Remove ads

What are controversial gaming opinions you have?

Morphic Tide said:
You don't see fascists marching in the street, but you do see Antifa smashing windows, burning buildings and generally being literal domestic terrorists, as their point with their riots is specifically to suppress fascists through fear.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...

Uhm.

My dude, you are either utterly incapable of following, like, the news, or deliberately lying. Based on the other... lovely... things you said, my guess is the latter.

But here, I'll help.

Unite the Right rally - Wikipedia

Look! It's literally fascists marching in the street, killing people! Why, it's almost as though your post was deliberately dishonest bullshit written in such a way to make it look like fascist scum are somehow not objectively worse than their opponents.
 
Stop: Stop
  • Staff Post
    • stop
    Morphic Tide said:
    Systemic racism and sexism in the West, where the absurdly vast majority of the movements and protests and campaigns over it, is gone. Discrimination is there, but what's left is something that most of the countries involved are legally unable to do anything about because they follow these things called "human rights", so the required actions, which are nothing less that forced indoctrination of everyone in public schooling and banning private schools (this one is apparently guarded under the US constitution thanks to Supreme Court rulings), can't be done. Because they have international laws in the way of doing that.

    The progressives/"social justice" crowd are being utterly unproductive because they're focusing all their energies on the area with the least problems through minimally productive means. Their actual targets should be Africa and the Middle East (also Japan). But they instead focus on the areas least in need of such work.


    It's already illegal, therefor legal processes can't do anything more about it and every progressive campaigning for legal backing has no valid point. They need to calmly shut up, step aside, and lie waiting for actual racist assholes to excersice their right to free speech to expose said assholes. By deplatforming them, they fester and organize out of sight, resulting in some rather harsh shitshows (did you know a vital part to the Nazi's rise to power was that the communists got violent first?)


    KKK membership statistics please. Or any other actual far right group and not just "vocally opposes progressives" people. Because from my point of view, in accordance with actual facts I have found, the far right is being vastly more peaceful and accepting than the progressive left. You don't see fascists marching in the street, but you do see Antifa smashing windows, burning buildings and generally being literal domestic terrorists, as their point with their riots is specifically to suppress fascists through fear. Or physically beating the shit out of them. And far-left/progressive (the two are not synonymous, but many liberals have a visceral hate for progressives) and very different beast from the progressive counterpart) rallies getting violent are far more common than any far right meetings of any sort.

    It's the left marching in the street and breaking property while vehemently despising their nations and calling for the destruction of modern civilizations. The far right is, in fact, characterized by extreme nationalism. They love their country and think minorities are holding it back. And before you state that I'm just using fringe group examples, the far right IS the fringe groups. Literally by definition. So I'm comparing fringe to fringe. The far left is more numerous, more destructive, and calling for genuinely worse things. Also has a history of failing harder at being a functional state, because it tends to obsess over ideologically motivated means rather than ideologically motivated ends.

    The far right has Hitler apologists, but no actual systemic power because, you know, the public still finds outright Nazis unpalatable. The left, not even particularly far left, has apologists for Stalin, Mao and all the other communist dictators, who've ended and ruined vastly more lives, and they own most of the media and are in charge of most of academia.


    I hope this is just trolling, because I pointed out that it doesn't make demographic sense, or logical sense. A "black Jesus" would not have African American skin color, which is in the sensible limits given the area and surrounding demographics (albeit on the dark side). He'd be the skin color responsible for the birth of Blackface, where the people literally did have coal black skin in a decent number of cases.


    9th amendment protects unennumerated rights, defined as reasonable inferences of existing constitutional rights, though the ban on slaves was universal. Things the Supreme Court have gotten on the books through this include the right to travel and the right to send children to private schools. Though I thought there was actually more proper prevention due to the shitshow of Reconstruction being where a decent number of amendments went through.


    Better reacting to stuff that actually exists and looks to be a legitimate problem and bothering to pay attention to relative scale than flinging shit at people over barely noticeable offenses and getting violent over the continued existence of fringe groups. Because, you know, the far left are going after stuff that does not actually exist in a decent number of cases, and wildly overblow the scale of what does exist. Like saying systemic racism, racism as an actual official part of the system, still exists in the west as a Thing That Does Not Exist, because it doesn't owing to the work of the last two or three generations. Weirdly enough, it was actually the right doing much of it up until a little after the Civil Rights Movement.

    No, seriously, what's the problem with being a reactionary? Is there some actual specific political meaning to it that makes it automatically bad? Nazis were a "reactionary" group to large chunks of Germany starving and bands of violent communists in the street, which is why they got into power to do such horrible things. And the Nazis actually got things done, unlike most counterparts on the Left who tend to collapse on their own. The economy was unfucked pretty much in record time and actually wound up solving a decent chunk of economic problems for other countries by paying off a decent chunk of the remaining WW1 debt. Yes, it got horrible for a lot of people very quickly once the communists were gone and the economy was fixed, which is why the Nazis were evil. Doesn't negate the fact that they were reacting to legitimate problems at the start.

    *actually looks up meaning* Oh, so it's one of those weird cases where politics have taken a term and used it for only vaguely related things, seeing as how the Google definition is about opposing societal reform, but the root means the definition should be about actually reacting to things which the definition is only partially related to. I suppose that it was about perpetual reaction without ever thinking about consequences of your reaction to an incident or problem, which describes the more vocal parts of the left now weirdly well, but then as the political dynamics shifted, it wound up having to be redefined so that it could continue covering the same chunks of the political spectrum. The lack of usage outside political contexts then resulted in the death of the older meaning that I was thinking of initially, because that's what the grammar rules and precedent set by similar words suggests. The fact that the Spanish translation uses the root of "retrograde" somewhat supports this, though I don't know Spanish well enough to eyeball the etymology.

    I'm not opposed to social liberation or progress, my problem with progressives is that they're going after the most socially liberated and progressed societies on earth instead of the backwards and oppressive ones. I'd honestly call myself a progressive if they actually did do something about non-Western oppression, but they don't. At least not on any significant scale.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...


    Persisting in continuing a completely off-topic discussion, even under a spoiler tag, is not the appropriate response to a prior warning. You have received 25 points for violating Rules 4 and 5 and a 72-hour threadban.

    @Fernandel, @ZerbanDaGreat and @veteranMortal: Please do not engage when faced with this type of situation in the future.
     
    Last edited:
  • Staff Post
    • Well, following the topic.

    I wish there were more Spaceships Battle Simulators, but the thing is, I enjoy the ones that are basically "Space is air" with dogfighting and the like, but nowadays people focus on more realistic space physics. *shrug*
     
    I liked The Surge more than the Soulsborne games and Metro is better than STALKER, Assassin's Creed Syndicate was great and the Afterblank series deserves a remaster more than X-COM a reboot.


    Also what the fuck is up with RPG's giving you more follower's than you can bring with you at any time. If you can't balance your game around the player and all the NPC followers you put in, don't give the player so many followers. Mass combat too, where the fuck did that go?
     
    Cmd. Frost said:
    I liked The Surge more than the Soulsborne games and Metro is better than STALKER, Assassin's Creed Syndicate was great and the Afterblank series deserves a remaster more than X-COM a reboot.


    Also what the fuck is up with RPG's giving you more follower's than you can bring with you at any time. If you can't balance your game around the player and all the NPC followers you put in, don't give the player so many followers. Mass combat too, where the fuck did that go?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    So that you have options. You have a customizable protag, so you will need different followers depending. You may also want different themes or personalities.
     
    Mass Effect 3s ending wasn't as bad as people claimed.

    I mean if SPACE SKYNET popped up I'd go to some drastic measures too, but not you know committed genocide on spacefaring races..
     
    Arawn_Emrys said:
    So that you have options. You have a customizable protag, so you will need different followers depending. You may also want different themes or personalities.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...


    Yeah I understand that, my point is is that if you have a party limit of 4 characters, then you should only get 3 followers, I never said that say a game can't have a total of twelve followers and then choices during character creation decide which three you get. Personally I think that would add a lot of replay value to a game.

    DestinyPlayer said:
    This. So much this. Hell, I like XCOM 2 and I still think that the Afterblank series deserves everything and then some.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    FINALLY, SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT THOSE GAMES ARE!!!
     
    Cmd. Frost said:
    Yeah I understand that, my point is is that if you have a party limit of 4 characters, then you should only get 3 followers, I never said that say a game can't have a total of twelve followers and then choices during character creation decide which three you get. Personally I think that would add a lot of replay value to a game.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    No that really sucks. The "replay value" is there would be forcing the player to grind through hours of game using different builds they might not have fun with in order to see all the companion stuff.

    And honestly, I would rather games just give you no more than six companions in the first place. So it doesn't have the constant problem RPGs have where some characters suffer because there isn't enough writing, time, and resources to go around between ten different party members.
     
    You know Metal Gear Survive is actually pretty good, granted I've only have about four hours in it as I post this but "better" zombie games have turned me away in less time.
     
    Last edited:
    I tend to find that horror games, especially those that take after Amnesia: The Dark Descent, to be far more interesting when I watch someone else play them than when I play them myself.
     
    Reveen said:
    No that really sucks. The "replay value" is there would be forcing the player to grind through hours of game using different builds they might not have fun with in order to see all the companion stuff.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    That's not what I meant. I was thinking more that you could chose your build and then a couple of choices for your backstory would decide your party.
     
    Cmd. Frost said:
    That's not what I meant. I was thinking more that you could chose your build and then a couple of choices for your backstory would decide your party.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    But again, what if I want to see the stories of all the party members in one play through, or have character interactions between party members that are otherwise mutually exclusive.

    That doesn't mean that excluding party members from a play through is inherently a bad idea, but it had better be directly tied to choices I make in the story, rather than something decided for me without warning on the pre-flight check before I start the game.
     
    The only recent RPG I recall that has very few companions is Tyranny. It only had 4 companions.

    Why then, did Obsidian think that limiting yourself to 4 companions instead of 5, was a good idea?

    Also didn't help that there's only one dedicated tank (Barik), and if you don't want him for whatever reason, you're fucked. You either become a tank yourself or try to out DPS the living hell out of your enemies because no one's beefy enough to be the frontline.

    Seriously what the fuck.
     
    Hykal94 said:
    The only recent RPG I recall that has very few companions is Tyranny. It only had 4 companions.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    No, Tyranny had six.

    A game that does a limited party really well is Shadowrun: Dragonfall (or Hong Kong but haven't played it). Where in terms of story companions you get Glory, Dietrich, Blitz, and Eiger. That's it. And it's great because the good writing is so much more concentrated between them. But to balance out the gameplay problems you had other Shadowrunners who for a fee you could hire per mission to fill out your roster.

    I haven't played it even though it looks awesome, but Divinity: Original Sin 2 also has six, but once you choose what four companions to move forward with, that's it entirely for story reasons.
     
    Reveen said:
    No, Tyranny had six.

    A game that does a limited party really well is Shadowrun: Dragonfall (or Hong Kong but haven't played it). Where in terms of story companions you get Glory, Dietrich, Blitz, and Eiger. That's it. And it's great because the good writing is so much more concentrated between them. But to balance out the gameplay problems you had other Shadowrunners who for a fee you could hire per mission to fill out your roster.

    I haven't played it even though it looks awesome, but Divinity: Original Sin 2 also has six, but once you choose what four companions to move forward with, that's it entirely for story reasons.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Well crap. I suppose that's an even bigger problem because you bring your regular 3 or your B-team 3.

    Shadowrun has the same problem that all RPGs have: you don't know what companions will specialise in what.

    I've seen Let's Players of Dragonfall and Hong Kong making dedicated hackers/druids only to find out the games already gave you them. You are not incentivised to ever bring that one party member because even though you're interested in their story, well you're already filling the role in the first place. My Origins run was a rogue who stabbed a lot and I never use Zevran because what's the point, I'm already the party rogue.

    The Shadowrun merc roster is also pretty much useless Dragonfall onwards. Hong Kong was the biggest offender, giving you so little money you barely have money to buy the gear you want for yourself and your team, much less hiring other people.
     
    Hykal94 said:
    I've seen Let's Players of Dragonfall and Hong Kong making dedicated hackers/druids only to find out the games already gave you them. You are not incentivised to ever bring that one party member because even though you're interested in their story, well you're already filling the role in the first place.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I mean, the way the system in those games is set up if you want a Decker to just go through the game blowing people away with a shotgun you can do it because your bullets don't decide to not blow holes in things because of your class. This isn't a game that busts your balls for not optimizing or having the perfect party balance.

    Besides, if you have either Glory or Eiger in your party at all times that's a pretty solid base for killing everything.

    Hykal94 said:
    The Shadowrun merc roster is also pretty much useless Dragonfall onwards.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I don't know man, some of them have saved my ass.

    Mutton said:
    In Dragonfall at least you had your trusty robot pals (because you were a rigger, right?) to cover you.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Blitz (atleast in directors cut) gets a drone so he's basically a dual class decker/rigger.
     
    Last edited:
    Hykal94 said:
    Between choosing to invest in more gear or hiring runners, I'd choose the former.

    That's a big ass problem with Hong Kong. You need to be VERY stingy with your money so remember that when you get to Hong Kong.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Designing proper resource curves is hard, but making the player be stingy is generally a good outcome
     
    Cmd. Frost said:
    You know Metal Gear Survive is actually pretty good, granted I've only have about four hours in it as I post this but "better" zombie games have turned me away in less time.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    It is probably a good game, but due to Konami's stuff that has been happening, no offline singleplayer, and needing to pay for extra character slots if you want to have more than one character, the game isn't exactly being looked at favorably.
     
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top