The Last of Us is filming.
Go zombies!
Have you played Days Gone? I am convinced that it would do fantastically as a screen adaptation too.
The Last of Us is filming.
Go zombies!
Have you played Days Gone? I am convinced that it would do fantastically as a screen adaptation too.
I was tired of zombies in 2010. Can we finally, finally move past zombies?
Look, you have the Cycle of the Uncanny Valley.
First, you get zombies.
Then you get demons/fairies/anthro monsters.
Then you get clowns.
Then back to zombies.
We just got done wtih clowns again. Now you get more zombies.
This is the way.
@greenflashlight said in General Video Game Thread:
@solstice said in General Video Game Thread:
I'm not sure I would trust any remake of Trigger at this point.
I think it could be improved on, especially the DS port, but I don't know if that could be done in the current AAA environment. One of the game's biggest strengths is how tight and lean it is; it only takes about 25 hours to beat the game. The current "games must have two hours of content for every dollar of the price" attitude would likely ruin it unless you got in there and put in actors with voice lines and stuff to pad the runtime.
I mean, that isnt a universal rule.
The Resident Evil 3 remake was short as hell and did just fine.
@wildbaboons said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
When at a drive thru during a busy time don't get up to the speaker and ask the person taking the orders "what would you recommend that isn't coffee"
It's Dunkin' Donuts and the line is out to the street. Just pick something and movd along.
There's an app for that, dudes. Jesus. Browse the menu before hitting the store.
@rinel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
It is storming and my power has gone out
My power went out during the hurricane and now it is out again
I say we tear down your city. Raze it to the ground and rebuild from the ground up with a newer, more sensible plan.
You guys can have your Chronos.
I want a Xenogears remake.
I was gonna donate too Wednesday when I got paid, but I'm glad that you got it together! I told you. We might talk mad shit to each other, but if one of us needs something, this community watches out for each other.
It's one of the reasons I stay. Ya'll're family.
Even if I don't really like some of you. Same as family.
Right, I'm not saying that they don't. I created one too.
What I'm saying is that the specific example has a flaw, I think, in that the example says that the king's children won't inherit a title from him, his sister's children will.
But if the king has a sister, why would he be king at all, since she would be the one entitled to inherit in a matrilineal society? Wouldn't he only be king if he didn't have any female siblings to inherit ahead of him? And in that case, what happens when the king dies? When a queen regnant died, her firstborn and/or male issue would inherit regardless of parentage, even though queen regnants were not the preferable situation through most of history.
So.
Anyway, hopefully that makes it more clear. If there is a King Regnant, then presumably there are no female siblings, so 'his sister's children inherit everything' makes no sense.
@ominous said in Alternative Lords & Ladies Settings:
Matrilineal, non-matrimonial society. Political power and titles are passed down solely through mothers to their children. Marriage doesn't exist. No one cares who your father is. A prince could become the king because his mom is the queen. His children won't inherit his political title all. His sister's children would. The prince, as a king, would not have a queen consort.
This is how I structured my nomad society character. Matrilineal, nobody cared who your dad was, sexuality was open and encouraged.
The particular setup there confuses me, though. How would the prince become King if there were female daughters of the queen who could then become queen? And if there are no female daughters, wouldn't it default to his daughter inheriting, not his sister's kids?
While it's certainly true that echo chambers exist, at some point you have to draw a line between 'poor mislead soul' and 'willfully obtuse fool'.
The scam networks can spout whatever they want. We're literally fighting disinformation on this subject at every front. People are surrounded by legitimate, accurate information. It's not like they're not hearing it. At some point, they've simply chosen to ignore the vast amount of legitimate information in favor of the one that supports their biases, which they were going to believe anyway.
At some point, we have to move away from "you poor thing" into "bless your heart" territory.
@testament said in Pandemic Era Issues:
I'm not even angry about it anymore. I simply don't care. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
These people wanting to spout "muh freedoms" don't seem to understand how vaccines have always been mandatory in some situations.
In school or college you had to be up to date on all your vaccines or you couldn't go to school.
Having be up to date on all your vaccines was a requirement to work in a medical setting or position
Officers in the military tending their resignation over the vaccine forget that on fucking Day 3 of BMT, you're filed down a line of nurses who jab you about four times in each arm and you didn't question it then
So fuck them. Every last one of them. They have nobody but themselves to blame for dying on this stupid hill of ignorance.
Hell of a hill to die on, but at least you're dead.
Preach.
@silverfox said in Pandemic Era Issues:
And FUNDING doing the follow-up studies to prove the first one was actually legit, rather than only funding 'novel' research.
Yes.
It has to be testable and repeatable.
This is why we need to teach peer review way, way before college. All of the Big Leap Forward science stories I remember being taught in school, many of which are complete bullshit anyway, just talk about someone making a discovery like some rogue mad scientist and the world just kind of adjusting to accommodate.
We need to start teaching it as methodology, not divine inspiration, pretty much as soon as we start teaching it.
@carma said in Autism and The MU* Community:
For anyone who's word-focused instead of number-focused, someone showed me junimojis, and they're a ton of fun.
How to play.You fit all the letters of a given number into its box. Any remaining blocks in the box become blank squares. It's kind of like an acrostic, but you're given the letters to all the answers instead of clues, and you have to divine the shape of the board, which is always symmetrical.
Welp.
See you all in three years.
@aria said in RL things I love:
@greenflashlight said in RL things I love:
@misadventure Thanks so much for that. I can't tell if you listed them in order of least to most funny or if these videos have a cumulative effect, but I was shrieking laughter by the third one.
Celebrities just being confused by thirst tweets is legit one of my favorite things.
But. But.
Being confronted with awkward fanfic on the Graham Norton show is even better.
This absolutely made my morning. Thank you for sharing
You're a person who's attracted to a person. That's a very people thing to do. All the other qualifiers are pretty much irrelevant.
I'm fairly sure that every person on this board has at least one story about being attracted to someone outside of their usual preferences.
Nothing to feel wrong about. That's as human as it gets.