Descriptor

Not all kills are 1 hit kills though. Just hits to critical areas, like the head. I mean, its not like they can run a physics simulation on a human body model every time you get shot to determine the damage. It's just to say that now you can no longer keep hitting someone point blank in the face with a shotgun and have them keep standing. I'm not sure how body shots play into things as much yet, though, since I haven't gotten into human combat yet.

(See rant in general gun info.) Fine fine, sure, whatever. I just mean that if someone shoots you in the head, it's a one hit kill, or so I'm told. Yeah, even early enemies can one shot you, btw. But I haven't had any real non-bug combat yet, so I will need to verify for myself.

Hmmm, that sweet survival mode, though. It looks to be pretty rough. Starting a new character at 5 Strength gave me only 150 carry weight. Also, ammo has weight. And you need food/water/sleep. Also, there is realistic damage. Also, you can only save when sleeping in a bed. And no fast travel. It's gunna be awful. And I'm going to love it.

Yeah, I know, I noticed that while writing and it's very, very weird. If there's still another 69 delegates and they have 100% reporting, why exactly are the other 69 delegates not allotted yet? I mean, I know, very sophisticated math, takes a while, but let me see if I can do it. *AHEM* 101*.727=73.427 101-73=28. Sanders 73, Clinton 28. Oh, wait, that math wasn't hard AT ALL. I didn't even need a fucking calculator. And yeah, looks like 103 total delegates for Sanders, to 39 for Clinton. Epic win for Birdie Sanders today. (Have you seen that, by the way? It's just silly little thing that happened at a Sanders rally in Oregon.) "I think... I think there may be some symbolism here." So I learned something weird today... So, has anyone looked up U.S. income tax history on Wikipedia before? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States Specifically, this chart: Although I've heard people suggest that there were a lot more tax deductions back then, too, but still. Crazy. Also, this line is pretty crazy: "In pursuit of equality (rather than revenue) President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000." And they say Colonel Sanders is un-electable. Remember, FDR was so popular, they had to create a new amendment due to him getting more than two terms.

Washington actually has 101 delegates to hand out, so the count still isn't finished. From the looks of it, the Sandman will be getting over 100 delegates after all is said and done.

As a radical moderate, you can count me among the Third-party folks. And screw that spoiler crap, considering neither party is any good anymore. Sure, the Republicans have gotten especially crazy pants as of late, but the Democrats aren't especially all that much better. They're just better at hiding it. Coincidentally, this article just came out explaining how screwed up things have gotten with the two-party system: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/ralph-nader-why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-as-a-democrat/

Your settlements don't have to be built at all... The settlers never die unless YOU shoot them. Not always true, I've found. Ironically, the only settlers I do see die are usually named settlers. Which is a shame, because they at least have a little personality compared to the nameless rabble of ordinary settlers you usually get. And yeah, I'm a bit surprised to hear that the settlements system are the biggest problem with the game for you (Meelis13, I mean), especially considering that they are largely optional. Honestly, it's probably my favorite part of the game, but then, the biggest appeal of the post-apocalyptic genre for me has been the concept of rebuilding, so this did really well to scratch my itch. Granted, I do agree that it could use a lot more added to it to flesh it out (which I kinda expect to happen through a DLC, actually). I'd like to see it transition more into a broader nation building before long. Perhaps as post game content with your chosen faction, but I digress...

Geez, you are complaining about other countries doing it to the US? Ah... what sweet ignorance - you Americans are enchantingly oblivious of the world... Because that's exactly what the US Government has been doing non-stop since the end of the World War II - meddling with other people's affairs. Interfering with their self-governance... And when other countries are simply trying to assert their position in trade or political negotiations - you think they are being xenophobic? This is charming, indeed Regards To be fair, we don't do it necessarily out of xenophobia. We do it out of greed and lust for power.

It's just rare when we agree on a political issue... Maybe Trump is just doing this to create a common enemy for both parties. Maybe it's a long con to help get rid of partisanship and gridlock and stuff. That's what he means by making America great again! Or he's just a pompous blowhard. That works, too.

Yeah, it kinda irritates me how just kinda hostile people get with their complaints. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the exact phrase "Everyone knows that Bethesda has s***y writers" (censorship mine, because I'm odd like that), often before bringing up how they wish Obsidian had made it. Like clockwork. Especially with people complaining about the story (which honestly, I don't get. The story here seems pretty dang cool, actually. Is there something I've missed?). Ironically, New Vegas writer Chris Avellone has even said he likes the direction the games have been going (as seen in this stream: ), which is kinda hilarious to me.I mean, don't get me wrong, there are flaws. But the level of vitrol is just stupidly over the top from folks, with people trying to declare it the worst game of the year or the death of the series. It's insane. But I guess, sadly all too common with fanbases these days.

Wow, you're the closest to not being left-leaning libertarian. As for my own:

Yeah, the Trump train is really beginning to get on my nerves, as well. The guy gives nothing but the easiest of answers that aren't even remotely workable without a ton of shady legislation being passed that won't bode well for anything. But then, honestly, absolutely none of the candidates in the race in either party seem at all promising. The Republicans are all having a ridiculous race to the bottom, and the democrats basically have the choice of either Clinton, or Clinton (if the news has any sway, at least). Or Sanders, if people can move past the collective hopelessness that they assume his campaign has (as in, a lot of people like him but don't support him because they think all the other people who like him will also fail to support him). For my own opinion of Sanders, he seems like a pretty legit guy, all things considered, but his policies do seem kinda... idealistic? And not especially serviceable or even necessarily positive (I still maintain that free public college for all will just further devalue college education in general, speeding up the "college-educated barista" cliche more than anything.) I mean, he's at least a darn sight better than Trump in terms of policy, since Trump is all just reactionary bluster, while Sanders at least has tried to put some thought into work-ability, but still. As for the Republicans, the only guy I can particularly stomach is Rand Paul, since he seems comparatively sane and also isn't anti-NSA spying, which is always good. Too bad he's in absolute last place... I mean, I guess Bush is alright (at least compared to Trump and Cruz), but again, he's kinda dead in the water. As a radical moderate myself, I very much agree with Pest's sentiment that a Third party is pretty badly needed today. I have long gotten the feeling that there has been a large Independent base that's been developing lately (just look at these numbers!: http://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/) that's just waiting to boil over once a good set of candidates comes about. And given how abysmal the two party nominations look to be turning out, that may not be too hard to pull off this election cycle.

I think it's kinda implied that there has been some huge climate shifts due the war (thus why most of America is largely desert, and why plant life is so dead on the East coast), so it's hard to know what Antartica is like. For all we know, if could be a fairly livable region, especially since it probably didn't get hit by any bombs. I wonder if all the science stations managed to make a nice life for themselves...

I'm not sure if vulgar was the right word to use. It's more just that it's somewhat of an inflammatory accusation which seems more antagonistic, rather than constructive to overall discussion. I think what she meant was that you could have voiced your concern about the quality of VNN's reporting without resorting to direct insult. It's not so much about the nature of your opinion, which may be entirely valid, but rather it's in how you expressed it. Something like "I'm not a fan of his work because of [examples of perceived misconduct]" rather than "He's just terrible" is a better way to strike up a conversation, is all. I know if may seem like an odd imposition, but since this is kinda a small community, folks here tend to want to keep things more directly civil since and real discussion topics here will generally involve the same people due to the low user-base. Think sorta like a small town with all it's odd rules due to how folks there interact with each other on a daily basis.

An annoying clickbaiting twat with a patreon account. ValveTime.net is superior in every way. Too bad they don't release video updates with the regularity they once used to. Ok, seriously what is with all the hate for Tyler? Non of his content in particular strikes me as being clickbaity and I've seen some downright horrendous clickbait. Yeah, I don't mind the guy. If you go in understanding it as a very casual analysis of Valve news, it's pretty reasonable. Most of the time, he goes out of his way to try to be clear about speculation or factual news. And the fact is, he doesn't sell himself, in my eyes, as a professional journalist (not that that means anything anymore). He's just a guy talking about Valve news, which is perfectly fine if you keep that in mind. I will concede that I find ValveTime.net to be the better source, but I would argue that VNN is still engaging enough to give it a go, provided that you approach it from the right perspective.

Well is there something wrong with that? Or he has to have only one motive alone? Considering, that GG as a hashtag started what about 4 months or so after the Zoe post, which sounded to me more of a "off my chest" kind of thing than story about breach of journalistic ethics. It's just what people latched onto more than a story about man being abused by his at the time girlfriend or ex ( I can't remember that part correctly). Probably ethics in games journalism isn't really a priority to a person, who's hurt by another person. I'd be willing to bet that his main motive is winning his current legal battle against her for the gag order he got back in 2014 (by his own words). It's quite a fascinating read of his legal battles, though then again, it's only his own words and I don't know, whether it can be verified as real or he's just milking GG for money. If you're interested in reading more on his side of the story, but don't want to go to kotakuinaction, I can send you a copy paste to your inbox on forums. It's more of a problem I have Gamergate than with Eron Gjoni. I don't care if Eron Gjoni was abused by Zoe Quinn or not. It's none of my business. IMO Gamergate should've been entirely about ethics with no exceptions. Stuff like the Zoe Post is what muddled the waters for Gamergate. It's pretty clear that Gamergate wasn't looking for journalistic corruption in the Zoe Post. In this scenario they used "We're for ethics in games journalism only" as a cover for their sympathies with Eron Gjoni. That would have been atleast fine if they said that from the start albeit small and pointless. No, instead they chose to blur together this shred of corruption within the Zoe Post along with their sympathies with Eron Gjoni to give their cause credibility. That to me is unacceptable. Gamergate should've been for ethics first and foremost without any compromises like this. Things can only go downhill from here and they in fact did. Go ahead and call me out for being the cruel and cold-hearted bastard that I am. for I do not care for one man's insignificant tragedy. At the end of the day Eron Gjoni's relationship with Zoe Quinn is nothing more than a statistic amongst millions of other similar cases. What makes Eron Gjoni's case any different and special? If ethics in games journalism is to succeed it needs opinions similar to my own. Clear cut and dry with no compromise. Technically speaking, the GG label and movement came about as a way to distance the whole thing from the Zoe Quinn scandal. Granted, it didn't work, but folks in the movement did recognize that it was a distraction. It's sad to say, but drama just get's folks's attention.

Everything's a slippery slope to you isn't it Just a friendly reminder that the U.S. began with protests I think he was referring to the government trying to control the media. Although I can't be for sure, since it is a bit vaguely worded.

Well, how does that necessarily make her misogynist? What aspects of third wave feminism do you consider vital to not being a misogynist, and why do you think she doesn't support them? Actually, let me change this. It's her accusation that third wave feminism is miasdrist or hateful towards men that makes me classify her as misogynist. You can be neutral or uncaring of third wave feminism, but openly siding against it is misogynistic. Again, how so? Why does disagreeing with third-wave feminism necessarily indicate that you hate women? What aspects of third-wave feminism do you consider so important that disagreement with the movement as whole is worthy of disdain? You're arguing that being against the methods or ideologies of third-wave feminism is an automatic admission of misogyny, but why is this necessarily the case? Yeah, basically. Honestly, I don't expect it to ever be resolved, but instead will just be a slow, drawn out burn. I mean, heck, the whole thing has been pretty quite for months now, with only petty jabs occasionally being exchanged between the two parties. The fact is, it's leading nowhere because it's next to impossible to carry on a legitimate conversation without becoming horrifically sidetracked by accusations of misogyny or whatever the hell. Again, just look at this thread. That said, the whole thing wasn't a total failure. At the very least, I'd say it opened up a lot of people's eyes (including my own) to how crappy journalism has gotten, both within and without videogaming. Just making folks a lot more wary of the news they read, as well as how bias can affect it, certainly helps at least somewhat.

Explain. What about them classifies them as misogynistic to you? No links to RationalWiki or whatever the hell. Just your own explanation of your grievances with their platform. Not supportive of third wave feminism. Well, how does that necessarily make her misogynist? What aspects of third wave feminism do you consider vital to not being a misogynist, and why do you think she doesn't support them?

This has been a suggestion for well over a year now. In fact, that was originally the point of the GG moniker. It was an effort to shift focus away from the whole Zoe Quinn roots of the thing to focus on them ethics. But it fell through because the anti-GG just kept piling on and vilifying the group. So most folks believe that starting a new group would just split everyone apart, only to have the same antagonistic groups shift the blame to the new group. It'd become "The new terrifying misogynist group from the ashes of GG" with a whole new slew of controversy or whatever. Honestly, looking back, this thread serves as the perfect microcosm of all of GG's problems. People want to discuss ethics, but keep getting sidetracked by stubborn accusations of misogyny and all that crap. It's hard to ignore a constant yelling voice of "You're a terrible person", especially when you've already been vilified everywhere. And as much as I hate to fall into that trap myself.... These "old school feminists" aren't feminist at all - they're no different from misogynistic GGers who claim to be "anti-feminist but pro-women". Explain. What about them classifies them as misogynistic to you? No links to RationalWiki or whatever the hell. Just your own explanation of your grievances with their platform.

I think the biggest problem is that the bigger settlements (Diamond City and Good-neighbor) didn't have any long-form quests to keep you coming back, like the Wasteland Survival Guide. Because honestly, thinking back to it, Rivet City (which didn't really have as big of a quest-line with it) didn't have much impact on me either, at the end of the day. Megaton was the most visited city for me by far. Personally, while the big towns fell a bit flat, the world as a whole felt a bit more alive to me. More dynamic, such as how different raider groups reference each other, as well as reference when you take them down. Plus, the settlements system helped a lot for me, although I do admit that the settlers could use a lot of work. Basically, something to make the different settlers more interesting, like a better range of personalities. Honestly, what I would love is if there was a chance that a new settler would be a wholly unique character, maybe even with a quest attached to them, or a unique ability or building. The rare tier 4 settlers you find kinda fit this role, but it could have been a bit broader. Something to make each settlement come more alive. I really do have to wonder if the DLC will amp the settlements up a bit into a fuller experience.

I have seen that before, but it strikes me as a collection of references and I haven't seen a very good composition boiling down GG's strongest points. For example, sensationalism from a single source doesn't mean a lot by itself, it needs to be used to show a pattern for a larger publication. Even then, a larger publication is just one outlet. That's why I thought the GameJournoPros list was such a big deal, it was showing an actual behind the scenes connection across MANY different outlets, which I think is bad news. Also since you brought it up, I think the Kane & Lynch incident indirectly throws anti-GG a bit of a bone. Meaning I think the Jeff Gerstmann firing was a MUCH bigger deal as far as illustrating corruption than anything with Zoe Quinn. But Quinn got way more of an internet uproar, which lends some credence to the observation that at least a PORTION of GG is focused on things because of the involvement of women. Still, the mistake I think anti-GG makes is just because some information comes from potentially unpleasant people, their demeanor doesn't automatically invalidate it. That's why I'd really like to see a more objective assessment of the stuff GG has turned up regarding journalism corruption, INDEPENDENT of the feminism issues. I literally have not seen this, almost everything seems to drift towards condeming one side or another. I'm not saying both sides are innocent, on the contrary, I'm just trying to look at this the same way a judge in a court would. To be fair, the Kane and Lynch controversy also didn't have the huge backlash of being simultaneously censored across the internet (which happened even on 4chan, fricken 4chan of all places!) and mass condemnation by news media all throwing video-gamers under the bus. I'd argue that it was the mass censorship that caused this to become the firestorm it was (something known as the Streisand Effect, in which attempts to censor something tend to cause it to spread faster, especially on the internet), as a ton of gamers got super paranoid about what was going on. I'd guarantee that if web communities and the media didn't react the way they did, the initial controversy would have blown over before the end of that month. As for why the whole thing sparked interest in the first place, it's mostly just because sex scandals tend to spread pretty quickly, especially when an element of corruption is at play. Just look at how ridiculous the Clinton controversy was back in the 90s. Meanwhile, I'd argue that the anti-feminism thing came up because it was basically thrust upon them, since that was the mass accusation made against gamers, and thus they began to see that movement as the enemy. By and large, I'd say most of the mainstream members of GG aren't against feminism's core principles, just the authoritarian rhetoric that has become common in the movement as of late. From my own observations, I recall that most GGers consider themselves "equality of opportunity egalitarians" more than anything, or at least that seemed to be the common consensus on the larger pro-GG communities I've seen. Just saying "anti-feminist" is a bit of a misnomer, since it implies just flat out "anti-women", which I wouldn't consider the case, personally. After all, some old-school feminists have even come out in support of GG (the most known of which is the somewhat controversial Christina Hoff Summers) because they dislike the tactics of a lot of modern feminist movements as well. That said, I would agree that this standpoint has bogged down the movement as a whole, but it's been difficult to steer the group in a different direction, since the anti-GG side never lets up with the accusations, which make pro-GG folks inevitably feel like they have to fight back in response. Funnily enough, the most recent season of South Park addresses this problem directly, and made a lot of good points while doing so.

To quote Les from 'Still Crazy', "Why do they always assume the singer is the voice of the band?" I don't really get the hatin' on Coldplay, just like the hatin' on Nickleback. Or more accurately, why people feel compelled to complain about them. Oh, no, I don't mean the singer's influence on the songs was the problem. If anything, his presence was why they had the good aspects, because when he left, they changed their sound to something I didn't like at all. I'm saying that his vocals ruined the songs for me.

I'm beginning to wonder if Valve has basically become the Willy Wonka of video game developers. You know, this really reclusive and secretive company that has kind of a legendary reputation and manages to be really successful with a lot of off-beat ideas. I have to wonder if one of these days they will give out 5 golden hats in TF2 crates to offer people a chance to come to their offices and see how HL3 is being made. I mean, it's legitimately not out of the realm of possibility for them. Also, regarding the music discussion at the end, I too have run into the exact scenario of a band that sounds great at first, right up until the singer opens their stupid mouths and just proceeds to ruin everything. See, I'm a big progressive rock fan, especially the old stuff which isn't made anymore, which has put me into kind of a rut. I try the new stuff, but it just doesn't click for me the way the original genre did, since I guess it was just something that could only be made at that specific time and place in history and culture and stuff. But there is this one modern band called Spock's Beard (which yeah, sounds super pretentious, but whatever) that totally has the sound down perfect. Except the singer, who just makes me want to pull my hair out. It makes me really wish for them to make karaoke versions of their albums so I can enjoy the musicianship without the singing mucking it all up.

I know that Europe is definitely considered as being pretty dang crappy (enough so for folks like Tenpenny and the like to go so far as making a trans-Atlantic trip to somewhere as bad as the Capital Wasteland. Assuming that he's not just pretending to be British because he's crazy). However, I don't think it's quite Glowing Sea levels of bad, since people do still live there. I assume that there's still at least some infrastructure left. It's just all super war-torn and stuff.