Zeusthecat

The only famous people I've met have been under 5' tall. Kerri Strug did a book signing in Tucson (since that's where she was from) when she still had her fucked up leg from the olympics and I was like "oh, Kerri Strug, she's pretty fucking short". Then years later when I worked as a waiter at Applebee's I waited on a midget from one of our local radio stations. He was an asshole and gave a shitty tip just like any other Applebee's customer. Now if I ever meet any true celebrities like The Thumbs my strategy would be as follows. First, I would make sure to be wearing my David Caruso sunglasses. Then I would walk up and say "Hello, you guys are the greatest thing ever spawned by the internet". Next, I would pull down my pants, take a shit on the ground, light it on fire, and walk away slowly with my pants still down while saying "Burn baby, burn" in a gravely voice as the flaming shit reflects in my sunglasses. I think this would guarantee that they would never forget me as long as they live. Also, if you have any social awkwardness I suggest working as a waiter/waitress in a restaurant for a couple years. That causes every bit of social awkwardness to evaporate and forces you to learn how to make interesting conversation with complete strangers.

I find it hilarious that the NAACP has not changed their name to remove the word "colored" and replace it with something else. Another example of a term that used to be considered opinionated in a way that is different from me but is now deemed offensive. I find the concept of being "offended" very interesting and I wonder how that process works. As a rule of thumb, I never get offended by anything unless it is intended to be derogatory because I cannot come to a logical conclusion as to why I should feel offended. For example, if I hear someone say something is retarded my first instinct is to laugh (perhaps because I can't help but try to look at the world as a hilarious place full of hilarious things happening all the time if you look at them a certain way) because I see zero connection between the way they are using the term "retarded" and them actually degrading retarded people (er, mentally challenged? I guess that term was euphemized too). I guess what I'm saying makes me sound like a total asshole but I just prefer to live life in a way where I can laugh at everything and not waste any energy being offended if I can't justify feeling that way. Either that or I just watched way too much Dave Chappelle in the early 2000s.

Regarding collectibles, if it's a game I really enjoyed playing I do tend to go after them. In open world games I find that when going through the critical path and side missions there can still be decent portions of the world that I never really touch, and I tend to not notice a lot of the details in the world even in the areas that are well traversed because I am too distracted with the missions at hand. Once the missions are done, however, collectibles give me a reason to go back through every corner of the world and see all of those little details and notice more of the random npc interactions and whatnot. This more intimate look at the world also gives me a greater appreciation for all of the effort that the developers went through to populate their world with things that go unnoticed by the majority of players. I would also reflect what some other posts have mentioned about being a completionist. If a game is good, playing it to 100% completion can be very rewarding because, again, it gives me a reason to experience all of these extra things that developers spent time and effort to put in their games. Although I guess it's worth mentioning that I mainly test software for a living and tend to enjoy poking around at things so maybe my viewpoint is a little skewed. Some games I've completed to 100% or gathered all of the collectibles: Skyrim, every GTA since GTA 3 (loved hunting those pigeons), Assassin's Creed 2, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Saint's Row, Halo 3, Halo 4, Super Mario 64, and a bunch of others I can't think of right now.

Why was my text so small?

Yeah, I just discovered this in the last week and decided to have a little fun with it. Sorry if it offended anyone. I find it quite silly that this word was euphemized to begin with and now we are only allowed to use the term "Asian", which will most likely be deemed offensive in the next 20 years and have to be changed again. Where I live "Hispanic" is the euphemism that is replacing "Mexican" because apparently some people have determined that it is offensive to call someone Mexican. But I still stand by my claim that Oriental Ramen should be considered racist by people who are super sensitive to this shit. Isn't the implication that Oriental Ramen has the general taste of Asia despite the fact that Asian countries all have varying cuisines? Some number of years in the future I will be offended by what you called me but society hasn't told me I should be offended yet so we're cool for now.

I jump straight past that and instead find myself wondering why oriental ramen isn't considered one of the most racist foods on the market.

Whenever I hear someone refer to the far east as "The Orient" I immediately think of Oriental flavored ramen soup. This is a correlation I will never be able to break because the taste and smell of Oriental ramen is very nostalgic.

So I've been running a fever (not joking, I seriously am) and I can't stop thinking that the only cure is more cowbell.

I love you guys. (fuck that was a stupid post) Edit: Meaning my post is stupid. I feel like everyone is staring at me while crickets chirp. Someone else please post so this can get quickly buried.

For me, it comes in waves. Usually the second I say something I think "Fuck, I'm an idiot and everyone thinks I'm the biggest jackass in the world for what I just said". Then I think "Everybody else must have the same insecurity and what I said was maybe not as stupid as I thought". Then I think "Nope, your pretty fucking stupid and even if other people are insecure they probably say way cooler/smarter/more clever stuff". Then I think "Am I schizophrenic?".

Sometimes I hate myself for the stupid things I say.

I don't blame you. It takes an insane amount of patience and I would have not done it if I didn't have an irrational love of grinding in JRPGs. Come to think of it, I followed FFXIII up with Lost Oddyssey and also put about 90 hours into that game and was super burnt out on JRPGs by the end so yeah, probably not worth it for most people.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/05/microsoft-next-xbox-will-work-even-when-your-internet-doesnt/ Nothing definitive but promising nonetheless.

I am extremely ashamed to admit that I put over 100 hours into Final Fantasy XIII (couldn't bring myself to play 13-2 though). I absolutely hated the story with a passion but for me the paradigm system is what kept me hooked on the game. Having played IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XIII I felt like it was just enough of a departure from their standard battle formula to inject a new level of strategy into battles and ended up being my favorite battle system out of any Final Fantasy game. Like you mentioned for 13-2, I feel like there wasn't a whole lot of depth to the paradigm system in the main game but I found that tackling the harder challenges was where the true brilliance of the system shone through. There were some extremely difficult battles that forced me to pretty much use every possible permutation of the paradigm system and I found mastering the system to be immensely satisfying. Not sure if you've tried tackling some of the more difficult side content (or if 13-2 even has any to the level that XIII did) but I recommend it if you have the patience or desire to delve into the paradigm system further.

I hate C++ Builder 6. It is fucking 2013 and we still do at least half of our programming in this ancient IDE to support legacy shit. I hate that I am getting so familiar with it and I hate how comfortable it is becoming and I hate that I am on the verge of defending it as an IDE that was ahead of its time...

Chrono Trigger This one stands out for several reasons: 1. Yasunori Mitsuda's score is excellent. I will never forget how well the music worked for me in this game. 2. This game was one of the first to implement New Game+ and had over a half dozen endings depending on when you decide to fight the final boss. 3. The story is light-hearted enough for a kid to get into but has a surprising amount of depth. 4. The combat is a great example of a classic JRPG battle system but had a unique special attack combo system with dozens of different attacks that changed depending on who is in your party.

YES, he made it! He has managed to re-join us after all. Edit: Damn, he makes a good Mac! From a distance they are indistinguishable.

Good luck finding this one on the internet. My theory on what happened to Haley Joel Osment: I believe there is a sister planet to earth comprised entirely of heroin needles that most of us cannot perceive. When a child star reaches a certain age they become aware of this planet and become part of the covalent bond that holds our two planets together periodically weaving in and out of existence on both planets. It is here that they must remain until another child star comes of age and takes their place. At this point that they either rejoin the rest of us on Earth or become permanent members of Heroinopia depending on where they exist when the next child star takes their place in the covalent bond. Haley Joel Osment is nearing the end of his tenure in this bond and will soon rejoin us or disappear forever. Take that internet! I win this time.

Here's a fun game to play: every time you make what you think is an interesting or unique observation, put it into Google and become horribly depressed at how unoriginal you are. If you don't find anything, you win at life (and I obviously lose at this game).

So I held the door open for someone today but I didn't properly judge the distance they were from the door. This made them feel obligated to do a light jog to the door so that I wouldn't have to sit there holding it. I thought I was being polite at first but now I feel like kind of an asshole. And I swear if Louis CK or Demetri Martin have already made a similar observation fuck those guys, this is my thought, not theirs!

Agghhh! I have a zit on the inside of my nose and it fucking hurts like hell but despite this I can't stop pressing on the outside of my nostril.

I see your point but regardless of how he chose to represent the world I think we agree that the "bad people" have to be doing bad stuff to be considered bad and provide a contrast against the "good people". I think what we consider "bad" is largely shaped by our observation of historical events and what horrible things have actually been committed. So while he could have presented a world that is sexist towards men, I don't think that would be very effective at painting who is good versus who is bad. In fact, I might feel quite the opposite because in reality men have been the oppressors and I might naturally feel that people are justified for being sexist against men. I think we actually partially agree on this. Your example of not hearing about characters going to the bathroom is somewhat similar to my statement that these things should be portrayed off camera or just inferred rather than showing it in graphic detail. It is understood that all human beings need to go to the bathroom, good guys and bad guys. But there has to at least be some mention of what the bad guys are doing that makes them bad. It doesn't need to be graphic, but as long as it is mentioned I can at least have a reason to feel the way I do about a character.

It is interesting to think of how this would be different if we were talking about a historical account of actual real world events rather than a work of fiction created by an author. If this was an account of actual events I would imagine that most people might not be so concerned with why horrible acts were committed by a person, but would just accept that they happened and use that fact to frame the person that committed them. In other words, when I hear historical accounts about what horrible people have done I don't tend to ask myself why that person did what they did, I just accept that it happened and that the person that did it is a horrible person because of it. Maybe asking why is appropriate for certain issues but if someone is talking about something like sexual abuse I don't think asking "Why did that person do that?" is going to get a person very far because that would be incredibly hard to answer without knowing every detail of that person's background and all of the events that shaped them into the person they are. So while I don't agree that an author should have to justify why they have bad people doing bad things, I do agree that it is typically done in a lazy fashion and put there for shock value. I think it is fine for these things to be present in a story but I don't see the need for it to be in your face the way it is so often done. I think it would be more appropriate for these things to happen off camera or for it to just be inferred unless the story is centering on that one person involved and witnessing those acts is important to better understand that person's character development and motivations. After all, if I was there observing these stories taking place I would most likely not be witnessing all of these acts in gruesome detail, but might just be aware that they are going on.

It seems like there would have to be at least some level of sexism represented when depicting a more primitive or less civilized society for it to be accurate to how things would be in the real world. I mean, it's fucked up but look at how rampant sexism and sexual abuse is in the less civilized corners of the world (not to mention that despite the progress that has been made it is still fairly prevalent even in civilized countries, just disguised better). I think it is irresponsible to use it just for shock value but I think it is okay to be present in some way to accurately depict how it would be in the real world under similar circumstances. I think it is pretty fucking tough for it to be used in a meaningful way though because of how horribly sexualized women have become in today's media.

Man, I've been burning through my backlog like crazy lately. Just have to finish Assassin's Creed Revelations, COD World at War, Saint's Row 2, Borderlands 2, and Resident Evil 5 and I'll be all caught up on my 360 games. So last night I finished Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and I have some really mixed feelings about it. When Chris originally talked on the podcast about how he felt about the first game I disagreed with his assessment. I felt that the gameplay was fresh and unique, the historical setting was great, and the story wasn't all that bad by video game standards although there was a little bit of absurd stuff in there. It was just a world that I liked to be in and the music and ambient noise mixed with the setting and gameplay made for an engaging experience that I kept coming back to. Then I played Assassin's Creed 2 and had even more fun. It seemed like there were so many systems in place and so much variety that whatever I was doing just felt exciting and full of possibilites. It was around the end of that game that I think I started to see it the way Chris did. Enter Brotherhood. It was a really good game and introduced some awesome stuff that I had a lot of fun with but something was just different this time. While I feel it was the best game yet it started to lose some of its luster. First, I feel like the story went from 'not bad' in the first game to 'a little bit annoying but still okay' in the second game (except the ending which seemed really fucking unoriginal and just stupid) to 'I fucking hate Desmond and the other walking stereotypes he is surrounded by and this story fucking sucks my balls'. But I can get past bad stories. I would prefer for them to be good but if the gameplay is great it doesn't matter all that much to me. Beyond the story, I think the real problem I had was that I realized I was kind of fooled by how much variety I thought there was. I still really liked being in the world but I just felt, egh, hrm, blah. I started to notice I had 3 different types of projectiles that all did the same thing, poison was fun at first but it acted like any other distraction tool in the game, the courtesans and thieves didn't seem all that different from each other and the mercenaries were just dudes that fought with you. Buying property was fun at first but there was almost no depth to it. I think the saving grace was that they added the ability to recruit and train assassins. This was my main source of fun for this game but by the end it also started to lose some of its luster. I just feel like they haven't done enough to change the way you go about infiltrating areas and assassinating guards and after 3 games it is the same old dance with a few new mechanics here and there. So, I think I now see where Chris was coming from and I pretty much agree, I think I just had my rose tinted beer goggles on for the first 2 games. As much as I'm complaining about it, I guess I still had a good amount of fun. Enough at least that I'll continue on with Revelations and see how that goes. Edit: Despite everything I said, I had some truly great moments in this game. There were a couple missions where I had to tail someone while staying on the rooftops and avoiding being detected. It was in these moments that I felt like a true assassin, shooting a poison dart at an archer on a roof to distract the nearby enemies then sending my assassins to take down another couple guys on another roof and then running full speed past them to assassinate the fuck out of another guy before he spotted me and dropping out of site immediately afterward all while keeping my target on the ground in sight. That made me feel fucking badass.