Is your uncle a singing Gameboy?
I actually like the taste of the onion, but I can't stand onions on my pizza because the texture is just really icky. How many you on right now, Fuk?
So would you say that Wind Waker is better or worse than Wind Waker HD?
I am thankful for the fact that I will be getting up at 5 AM and working until 4 PM until the middle of next year. I'm surprised that there wasn't a Doctor Who float for the 50th anniversary. I understand that it's a British thing, but by that logic they shouldn't have Pokemon because it's a Japanese thing.
That's my favorite one!
Sorry dude, I don't have time chip in on this investigation.
Have been there once too, can confirm that their meal type food is awful. Their candy is awesome, though.
What about the third option of "Let people enjoy their stupid fad and hope to the Elder Gods that it dies on its own very soon?" I don't want to kill Let's Plays. I just want the fad to be over already. Although I wouldn't be opposed to having Youtube change its view counting system again to prevent Let's Plays from exploiting it, my current plan is to wait it out and spread my opinion. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to erase the word "---------" from --------- everybody's minds. I heard it misused one too many times and now I'm finally going to do something about it.
I thought we were talking about the UI.
You're right, continuing these Joan of Arc puns would be like trying to prove the existence of the divine using only the visible: It Kant be done.
It doesn't hurt me, but I'm affected by it because no matter how clear I make it that I hate Let's Plays, there's always that one friendly acquaintance of mine who goes, "Hey, I know you hate Let's Plays, but check this one out! It's totally different in a way that you'll like," but then it never is. That guy is the most annoying person that I know and I can't get rid of him because he's practically everyone. Let's Plays still manage to get through those searches, though, and I don't really mind commentary as long as it doesn't take place when the gameplay needs to be the star of the show. That's why I mentioned the idea of a "Let's Shut Up And Play." Something where the commentary is present, but limited to portions of the video where nothing significant is happening onscreen. You know, things like loading screen and menus, and generic gameplay like walking from Point A to Point B or mowing down enemies on the way to the next mission. With the right narrator, that would be okay to watch. Sometimes I like to rewatch parts of the game that I can't go back to.[DOUBLEPOST=1385603535][/DOUBLEPOST] Thank you for this.
I really hope the Let's Play genre just dies out entirely. If I want to hear an annoying voiceover while watching someone play a game, I can just watch my 11 year old nephew play BlazBlue. With any luck, Let's Plays will be slowly replaced with "Let's Shut Up And Plays." Also, that Nintendo Minute was way more than a minute long. I counted.
Yeah, that interface is just awful. It'd be nice they could have made it pop, you know?
You're right. What I meant was cool in the sense that it's used in slang and you knew that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_flame
A toast to inspirational women like her everywhere.
One might even say she was on fire.
Parachute pants really need to be popular again. I love how many zippity pockets there are but I hate that I can't find them anywhere.
What you're saying is true, but it's assuming that all characters are meant specifically to be characters. Your example with Kirito works because he's supposed to be a deep, interesting, and likable character, but he's so badly written that all of that completely fails. The thing with Lightning is that she's obviously designed to be a bad character so that she can be objectified. Based on what I saw before I started to hate it, the entire main cast of Free! is the same way. I agree with all of this, but unless I misread you it's not really as related to my point. I agree that having characters that are designed for the sole purpose of being objectified is wrong, but that doesn't mean that the dehumanization of such characters is wrong. The problem rests in their existence, not in how they're viewed. If Lightning were intended to be a deeper, more engaging character that the viewer would connect with, then dehumanizing her would be a problem. The same goes for politicians. They're not people. They're roles that people fill. For example, my father absolutely hates Barrack Obama the politician but would gladly go to a bar and share a beer with Barrack Obama the person. Note that I said "certain celebrities," not "all celebrities." I won't go into which ones because I don't want to insult anybody, but I'm mainly referring the ones who act like total idiots in the public eye and make it very clear that they're not just acting like idiots for their fans. Since we're on the topic, I'd also like to digress for a bit and mention what I think of celebrities as a whole and what "famousness" means to me just so people know where I'm coming from when I talk about celebrities in the future. Spoiler: Digression Being famous, in my opinion, is what happens when a person freely chooses to give up his or her right to privacy. As a result of this, fame often results in being objectified by one's audience. Most celebrities are people who choose to work in an industry where they are liable to become famous and thus turned into objects in the eyes of their fans. If they aren't okay with that, they should never have chosen that particular career path. This is also my problem with child stars. It's built up to be bigger than it is in the media, but child stars are almost always the result of parents pushing their kids to become famous before they're able to decide if that's what they actually want to do. Just look at the Sprouse twins. I don't know if their parents pushed them into doing the Suite Life shows, but based on what they're doing now (Dylan's in game design; Cole's pursuing archaeology) I'm almost positive they didn't have much choice in the matter and are very lucky to have faded into obscurity as well as they have. Rereading my post, I suppose I wasn't clear on what I meant there. I don't expect all actors and actresses to turn down roles that dehumanize them, just the ones who have a problem with being objectified. If a performer has a problem with being portrayed that way, he or she should pick a branch of the industry where objectification isn't a problem. I understand that it's much easier said than done, especially for those who have been in objectifying roles before and want to stop taking those roles, but it is an option nonetheless. Alternatively, they should never have chosen to enter an industry that tends to cause fame in the first place. But the intended depth of characters is not. Or they just see eye candy and angst. Or eye candy and angst are their definition of character depth. All of these explanations are probably true depending on the person. This is exactly why we need to get better game rating systems. Parents sure as hell know their kids better than ESRB, PEGI, and CERO do, but they could still do a better job of explaining why the games that aren't suitable for children are marked as such. The launch of GTA V proved to me that most parents don't have super mature kids and are just really bad at reading game ratings. I made a point to go to my local Gamestop on launch day to watch the kids' faces as the clerk explained to their parents in graphic detail every single reason why it's rated M for Mature. Is it kind of messed up to enjoy watching kids cry over not getting a video game where half the fun consists of strip clubs, prostitutes, bank robberies, and killing people? Probably, but I'm still glad I went.
