Gormongous

I make eighteen thousand a year on my assistantship and feel impossibly wealthy. St. Louis is cheaper than most cities, though.

Isn't that just more about small victories? I have that reaction over dumb shit every day. Whatever man, you'll always be a master thief in my book.

Does Interstate 76 hold up as a game? The art still looks awesome and I have a copy of the soundtrack that is the best generic studio funk ever.

I think that hits it on the nose. Every anecdote about amazing comebacks involves one, maybe two players thinking the game's sunk, which is bound to happen, but if every player on a team, each with their own experiences, have lost all hope, is a comeback even possible?

Yeah, Awkward Zombie! I haven't read that in years, I thought it went on hiatus.

You know there's a whole line of work for people like that. A fulfilling career in bouncing could be yours today!

I played it a while ago and really liked it! I found the scenario to be one I was already used to, but the buildup to it, as well as the resolution, was interesting and educating on its own. Also, it has a really familiar art style. I'm going to go all Lazy-Web and ask if anyone knows where I might have seen it before?

I want to jump on this, because it can't be said enough: you're not a bad person for thinking or doing sexist things, unless you persist in them once you know they're sexist. All of us here, even the staunchest feminists, are sexist at one point or another, not only because we're human, but also because we live in a sexist society where sexism is the aggressively defended norm. That's not to say you're not responsible for yourself, but you're not tainted or corrupted because of it.

I can't wait for your joint announcement of Slapstick 'n' Shit, Inc. Slapshit?

Microsoft is proud of its newest product, the Xbox First-World! Kinda. Not even, really. Jeez.

Maybe after the Sony PR coup, Microsoft is just going to double-down on being the asshole?

I guess we'll have to disagree, then. I just think changing a longstanding product in a way that only serves to better exploit the consumer is unethical. If I thought the XBOne was going to become the Steam Box come early, I would be much more on board, but somehow I know that the sixty-dollar price point will remain set in stone, with fifteen-percent "sales" only coming after the tail has grown quite long. Call it a vision from the future-past.

Maybe "ethical" is not the right term, but I think it's pretty disingenuous to provide a product a certain way for thirty years, then alter that product in a way that only devalues it, and portray the customer as unreasonable for objecting to said alteration. To make your analogy actually applicable to the terms being discussed, how about Big Mac Meals only being edible within the McDonald's premises? You're not allowed to buy a Big Mac in the drive-thru or walk out with your Big Mac order. This is unprecedented, but for your own benefit, because outside of McDonald's there are factors they cannot control that could damage your Big Mac experience. Furthermore, you could eat half the Big Mac and then share the rest with someone else, depriving McDonald's of the latter's business. What, are you going to stop eating Big Macs? I understand your reasons and you're free to think them, but I personally don't see how any industry benefits from a disempowered and disenfranchised consumer. If the market can adapt to anti-consumer gangsterism, surely it can adapt the other way as well.

But whether or not people care, especially in anecdote, is a poor rubric for how right or fair a given action is. Ethics and justice aren't determined by market forces. If a company or government manages to take away implied or explicit rights from its customers or citizens, that does not mean that they ought to have been taken away, let alone that the rights never really existed. Honestly, I'm really baffled by the level of "put up or shut up" attitude in this thread. If companies are free to make whatever decisions they see fit, I am just as free to critique or even ridicule them for it, in addition to not giving them my money.

To me, The Swapper evokes notes of a plaid flat cap, a shed, rust, and a junk collection. I think this is the fate of any "-er" word I don't commonly use. Though Gunpoint isn't really a tour-de-force for me either, Torchlight definitely is. I might just like the use of compound-noun titles with multiple meanings. They're simply more evocative somehow.

(waggish retort) Link the Elcor Hamlet ad next!

You could color-code your posts, Twig. Can we change the font color on this forum? I've never tried. Then your signature could be all if I'm typing in red, I sound pissed off or if I'm typing in cyan, I sound condescending. Wait, never mind, that shit's hard to read.

Oh no, definitely give yourself time to grieve and feel like shit, so long as you keep in mind that a breakup doesn't define (or redefine) who you are and what you're worth. We're all here for you, man.

Yeah, I think there's a fine line that all fantasy has to walk between evoking historical flavor and buying into it. We touched upon this in the "Is Game of Thrones Sexist" thread. In the case of Massive Chalice, the medieval fixation on pedigree turns into eugenics when systematized in a video game. I think the best way is to take a page out of the Crusader Kings II book again, with no trait or combination of traits having a clear advantage over others. It would be easy to breed a glass cannon, specialized to the hilt at one thing, but a well-rounded individual would happen only through luck and foresight. Upbringing would play into this by operating the same. That way, there's an interesting choice between breeding a better hero through genetics and building happy families through love matches, with the confluence of the two being an exciting and fulfilling event.

Honestly, I've seen it happen a fair amount in transitioning relationships. One person suggests a break or an open relationship in good faith, but discovers that the space/freedom/attention they get from it is actually more important to them than the relationship, so their intentions shift. What I'm saying is, it could be bad luck and poor communication more than deceit, not that that makes you feel any better. Don't think of the five years as a waste though. Unless the relationship was toxic anyway, you grew as a person during it, which is what counts. Judging a relationship by its permanency is a fool's game, since they all end sometime. Well, I don't really think in terms of mind/matter, more that there's nothing I can do to prevent my individual death. I can back up or insure everything in life except my own self, which feels a little confining at times.

I know it's cruel, but I am so glad I'm not the only person kept up by the thought of "I am trapped in this body and someday it will break and then I will be gone" at night. Anyway, transitions are always easier in hindsight, so just do what needs doing, Smell. Also, I was mostly away from the computer the past couple weeks, but I'm sorry about your brother, Merus, and I'm glad things aren't as bad as they could be with him.

Dammit, you're right.

Remember way back when people were ripping on the PS4 for being a nonentity post-announcement? Turns out there's something worse, and that something is multiple mixed messages from Microsoft execs creating a Frankenstein's monster of mistrust and despair. Sony's silent strategy suddenly seems smarter, somehow.

Welcome to a gift economy as interpreted by a profit economy. In the former, a gift is just the measure of its presenter and recipient. Once given, Beowulf is free to throw Hrothgar's ring into the ocean. He wouldn't, of course, but he could, because the giving of the gift is what matters. In the latter, gifts are objects and objects have value, so to dispose of the object is to dispose of both its material and social capital. Long story short, this is why I pretty much only accept money on any occasion. Sure, it's still seen as crass, even thoughtless, but I will never offend someone by using their gift of cash the way I want.

I finished Bring Out the Bodies, the sequel to Wolf Hall. I have a lot of undigested thoughts about it that I'll do the enormous disservice of grouping into pros and cons: Pros: - The tone and feel of Wolf Hall carried over perfectly for me, which is a huge feather in Mantel's cap. - I liked the subtle ways Cromwell continued to grow as a character, especially with regards to his thoughts on love, marriage, and family. - Mantel covered the trial and execution of Anne Boleyn without really being tawdry or ugly, which I did not think possible. Cons: - Early on, I thought that the slights from Brereton and Weston were building towards a confrontation with Cromwell, presumably the trial. This was not the case. I was disappointed that Cromwell did not even dream of his enemies' ruin, not in any explicit way, until Henry gave the okay. Maybe it was in character, but I almost felt as though Mantel passed over a chance for Cromwell to exert himself in an overt and powerful way, because it did not flatter him to do so. - On a similar note, I could not believe that Mantel chose not to have Mark Smeaton tortured by Cromwell in any way, shape, or form. Even taking into account the long-term smear campaign of the lowborn Cromwell, reports of the trial are pretty clear regarding the condition of Mark. To be told that it was the result of a night locked in a closet, some self-inflicted wounds, and a general case of the blues was the first time I just plain rejected Mantel's narrative by dint of prior knowledge. I didn't like it, and thankfully it passed, but it was still irritating. Even if Christophe had hit Mark more than twice, that would have been something to substantiate the rumors that survive to us. Sorry, I know my two critiques are mostly just (history) nerd rage, which isn't fair. I found this an even smoother and more pleasant read than Wolf Hall. I can't wait for the third book, whatever it's going to be titled, especially because I'm sure Mantel will be more willing for Cromwell to act like the flawed being he was.