by the abuser.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The thing is, this isn't even new. The idea of rebellion against established institutions is the ongoing drive of the next generation from the last. Their parents rebelled too, their grandparents in some cases as well. The people that come next ALWAYS think they figured something out that the ones that came before them didn't, and most of the time, they grow out of that as the mature and gain experience, which is what wisdom is. Unfortunately, more and more that development has be stunted, sometimes stopped dead. A bunch of immature adults that behave like teenagers, always looking for a cause, always wanting to be part of change and always the most easily manipulated because regardless of their rebellion against authority, they crave it so they don't have to think too hard about things, so they can have the pride of being part of a movement without the responsibility of whatever changes come from it.
It is the fault of some very irresponsible adults today, that have removed all sense of accountability and self-reliance from the young people today, all for some very short-term gains that they won't have to deal with the ramifications of after they're long gone. I really hope some kick in the head happens before these adult children are the only people in a position of authority without anyone else to look up to and direct them, which is all they know. This isn't sustainable and it's not going unnoticed anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is something I think really needs to be emphasized. This is not Trump's agenda, this is not Elon's agenda, this is not the administration's agenda, this is the course that the majority of a nation decided on and elected someone to carry out for them. This is America's agenda, this is what the people of the USA have decided is the best solution for sustainability and out future. You can't pin that all on one man as the villain, because he was intentionally put in office and hasn't done anything that he didn't promise his supporters. You can not like it, but it is what most people in the country have decided on and used their right to vote in order to ensure happens. People can try to make an easy target for that, but it doesn't mean anything. The people have spoken, they are the strength of the nation, they are the deciding factor, they are the ones running the ship. That's why transparency has been a key point of this whole operation, they know who they are answering to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The depression and suicide rates DO have some correlation to societal problems, but I'll bet the vast majority of it is because we've been systemically removing coping mechanism everywhere. Schools, social media, the workplace, everything has become too tolerant not of the individual for superficial traits but that individual's behavior. South Park covered this once, there's a difference between being tolerant, accepting and normalizing a thing or just being stupid about it. Now the harsh reality is, it's a small population of people, whose representatives have all made them out to be insufferable burdens on society that have gone out of their way to disrupt the lives of others that have no opinion on any of it and because of that it's caused backlash against them as a whole and outright rejection. They could have checked this a long time ago to keep themselves from appearing this way, but they didn't. So now everyone else doesn't have any sympathy. They're too busy worrying about themselves to care and some are gonna be happy some of this is just gone because of what they had to go through with it around.
Also, it's hard to trust doctors here because they're part of the machine that runs our medical care like a business instead of a service. So they'll always wanna push procedures and medications, especially emergent ones, because there's always some kickback somewhere. It's just like using a sponsor code with a content creator. The only difference is, most people trust doctors enough not to ask for the disclosure and doctors aren't required by law to give it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wai828 I didn't deny that, nor was I referring to his response being the coincidence, I'm not sure how you're interpreting what I'M saying, but I've understood you this whole time and have been trying to explain that the coincidence isn't Elon saying anything. It's the very thing he's replying to coming up NOW that seemed like an awful big coincidence for not having a very clear motive behind it, and I'm not talking about the pursuit of justice for a wrongdoing.
“Also I'm curious to know what makes you think Elon is winning.”
Winning what specifically? Public opinion? People have hated what Twitter is and watching him not only back them into a corner by outplaying them with his business savvy, essentially setting them up to either take his deal and give him the reins or collapse from having to pay him and their share holders a massive stack in the millions of dollars for not going through with it. Twitter had no choice, but to accept, they couldn't afford it otherwise, especially with their utterly abysmal stats right now in the stock market. The people that have invested in them are getting constantly disappointing returns and right now they're in hot water for continually fluffing up their numbers in order to get advertisers. THAT could land them in some serious trouble. So you tell me, what exactly you mean and I'll try to explain why I think he's doing fine.
“Personally I don't think getting so political is a winning strategy, especially when it comes to supporting a party as controversial as republicans.”
Which explains why you're confused, because he isn't getting political nor is he siding democrat or republican. He specifically indicated that he's leveling the playing field and intends to allow anyone regardless of their affiliations speak on the platform and that he'll be enforcing the TOS fairly. If those are “republican” values, that's news to me. Like me, he doesn't seem loyal to either side, he just wants Twitter to be just as neutral and treated as a public square and not an echo chamber, especially with the kind of influence it clearly has. Which seems to be getting more and more true the people resist his acquisition of it, to the point of digging up any dirt they can to try and discredit him to the general public as a last desperate effort to turn people against him. But the damage is done and Twitter probably is too, even if he doesn't follow through with the deal at this point.
“In my opinion he just fucked up and is trying to damage control.”
Well, I'm glad you have your opinion. What was your opinion on Trump every time he got drug into the court room any number of the times he did? I remember people claiming there was a smoking gun and he was going straight to jail. Lots of wasted time (and tax payer dollars) later, he's still here and might even run for re-election when the time rolls around. So I'm wondering, how fucked do you really think the richest guy in the world is?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm just trying to figure out what their plan is. They let it escalate to the point that National Guard and the Marines are being sent in to deal with it, but... are they seriously trying to spin that to win the favor of the the regular citizens, because OVERWHELMINGLY they are in support of order being brought back to LA, kicking the mayor and governor to the curb and continuing the ICE raids. So what's the plan? Do they not know how to do anything else? I'm trying to see the end game here. This isn't 2017, they've lost so much favor with the normal, working class people in this country and that means they have practically no support.
Also, notice how every time these guys talk, they talk to the press. She's not there talking to the people on the ground. Not even the mob, but certainly not the small business owners, the residents, any tourists, no one. They will not talk or be asked questions from normal people they don't vet themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@micah459 That veers dangerously close to the "your not black enough" argument that's a really really dumb one. Halle Barry is a black woman, she's always identified as a black woman and she is undeniably a black woman, who played a black character in a comic book movie.
That's almost like argument as the one people had for Carlton Banks in Fresh Prince, claiming that he "acted white". Then you look at his traits. He's educated, well-off, polite, articulate, cultured, sensitive and the people that make that argument don't seem to realize they're saying that all of those traits don't apply to black people... and don't seem to realize that it sounds really REALLY racist XD
Black isn't something you try to be, it isn't something that has a gradient scale or a code of conduct. It is something you are or you aren't. Now if you think she got the part because she's lighter of skin than other black actresses I'd love to hear how you definitively came to that conclusion. I'd also love to know who else was in the running for the part, as Halle Barry was an up-and-comer at the time, and Hollywood likes their "flavor of the month". Why do you think Sam Worthington kept getting work for a while there?
1
-
@micah459 For the record, I'm biracial, though I identify as one over the other. I don't want to diminish the struggle and I tend to like when faithfulness to the source material is maintained, but I'm also able to look past it if the final result is good.
I honestly wouldn't care if Storm was a white, Irish red-head, if that character was well-written, the performance from the actor was good and the overall movie was also good. I'd always question WHY that was their decision, but I also can't argue with a good product at the end of the day either, which seems like a huge ask these days.
If I can get all of that AND have it remain faithful to the character's ethnicity, then I'm even happier. I don't have that confusion in the back of my head, and I wouldn't be constantly wondering about why the decision was made in the first place.
Same goes for the story. The Shining is terrible from the perspective of it being an adaptation of Stephen King's novel. But it's an excellent movie with a great cast that give great performances. It's just almost entirely different from the actual source material.
So then... why do I have a problem with Amazon's LotR? Well, because I DO know exactly why the changes were made and I also know that the final product won't make up for the unnecessary alterations. They've been very clear on their motives and the hyper-focus tells me where all of the attention and effort is going. Meaning that I'm stuck not only with an unfaithful adaptation, but one that isn't even good at the end of the day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"He just exposed to Beijing where our trade weaknesses are" No, they already know that, they've cornered the market on these goods, they know no-one in the USA is producing them and that there isn't a larger producer of them. But they also know that's the only market they're cornering that the USA is dependent on, so... that's a rapidly ticking clock against them because the second up as a US industry and the second they work out out rare earths deals with a couple of other countries (Ukraine and Greenland), they're not gonna be as reliant on China anymore. Electronics are one thing, but look at almost any mundane item in your house, from dishes and utensils, to the monitor you're watching this video on, to the pens and pencils and tablets you write your grocery list on, it's all part of that Chinese industrial machine and we're already reducing a huge part of that.
I do agree, this looks weak and it isn't something I agree with. I think sticking to it and forcing these companies to quit dragging on getting the American side of these industries up and running is perfectly acceptable. People seemed willing to take the hit, if his popularity polls were anything to go on, so I'm not sure what's happened here or why, but without further context this just looks like a loss.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So what do we need...that's always been the hardest question here. We want Lootboxes and predatory monetization gone, but government regulation is a bit too blunt and therefore imprecise. We can't rely on them to regulate themselves because...well, why the hell would they? Forming a third party for it, is just as messy as government oversight, because you need to know exactly what to look for and come up with regulations as necessary... it's just a vicious cycle of either taking a risk or leaving things as they are ^^;
You know, I think the biggest problem is that people want things to change NOW! They don't want to be patient, and don't want to take the time to really create solid arguments, and pin-point precise elements of this issue. This is a time where we need to hit the mark, not buck-shot blast in the general direction and hope everything works out. We need people with that kind of patience and attention to detail. We need people that will take this all very seriously as well, and I think we're still fighting THAT uphill battle. People who can tackle issues with the kind of care we want might not be taking games as anything but entertainment for kids still, despite the fact the industry has exploded into something so huge at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The fact that it RUNS and doesn't just crash every ten minutes is commendable considering the other versions of the game, but I also agree here. It has hilarious issues, and then the areas they couldn't finish like the A.I., the resource economy, the RPG elements... I mean this game is bare bones when you look past how pretty it looks, and that's if the textures are loading in and you're not looking out in the distance too much.
Even these initial patches have seemed a bit rushed. To fix the bug where Jackie's gun goes into his head during his death sequence, they just have him pull out and hand you... nothing, there's not chip graphic, there's just nothing now. The bandaid approach is everywhere in this game. Even the memory leak discovered in December was a matter of them rushing the code and not parsing out/unloading previous data that was irrelevant, and their best solution was just to remove the memory cap, so the bloated saves are still an issue!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No kidding you're going to pass a visa over to people that actually contribute to your society, why wouldn't you? Let's face it, the majority of the deportations that happen they aren't going to be highly skilled professionals like engineers, doctors and scientists, those guys are gonna get a visa subtly delivered in their mail one day when this starts. They're also going to be such a minuscule population among the undocumented people here that you'll barely notice, and YES... it is a double-standard and one that people will accept.
Now, if this is just a ploy for CHEAP labor, yeah fck that. Everyone's gonna start rightfully paying minimum wage around here, that's just how it works. If you can't float that bill, then make something worth selling or find a new industry. We're already legally outsourcing to other countries constantly just to save money, we don't need to exploit people sneaking in over here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I love how offended he looks the second he's asked to explain any of the points he's trying to make. They say things like "shredding the constitution" and "creating a dictatorship", but when asked to provide examples they get offended that they even have to and then proceed to provide none. That because there aren't any. Trump has been an undeniable advocate for first and second amendment rights (which are part of the constitution) with many of the orders he's given and he's hired people that will ensure those orders are followed. I don't remember anywhere in the constitution where it said that the President's ability to deliver promises made to the people that voted him into office needed too be neutered by bureaucracy and the judicial system.
Yes, we don't want a king, someone with absolute power, but we also don't want any body of governance to have that kind of power either and we want to make sure the person that has our best interests in mind gets to enact their ideas because those are the ones we support, they are OURS, the people's. To actively attempt to thwart that means going against the will of the people, who are the ones meant to have the most power in this system. People seem to forget that the only reason our government has had so much power and authority is because we kept allowing it. We gave an inch, they took a mile, but it wasn't meant to be this way. WE were the authority, WE were the deciding factor and the answered to US, worked for US. We're going back to basics now.
1
-
1
-
I think a lot of the people that rank DkS2 higher in the tiers probably started with that game. There was enough mechanical issues, glitches, bugs and just design problems that made it my least favorite. It's the one Dark Souls game I had to FIND the fun in. I'm glad that a couple of the good things that were in Dark Souls 2 did get fully realized and refined in later titles.
I wouldn't personally call Demon's Souls the easiest, I still get PTSD from thinking of the second stage of the Valley of Defilement, the Maneaters are still a stressful boss fight and after fighting King Allant once legitimately, I've poisoned him ever since just to not have to deal with him. There's a lot of cool tricks to make it lot easier though, much like... pretty much every other Souls game since.
If Dark Souls 1 isn't #1 on my list, it's a very close #2.
I can't rank Sekiro. I played two hours of it and never went back. I feel like it's a really well-made game with a lot of great things in it... that is entirely NOT for me. I think I was wanting Tenchu combined with Dark Souls and Sekiro just isn't that. It's a highly skill oriented game, with an incredibly tight combat system and great world traversal, but that just isn't what I was looking for with it. So good game, just not a game I like.
I like Dark Souls 3, I'd like it even more if Sister Freide wasn't in it. She's the Lady Maria fight done worse, she relies essentially on sucker-punching you with a surprise third phase and that's coming off the back of a dual-boss second phase. She feels less like a fight that's skill oriented and more like a war of attrition and that's why Lady Maria was far superior boss. Soul of Cinder was a great- themed -boss to end the series.
I love Bloodborne a hell of a lot more than I thought I would. I thought the change in combat style being faster and more aggressive and your character being considerably less tanky would have all been a major turn-off for me, but I ended up loving it. Bloodborne has some of the best and worst bosses in the entire series and I absolutely hated the Chalice Dungeons. Aesthetically, it's probably still the best looking game in the franchise as well and the lore... it has the best lore in the entire line-up of, hands down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They wouldn't have to beat anything out of her. Every role in a tribe is an essential role, it's necessary for the tribe to survive. That's why those roles aren't "chosen", they're the given roles based on what everyone is best suited for. That's why the men, who were typically the most athletic and- when needed -aggressive, got to fall into the caste of warriors and hunters. It was what they were best suited for. The women were better for gathering, crafting, child raising and things that didn't often have them immediately rushing into danger. If you wipe out the next generation of tribesmen and the people that bear them, then the tribe is dead and only time is needed to finish what remains. If a person isn't willing or incapable of fulfilling the role they have in the tribe, then they're just not trusted with anything. They aren't given things to do, because they need people that will do the things they have to for the best chances of the tribe's survival. No-one would value them, because they contribute nothing needed. That was usually far worse than anything else. Often people were more than willing to do whatever they had to if it meant they weren't regarded as useless.
That's a mindset that really doesn't exist today. People have a very strong sense of SELF-importance, regardless of what they offer society at large, so being devalued because you contribute little or nothing at all doesn't have the same impact it used to- and should. It's why this sort of stuff keeps cropping up, so people that don't do a whole lot can feel empowered and meaningful, when they should be working to do their best and offer whatever they can instead of trying to declare to everyone that they matter because they simply exist, and consume.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The mental gymnastics that guy went through to try and catch Asmon and make him out to be something he wasn't could have earned him a gold medal in the Olympics, this is TERMINAL stupid. It's all emotive, all emotion, all feelings, ZERO logic, ZERO thought. They can only win these arguments by completely redefining what you're talking about. Then they have to attack your sources, when they don't have any better, more reliable sources to back up their claims, which means it's pointless. This is how nothing gets done, because this is how people's minds have been softened for long that they can't actually approach anything with any measure of reason or common sense. Thank God the Department of Education is on the way out, it's done so much harm. No-one learns to THINK anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samhein321 The prologue can take like 3-4 hours, I dunno where they're getting this 6 hour BS. Let's go over what you do. After the life path intro, which for a street kid takes about ten minutes, you rescue a corpo lady from scavengers, you then do a car ride including a terrible chase sequence with the remaining scavengers. You then sleep, wake up the next day, get your cybernetic upgrades from Vik, then meet with Dexter. From there you choose if you want to see your employer first or go to Maelstrom. If you shoot your way through Maelstrom the entire encounter can take you about fifteen minutes including a boss fight at the end IF you didn't kill Royce during your negotiation. After that you talk with Dex again (you can skip dialogue btw, that can save several minutes of this), and then proceed to the heist that could take you about twenty minutes depending on if you shoot your way through or stealth. Now tell me that takes six hours...I could do all of that in about three hours if I wasn't skipping dialogue and just shooting my way through, so I'm not sure what takes six hours to finish all that. Some people beat this game in 40hrs, including the side content. 6hrs of that would be just under a quarter of the game done. This game is hilariously short.
1
-
@liamnissanS2K Yeah, the core gameplay loop is part of the problem. The worst part is how they have systems in place that could prevent this from feeling so looter-shooter and having level-locked weapons all over the place. Just he other day, I came across a rare Ajax assault rifle that required me to be level 30 to use it (was level 24 at the time), and had 297DPS. My iconic smart assault rifle had a DPS of 400, and I had been using it for several levels at that point. The worst part is, it doesn't matter where I even invest the levels. I could put all my attribute and perk points into Intelligence (which don't benefit assault rifles at all), and as long as I got to level 30, the gun just unlocks for me to use. The Carnage shotgun at least requires 6 in Body, and Body has all the shotgun perks in it, so it makes sense to invest the levels there. I don't understand why they added arbitrary level requirements, it actually plays counter to the "open" world aspect of the game, since exploration won't always reward you if you find a weapon that has a level requirement above your own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigsmoke9454 This has no basis in any kind of provable data, that it somehow takes less than 70hrs to know if you enjoy something, or to fully experience it. That's purely subjective and based on the individual experience of the person having it. You cannot state such a thing as irrefutable fact. And again, you'd be the same person to argue someone didn't spend ENOUGH time to properly determine if they didn't like something if they spend only 2hrs playing it, because "the prologue takes at least 6 hrs, how could you say you don't like something without even giving it a chance", that sound familiar? Heard that anywhere? Stop trying to set an arbitrary amount of time to some standard of refund eligibility, it does - not - work - that - way.
People like what they like, and the quality of their time spent (no matter how much time that is) is entirely based on THEM, and nothing else. At the end of the day, the consumer is always entitled to a refund. They spend the money on the product, and they cannot be refunded any time wasted with it. The LEAST that could be done is giving them their money back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DaniTheHero 1) The gentleman who said he played 70hrs and wanted a refund, got his refund. He confirmed it. Yeah, so... what was your argument there again?
2) And yeah, no bud. You CANNOT possibly prove that point. There is no RULE in place that says you cannot hate a game that you played 100% of, that's...nonsense. I watch a 100% of a bad movie too. Because who knows, maybe that ending really makes the whole experience, but I wouldn't know without trying. Not everyone feels that way, but that's why ones ENJOYMENT of something is purely subjective, which was my point.
You can't make a rule for it, it's impossible. People rate the quality of their differently than everyone else. So just because YOU would ditch a game after 4hrs, doesn't mean I would, doesn't mean anyone else would. This isn't a good argument, it has no evidence to back it up.
But please keep repeating yourself, instead of counting my point.
1
-
1
-
@Timeremortem So let's address both points here.
1) So if they make a crap product that doesn't meet to even my moderate exceptions...I'm expected just to eat that expense, without complaint? No. They marketed it as one thing and gave me another, they also released it as a competed product, which it wasn't. My only complication can monetary, they can't give me back the time I lost. My wasted time is worth more than the money they'll be giving me back, so they still come out ahead, in that regard. And if they made bad product and sold it to me under false pretenses...that's not on ME, I'm the victim in that scenario, I'm the only one in a position to lose anything. My interests have to be protected and my only recourse is to get my money back and return the product. It isn't my fault that it was given to me that way.
2) You cannot prove this point as a fact. I own Final Fantasy VI, I've owned it for more years than some people have even alive on earth. I have played it over and over again, I have seen every bit of content it has to offer. Yet, I keep the game, and replay it very frequently. That I exist and do that, is direct counter to your point. If people like something, they're more likely to keep it than refund it, because they want to keep having that good experience over and over again. A bad refund policy isn't the only thing that keeps people from returning stuff, that's...that's absurd, you can't possibly prove that. I need to see the irrefutable evidence for you to attempt to make this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lesath7883 But that's the thing, "over the years". Microsoft has raw spending power, I can make a large acquisition to make itself competitive all at once like this, but still only come up third.
Sony has founded in 1946, Microsoft was started in 1975, there's a nearly 30 year span between the two in which Sony was doing nothing but growing itself at a steady pace. Microsoft is largely in software, and has typically had a brand in being a very popular alternative to essentially the only rival its had in that industry, Apple. When Microsoft branched out into gaming, it was much like Sony had the generation before, it was just branching out and seeing what would succeed in a industry that had growth potential at the time.
It's not about throwing money around, consider how much product Microsoft is attached to compared to how much Sony is and how much longer Sony has had to acquire all of that under its banner. THAT is why Sony is larger and doesn't spend the same kind of money to get there. Microsoft had to make a major play to get into the top three, now it's there and as UE has pointed out, we're probably watching the first wave of acquisition for these companies to essentially be in competition with only themselves.
If that thought bothers you, do consider that for an even longer time than that, Sony has been one of... six or seven major corporations that control all media anyone can consume in the entire world. That's right, Sony is one of the companies that controls a large portion all media anyone will ever see or hear on Earth. It's always been a major player in that regard. Tencent, that came around in 1998, is the one that worries me the most, honestly. Being second place and the youngest of the two speaks volumes to it's aggressive amount of growth and probably why more than a few government regulator institutions have put limitations on it over the years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anteshell Strawman you, that's literally all you said. You claimed I listened to mainstream, which I don't and basically chucked it up to you apparently hearing different from your sources, which I don't know and can't confirm, anymore than you can for mine. When it becomes an argument of your sources vs my sources, then there's nothing left to discuss.
Fact is, Twitter doesn't make money for anyone, it's been on a downward slope for a few years now and that's been tracked for a while. When Elon made his offer, the reason it was so astounding was just how much more he was willing to pay, despite how much the site was actually worth monetarily. But we all knew it wasn't about Twitter's value in money, it was how influential it was as a social media platform and how much it controlled the narrative, which was a HUGE thing always suspected, but also recently uncovered after several people saw strange trends in subscriber counts and account unbanning as the deal was going through, as if a switch had just been flipped suddenly (and that wasn't too far from the truth). That's why people were so adamant in not letting the deal go through. Because Elon was making a huge offer that they'd be stupid not to take, but that would mean losing their control over the narrative. At the end of the day though, he backed them into the corner, because money is money and Twitter NEEDS the bail out. They have a lot to answer to their share holders and now even more to answer to their advertisers after the bot claim fiasco.
No, Twitter is not financially sound, it hasn't been and it's not going to get any better if Elon leaves the deal. He'll make a new platform and trounce it after all of this because it can't withstand the losses at this point. But you know what, we'll just wait and see how it all plays out.
1
-
@TourFaint There's some good people, but Twitter itself is a shady business run by people that ran it into the ground. It's not a manner of the people you don't want to follow or the drama you want to avoid, it's about steering the narrative and influencing others. Manipulating the general populace by secretly silencing people that don't follow the script Twitter is going off of. None of that was for protecting or as a convenience for anyone, it was so only one side could be counted and heard. Twitter, by its scope and nature, should be regarded as a public square. Anyone can say what they want there and YOU are free to ignore and listen to anyone you like. NEVER, let a company or institution start making that choice FOR you. Blocking and blacklists already existed on the platform, we didn't need Twitter shadow banning people and fluffing up some sides of the argument with bots.
And now that it's all out, Twitter has some hard questions to answer. Both from the public, but also to the organizations and ad partner they lied to, and the shareholders they've screwed over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So... what about all of the manufacturers already making the move to the USA? Honda and Stellantis, for example, are opening factories in Indiana and Detroit. Apple is also coming to the USA, along with the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which is the largest producer of semi-conductors on Earth. Eli Lilly and Company for pharmaceuticals is coming to the US, and Samsung and LG are leaving Mexico to come to the US. Clearly, there is a notable shift towards making these products in America.
The place where China has been getting most of its advantage has been from other countries using their low cost production offerings, which allowed China to get their hands on design concepts and product information from those factories so they could piggyback off others to rapidly create products that could compete at a discounted price. This is a country that blatantly doesn't respect patents, trademarks or copyright that aren't there's. The more factories you take from them, the less they can rip off other people's work, see Deepseek as a great example.
As far as Europe moving closer to China, well that's not going to make China any stronger. They have nothing to really offer, they're already buying up those same products from China, have virtually no military and all of their economies are also in the toilet. The UK couldn't afford to let their pensioners heat their homes during the winter, yet somehow conjured 2.6 billion dollars for a war AND all of the support they'd previously given was a loan that needed to be paid back. So there's little concern here, is my main point.
Also, remember that this "trade war" while definitely not being non-existent, is less a way to defeat China and more a means of trying to get them to sit at the table and talk with the US and Russia. There's a big move here to get all three of the major super powers to agree not to attack each other, reduce their defense spending by about 8% and help revitalize all three of their failing economies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As I said in on videos covering this, we put up with being criticized and looked down on and getting the worst end of every deal while we were being polite for the sake of diplomacy, building a good reputation and making good relationships. This gotten us nothing, we're not respected, we're not appreciated and we never get a break. Well, now we have a president that's making it abundantly clear that it only happened that way because we allowed it to, we took it on the chin and tried to be the bigger person, but things only got worse, so now we're not doing that anymore. We can win fights without every even threatening actual conflict, all we have to do is make this so headache inducing, so frustrating, so horrendously cumbersome for the other guy that they'll be forced to make a compromise and at least meet us halfway for a change. A lot more people need the US than the US needs anyone else and we're not here just to pick up what everyone is throwing away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At some point, Hasbro will quit indulging this as it reduces the amount of stuff they can sell players at inflated prices. I mean, are they really gonna remove the dice sets because people think that a $3 set of dice is somehow inaccessible? FFS the core books sell at nearly $30 apiece and there's always at least THREE of them required to play. And you can find the dice anywhere they sell the books!
The other races don't represent any people in real life because HUMANS are a race in the game and represent all people you can find in real life. They come in all varieties in all skin colors from all sorts of different places with their own histories and culture. Humans are famous for the amount of variety you can have with them in these games because of how diverse people are in real life. In fact, it's what largely sets Humans apart from every other race in the game! They are not rigid archetypes, they are varied. Just in Faerun (the Forgotten Realms) alone: The Moonshaes are Vikings and Celts, Waterdeep, the Sword Coast and Heartlands mostly Western European, Amn is Spanish, Mexican and Central America, Calim a version of Arabia, Anauroch and Mulhorand are Egyptian... That's a small sample of the representation these people are claiming is absent or somehow being applied to other races outside of Humans in these games. They're all there, they're accounted for, you can be whomever you want! But you can also be beings that do not and cannot exist in real life. That's where Elves, Orcs and Dwarves come in... and they also have their own variants!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just figured they were trying to half-ass follow the trend of hero shooters and goofy Battle Royale customization, rather than being a social justice thing. You know really, half of this crap could be avoided if these companies just use some damn PR every now and then. They keep coming out like they wanna fight for something and that immediately whips these things up into a frenzy and one they can't win. If you came out polite, talked reasonably about your decisions, asked people nicely to give it a chance and assured them that it wouldn't be something that's forced down their throat, then quite a few people would be a little more willing to give these things a shot. However, when you come out and people are immediately being called misogynists, racists, privileged, uneducated or made out to just be a bunch of whining crybabies...well jeez, you just made yourself look even worse, so who's gonna have your back now? You just talked anyone that could have been convinced to try your product to not support you because you seem like a jerk for applying negative labels to everyone that disagreed with your idea. I think that's been a HUGE problem for a lot of this stuff lately and I just don't get it. How do you forget about your target audience and how do you NOT behave professionally when people start throwing mean comments at you? It's really baffling to me.
1
-
+SapiaNt0mata well, I don't know any names, besides Rian Johnson for obvious reasons, but he and Lucas Film are a prime example of what I'm talking about. If they could just run some actual damage control, at least PRETEND to be sorry and try to "gently" convince people to just experiment with their ideas instead of coming out like they're gonna take on the world, they'd probably have a lot less backlash as a result, even if people still didn't like what they did. At least they would just assume these people were trying something that failed, rather than going out of their way to just destroy all the things we love. How the hell do they ever expect that kind of approach to work? Still, I'm utterly confused these people got anywhere in these industries. When you see a combative person like this and they don't have the most brilliant idea you've ever heard that seems like it could only be successful (even then it would be iffy if it were me calling the shots), why on earth would you give them the responsibility of something so big it could tank your business? These people didn't just ruin franchises, they also tarnished whatever public image the company has, which is potentially years of lost profit while you try to build that trust and goodwill back up. It wasn't that these people just had a bad idea, they had to go and run their mouths when people dared to tell them that they had a bad idea. How was this allowed to happen when money is involved?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While knowing someone strategy can give you an advantage, when they have all the leverage to flex, it doesn't matter what you know besides the fact that they can and will use it. Knowing how Trump operates hasn't stopped the fact that he can do extensive harm to other trade economies if they don't deal with him. This is how he got exactly what he wanted from this stunt, he made the market tank, caused a panic, got a cue full of people ready to negotiate and is still getting a small, but universal tariff out of everyone while getting better deals for US products and everyone that was paying attention saw this and predicted it. For some reason, people see the pause while negotiations get worked out as some kind of admittance of failure or try to make it out like it's entirely random and without any kind of plan behind it. No, everything he's done has been very well calculated and planned and it's very obvious. It lines up perfectly with what he said he was trying to accomplish.
The main target is getting hit on three fronts. First is that their products aren't moving as well, factory owners are already talking about how demand is at an all-time low. Foreign businesses are pulling out, moving to build their production pipelines to the US to avoid massive taxation on their goods, meaning that there is no longer any benefit for the slave-labor offerings. Finally, it's removing any outside assistance, by having the countries that were going to be used to bypass the tariffs and having them rush over to the US to save their own economies and I have no doubt that the new trade deals will come with a couple of restrictions that won't make it easy for China to just shift production someplace else. So China is now isolated and hemorrhaging money. The only thing that can save it is interference from within the US government as Trump's opposition moves to hinder his efforts so that this isn't successful. If that can be avoided, then he'll undoubtedly score a huge win.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think any of the impacts on the sports games is going to impact the end user when everything is said and done. Yes, they might start putting in more product placements, and god forbid more advertising, but if they really do that to the point of the game being unplayable, what will happen? People won't play the game, and people won't BUY the game. Eventually, someone will make another sports game that doesn't include those intrusive and unnecessary practices in it, and people will liken it back to the sports games some twenty years ago that didn't need to survive on such things. It'll be a big wake-up call for people that remember that used to play games like NFL Blitz and NBA Jam without having to have to pay for players, teams, stats, boosts, OR have ads flashing in front of them during load screens. When someone makes that sports game, and people buy it, up, we'll wonder why it was so hard making them without all that crap like EA and Take-Two try to tell us it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"My life's ok, I'm a white woman" and now maybe you understand why this isn't a problem for normal people. Normal people don't talk like this, they don't act like this, they don't deal with their problems the way you are. You are not a well-adjusted, adult, normal, everyday person. And the normal people, who think like normal people and behave like normal people voted for some sanity. This generation of people raised with inability to cope, have to get a wake-up call. Return to reality.
Then you get people just screaming at the screen, yeah... case and point. Bring back the sanity for a bit, people have been living in their own heads for way too long.
Holy crap, there was hardly a thing Cenk Uygur said I didn't agree with, that's amazing XD
1
-
1
-
1
-
So to lay things out.. Russian will not leave with nothing. It's unrealistic to even think that, something will be given up to Russia before this is over. So with that in mind, what is the US offering? It wants access to Ukraine's rare earth minerals to not only compensate for the support it's already given but to have an ongoing deal which allows it to compete better with China who has otherwise cornered that market. What does Ukraine gain with this? It's officially a business partner with the US, and it's guaranteed security because of the investment that the US has, attacks on the Ukraine are attacks on those investments and the US is a really good deterrent for anyone to even try attacking the Ukraine again. So then what does Russia get? Obviously it's either going to leave with land, access to some of the rare earths in the US deal or even both. Russia won't leave empty handed, that's just a fact, so someone has to give something. The only other option is ongoing war, which both countries claim to want ended. So this is the deal, Russia will likely leave with territory and/or minerals, the US will get it's access and Ukraine will get to dust itself off and start rebuilding under the protection of its key investor, the USA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1