Gamemore

Animals ain't people, it's as simple as that. Now, you might discuss to what degree life dissimilar to human life deserves to be respected, but I don't think that the current means of discussing progressive issues such as gender equality, anti-racism, various privileges, etc. are ideal to conduct that discussion, since the underlying thought of most of these is that for instance, women are not in fact less inteligent than men, black people not naturally more prone to violence than white people and I doubt you'd get many people to agree with you that the same is true for chickens.

To clarify: In my example, I was talking about Neo-Nazis (although, nowadays I guess Nazi-skinheads would be considered "old Neonazis" since the preferred way for the movement to present itself has somewhat adjusted itself to match the times) and I mentioned them being German, because I am as well and most of the (thankfully brief) encounters I've had with and stuff I read about them has been with German Neo-Nazis, so I don't know if the impression I got of their major demographic ("White trash" projecting the blame for their disadvantaged position on immigrants/some undefined other, instead of acknowledging their own agency and the forces of the system they live in) would be accurate for other countries, although I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

There's something I don't understand about the whole "Comedy shouldn't punch downward" sentiment: What if the person or sentiment that is "beneath" our level or is held by people that are, is still really dumb and deserving of our scorn/ridicule. For instance, would it be immoral for me to make fun of the "classic", german Nazi-Skinhead-demography because in the 80's and 90's (and even now to some extent) they are mostly people that lost in society, are statistically likely to have a lower grade of education, income and social acceptance than me. Still, they also do believe that the people responsible for their shitty (at least doubtlessly shittier than mine) lot in life are people who have it even shittier than themselves and take it out on them and that is really stupid. Also, much of the stuff they say to justify their behaviour or explain their political platform is really bad and funny (such as explaining their opinion that "people what can't even speak proper german should go back to where they came from" when referring to someone whose family has been living in that town for three generations now.). Would it be mean for me as a relatively wealthy white guy who is currently at university to draw a cartoon that might end up hurting their feelings?

Do you feel the same thing about non-ad live-action movies treating gun violence in a similarily light manner such as action comedies? Edit: Also, I doubt I am smarter than you.

Carrier Possum.

Medal of Honor Allied Assault had a pretty intense (and fucking hard) D-Day level where you did have a gun which however didn't do you any good for roughly two thirds of the level. It's a lot less impressive visually than Stalingrad in COD (due to the respective age of the games) but has a lot less scruples about just killing you at what appears to be random. It's especially funny since it's at about the halfway point of the game and so far you have been doing cool commando mission and suddenly the game's like "So you feel like hot shit? Well, maybe try standing somewhere without a billion machinegun bullets then, next time. Not there. Nope, not there either. Crouching's not gonna do you much good in the open either. Oh, look who found the barely marked minefield!"

Also they have several (separate from the main podcast lines) complete audioversions of some of the better stories as read by various cool people.

Obviously they should have set the game in 1997 and made it a tie-in to Escape from New York.

Slightly off-topic, but as far as ARMA groups go, ShackTack is like the Marx Brothers in terms of seriousness. You'd be surprised at how many people get off by getting people to call them Sir on the internet (You actually wouldn't, probably)

Eh, I'd say the problem is less with who you're shooting at and more why you are shooting at them. In real life, many (if not most) soldiers engage in violence either because they have to conscription or they think it will lead to greater good (because they are genuinely defending their country, trying to install an (in their eyes) more benevolent government in other countries or subscribe to a worldview where a country must achieve dominance over others lest their culture gets destroyed), whereas the criminals in Hardline want (unearned) money for themselves and the cops are just trying to protect other peoples' property or lives. (Though I guess from the equipment and tactics the cops use in Hardline, it seems like it takes place in some sort of Orwellian police state and so the criminals might have more of a justification) Edit: Though this is more from a "how YOU might feel perspective", since I find it personally pretty hard to take offense at Multiplayer titles due to the fact that they never seem to condone certain actions the way a singleplayer title might. So, I guess I'm more worried about being queasy about shooting millions of Puerto Rican drug smugglers in the back of the head with a silenced pistol in the singleplayer campaign than I am about blowing Sgt. Ghostsnipa69666 up with a tripmine in multiplayer.

Eh, so, to get back on the Assasins' Creed stuff (sorry): If I understood it correctly, the co-op option is explained to each player that they are Arno and the other players are different assasins helping out that are actually the same model wearing a different jacket, but since 90% of their body is covered by clothes and the chinline by itself isn't really enough to positively identify someone Ubisoft figured nobody would really care apart from making funny Youtube videos where two guys dress up like each other. If that's the case (and if it isn't, I don't quite get what else they're gonna do), then why didn't they say so and add that apart from animations, they'd probably need to rewrite the story and re-record quite a lot of dialogue?

Studies have shown that the gargling sound a human makes after they had their throat ripped open by a metal claw is virtually indistinguishable from a very old person laughing.

I'm old enough to make my own decisions whether to quickload or not, Dad!

Well, I'm dumb.

Focusses a bit more on the gamey part of the gameplay, which looks pretty much like Far Cry 3 in a more interesting environment. I kind of like the idea of having drop-in co-op in an open world setting, far too little games realize you don't need extra missions to have fun blowing shit up with a friend. Notable quote "For the first time in a Far Cry game you'll be attacked from above.". I kinda doubt that this is really the first time. Far Cry and Far Cry 2 were three-dimensional, right? Also, as to the soldiers: Are we sure they are even supposed to be Nepalese? I thought the game was set in some sort of fictional kingdom and as far as I am aware part of the Himalaya is in Indian territory.