Ninety-Three

That said: Low profile instance? In that very thread he says: And he also said "don't witchhunt them" on his Twitter. How much more high profile can he get? It feels like you're disingenuously trying to make him look as shitty as possible, which is unnecessary given how shitty he already looks.

Update on the Gawker thing: The article has been taken down (archived version available here), and an explanation posted. It's your typical corporate press release which inappropriately spends most of its time building up the company rather than discussing the issue at hand. The important bits are: Conspicuously absent is any admission that they did a shitty thing by enabling a blackmailer. I find it interesting that they're taking the article down, because as they admit, the damage has been done. Heck, the removed article page links to the explanation of why the article was taken down, which of course summarizes the content of the article. I suppose taking it down is supposed to be symbolic, but it seems like a deliberately manipulative act to symbolically fix something when you can't actually fix the thing.

Having just Googled this, it feels like you're deliberately cutting the context from a short story to make it sound worse. A male escort had sex with the married male CFO of a company, tried to blackmail them, they refused, so the escort took their story to Gawker who published it, almost certainly because the person was a major figure at a rival company, rather than a notable public figure. The full story is still plenty scummy. The "He's not notable" angle put me to thinking though, as I saw it mentioned here and in several articles covering Gawker's article. It implies that what Gawker did would be more acceptable if he were a public figure, which seems silly when I think of it that way. Why is it more acceptable to enable blackmail and publish someone's private mistakes if that person is well-known?

I've realized that the "Disgust is broccoli" thing is a pretty strong argument for the idea that the other characters haven't had their emotions thought through. Riley's Disgust has a personal reason to look like broccoli, but everyone's Disgust looks that way. Surely not everyone hates broccoli, especially the girl at the broccoli pizza place. Given that, it seems pretty clear to me that they designed Riley's emotions, then for the other characters said "Now here's the dad version of the emotions, they all look like dad" "Here's the emo pizza girl version of the emotions", etc.

Regarding the body types, the director said that each of the emotions is based on a shape: Joy is a star (note how she looks when she throws her arms out, which she does a lot, including on the poster), Sadness is a teardrop, Fright is a raw nerve, Anger is a fire brick and Disgust is broccoli.

Most of the minor characters have emotions with the same body types as Riley's emotions, but then we see an angry bus-driver where all of his emotions have the Anger body. Assuming I read that correctly as a joke about how he's a very angry person, that indicates that they thought about it at least once. However, I'm still pretty inclined to agree with Cleinhunn, who got to my point more directly.

I can't think of a worse one, and I'm a heartless monster who didn't like the short about the dog and the food. It felt like they came up with the lava=love pun and then worked to build a scene to support it, neglecting the fact that as good as the pun was, it wasn't worth multiple minutes.

My read on the situation was that the emotions all reflected the parents' genders for exactly the same reason they all reflected their hair (unlike Riley's). What that reason is is somewhat less clear, but I doubt it has anything to do with gender roles (except insofar as you can argue that any decision about gender is influenced by the decider being influenced by gender roles). The hair and gender reflections seem like choices made by the same logic. Maybe it's an art direction choice "And these are the dad emotions, so they all look like dad", or to go with a slightly more diegetic interpretation, it's because Riley's parents are somewhat two-dimensional (more due to lack of screentime than failure to develop them) so there's less depth depicted in their emotions as well.

I choose to imagine that there are a bunch of people at the CoD studio who wish that they were working on anything less grey-brown than CoD, and having given up on changing the core of CoD, they talked the project executives into letting them do this instead.

Really? I've never seen people get it wrong. While we're complaining about common mistakes: "try and". It's "try to". If you say "I'm going to try and jump over that", you're making two separate statements "I'm going to try" and "I'm going to jump over that" (success is implied to be certain), when what you almost always mean to communicate is "I'm going to try to jump over that".

Oh right, that complete garbage article. I wasn't aware of them being generally pro-GG, but there is that. Speaking of that article though, I noticed that the author is pretty active in the comments. It's bad.

Thegg.net is "The Gaming Ground", named in 2009.

As someone who is positively put to sleep by Battle of Gears: Modern Duty: What's this? What's this? There's colour everywhere! What's this? I can't believe my eyes I must be dreaming wake up Jack this isn't fair! COD got a Left 4 Dead mode. And it's colourful and insane! Everybody seems so happy have I possibly gone daffy what is this!?

Finished the Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell miniseries (never read the book). It was a good series, but the ending was a disappointing jumble. I can't really put words to it (at least not without writing a very long post) so I'll just say it was thoroughly unsatisfying. Overall, recommended, but I'd almost suggest skipping the last episode.

Well we have the ISS already. By 2088 even the extreme pessimists must expect us to have another space station. We'll never see a place like Tacoma, not because of organizational problems, but because it would be cheaper to build a solid gold Disneyland than to put something that spacious into orbit. Until the distant sci-fi future of fusion-powered launches or outright teleporters, things in space will be cramped for cost reasons.

I'm not sure how I misheard that. At least it's humanly possible then, but it still bothers me. Not because I find it implausible that humans could create such a space station, but because I doubt they would. Putting stuff into space is crazy expensive, space stations should endeavour to minimize mass, which means no huge empty hallways. For me, it undermines the sense that it's a real place, because I always find myself asking "Why is this built this way?" and answering "Because it was built by game designers out of pixels, not by engineers out of metal."

There's a new trailer which gives some idea of how the game will actually play, and they've got an interesting idea that makes it more than just Gone Home In Space (Gone Space Home?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=0&v=9F7RvgtuypY Am I the only one who's extremely bothered that this space station only 13 years in the future is spacious as hell?

Now there is a Hex thread.

Is there not a thread for Hex, the trading card game? It seems like it ought to have one already, but I can't find it (the forum search is terrible and "Hex" isn't exactly a great SEO name).

Technically, but since we already have the name "MUD" for them it would be weird to call them that. Like how bullet hells are a subset of schmups, but we call them bullet hells because it's a more specific term for the subgenre. It's because trash mobs present both zero challenge/threat and zero reward, you're thinking of it only in terms of reward. Creeps aren't trash because they're walking sacks of gold, while random hollows in Dark Souls aren't trash because they can still kill you. Flesh in STALKER (FPS). All the other enemies in that game are really good, but Flesh are (relatively) slow-moving, melee-only unevasive enemies with not many hit points. I guess you could make the argument that they're not complete trash because they're a tax on your ammo/weapon durability, but it's not a very harsh tax. Green slimes in Crypt of the Necrodancer (Only sort of an RPG?). They're stationary, literally incapable of harming you, and they drop one gold. A heavily randomized game like Spelunky or Binding of Isaac will have enemies where not every instance of that enemy is a trash mob, as they can be placed in complicated rooms where they add to the challenge, but often you'll come across one or two simple enemies in a large empty room, and that will be an encounter with trash enemies. Trash enemies are pretty common in schmups, exactly how many there are depends on the game, but pretty much every game will have at least a couple.

Why do videogаmes have trash mobs? I was playing Dragon Age: Origins, and I opened a room in an undead-infested castle, to see two basic skeletons. It took me longer to order my party to attack than it took for my party to turn them into powder. They yielded about four copper pieces and five XP. Why do games have trivial encounters like that?

This is not a gif. I dare you to complain.

There is this recurring joke shared among me and my friends, which looks like this: We somehow fixate on a phrase and start doing wordplay with it until we exhaust pretty much every rhyming and vaguely-rhyming word, our explanations growing increasingly elaborate as we try to fit the more difficult words to the situation. The reason I bring this up is to ask A: Does anyone else do this, and B: Is there a name for it? We recently realized we have no idea what to call this activity, and we couldn't figure out a good one.

Having beaten them with a lightly-armoured slow-weapon character before, I didn't find poise to be an issue. Not because I had enough to tank their attacks, but because I wasn't getting hit mid-attack. I'd run around in circles until their pathing worked out such that Orenstein was in my face with Smough far behind, hit Orenstein once, repeat. Once you're down to electro-Smough, if you keep a pillar behind him and you, he's completely harmless and you can just wait for the pattern that leaves him exposed for several seconds during which you run in, score a few hits, then retreat back to the safety of the intervening pillar.