SuperBiasedMan

I'm... not sure if this matters that much to your point, but I'm not saying a small subset of people with dietary issues. I'm talking about the majority of people having an unhealthy relationship with food which I've repeatedly seen in popular media. ie. 'Natural good food is what you're supposed to eat but tastes shite, manufactured chemical food is sorta bad for you I guess but tastes REALLY good so who cares?' Even if someone isn't suffering from any issues, they can make bad dietary choices from this pervasive mentality. I feel the need to emphasise, I'm looking at this as a social issue like racism or sexism. I don't want to support the work of media that spreads harmful ignorance of an issue, so I take it into consideration when giving anyone support. (this isn't the reason I don't follow Giantbomb but it doesn't convince me to give them another shot)

I meant to put that in inverted commas for what it's worth. I just feel like food is an important thing too, you could also say no-one will see Dan's racially ignorant comments and take them as gospel but that's not the same as having no effect. How much you think food matters depends on you but given the epidemic of bad diets in our countries you can hardly say it's not a social issue even if it's one that mostly affects the person themself rather than others. Also I'm not saying he has to be responsible either, I just think this form of ignorance is another reason I don't like the sound of him as a media personality.

To be fair, TV is the medium where a lot of shows can operate in an arrested development of endlessly cycling through situations without actual progress on the 'main plot' and only having significant change when forced to for ratings or something like that. I don't know what the early 90's TV landscape looked like, but if TP debuted this year made by some unknown names, I could believe it would get overly drawn out.

I guess this is a different viewpoint but I feel like food stuff IS a thing that matters for him to say nonsense about... I mean. is not nutritional advice that should be spread by this dude, especially since I have to assume a lot of younger people would watch these? And let's face it, English speaking western world has a really shitty approach to food as it is.

That'll go perfect then with the suitsy.

I mostly have a background in just Javascript and I'm now in a course for Java where I'm learning the more grown up aspects. I'm thinking that when I have a bunch more time over Christmas I'm gonna try burning through some of these episodes and see how well I can follow them so I have more of a breadth of how programming works.

Thinking about my first time watching. I feel like I never tried hard to figure it out, I mostly distrusted the idea that it's Leo and waited for the show to reveal itself. So I am very curious to see what others think.

That is precisely what I wish more games did. I think it would feel like an unpopular choice because people like the feedback of being told they're level X in archery, and also to some people that complicates a game or males it harder when the necessary information for min maxing is obscured. But overall I think games going that way would be better, less informed players have to think and consider more instead of constant feedback that's more about making them feel good than any informing. I'd like to see how you tackle this Clyde, and now I want to bear it in mind going forward... I guess I could mention I'm starting Rami Ismails game a week challenge. I'll occasionally post intermittent updates/links to my tumblr for it but expect a frequent feed of broken game prototypes.

I dunno, maybe a lot of it is mentally but if I were to move home for example, all my friends would live 2 hours away, all potential employers for careers would be two hours away. Because of the people my parents are, I would be giving up a significant amount of independence and individual choice of how to live my moment to moment life. I like visiting my parents, but I get tired of it after a week. So it really does feel like the only reason I would move home is if I was forced to financially and as a result would have to try and adapt my life to a less productive setting. Also about the tax, I didn't earn enough from freelancing to have to pay any tax in the first place. As an employee you can get emergency taxed and stuff here, but when self employed they just sent me tax forms at the end of the year to fill out and when I sent them in they assessed me and said I was good with pay. But thanks for the heads up, had I been taxed that'd certainly be a nice Christmas bonus!

Turns out that if you earn money from self employment (as an internet freelancer) while unemployed, ALL the money you earned is projected forward as a reduction to your welfare payment so that essentially you have earned nothing. Even worse than that, if the amount you're earning decreases then you've actually lost yourself money since they only reassess you after a period of months so you're living with an overly high deduction on your payments until you can get them to reassess you and restore the money you've been not getting. I wish it at least surprised me that the system deincentivising work was more than just disgruntled rhetoric but frankly I've been in this system enough to know that it's not about incentivising me to work, it's about being obligated to give people money while they try to move them out of the "Unemployed" column and into any other column they possibly could, whether the column is "Living in another country", "poorly internship" or "Gave up on life and moved home with parents"*. * No, I don't think living with parents is automatically giving up on life by any means, but if it's a move made out of desperation and lack of opportunities it's not a positive choice that lets you move forward with life. Especially if by moving there you'll be further away from career prospects, learning opportunities and potential networking.

I just keep forgeting how convoluted the mill plot is, but you're right. Yeah, it felt like the writers saying it to us (which still seems a bit weird given how much the rest of this finale was meant to hook viewers with uncertainty) but really he's unconclusive. Though, at the same time, I've always found that his suspicious activities have been pretty benign if you accept the idea that he did... 'innocently' love Laura and his erratic behaviour is mostly an act for the sake of others (either for the benefit of his patients or because he finds it to be an effective method of getting through life).

I like how Leo demonstrates how just useless he is as a hired goon meant to create an 'accident' by both trying to burn Shelley in there too and also leaving an alarm clock fuse system. I guess Ben Horne assumed it wouldn't matter how bad a job he did if Leo was killed in the end? I really didn't get why James deduced that Jacoby didn't murder Laura in their 'investigation'. "He didn't kill her, he tried to help her." ...what makes James deduce that based on this tape but not the other one they heard? Also the scene with Pete and Catherine has a great background element of the two dudes gawking in at them through the window and constantly moving each time Pete closes blinds, as if each time they hope that he'll forget about them and stop. And lastly

I don't see the point of playing what is arguably the most interactive medium we have today and then getting hung up on not making choices the designer didn't intend. Also since I just realised I never responded apart from a cheeky devil's advocate question... I think it's a reasonably design choice for outside searching to be necessary, but it can make me engage less with the game if I'm doing it instead of discovering/solving a problem I just get someone else to tell me, especially if what I find seems like a ridiculous thing I would never have gotten through by myself without a lot of effort. I have caused some games to wane a little in my mental estimation due to deciding that I'd rather just find out what I'm missing and move on, but equally I've saved myself grief and frustration in other games I probably would've abandoned had I not checked a guide. It seems to repeatedly come up in anything adventure game-y where I don't even know if I have all the necessary items and have no interest in searching through all the screens again for the thing I missed, if there even IS one. It may be a bit of an influence that I almost never played adventure games as a child and also really don't like indirect control systems but I'm just not that patient with most games because most don't deserve it. And if I'm going to go on at all, it's a lot easier to do that after a minute or two of consulting a guide.

I'm very interested. I wonder if more of a structure or some form of incentive to push people into posting stuff would help. If it was a totally formless compilation I could imagine it being held back by the bystander. Off the top of my head I could imagine the idea being that there might be a vague theme just to get people thinking about it. There's probably better ways to do it but I think a level of structure would help. As for names, Too Many Thumbs Spoil the Jam? (I don't have good ideas for names)

It's disgraceful that this is the case. #LevelGate

Isn't it a reboot when it's about bringing back a franchise that was previously popular but is not currently running? Not a reboot like a computer where it restarts, a reboot like you're kicking an engine that died down to get it going again so you can go further.

Oooh! ...goddamnit. Turns out this is over there only. It's €10 here, which is still cheap and 75% off but a less justifiable totally impulse purchase for me. What percent off is it there? Surely the game isn't normally just $20.

Clearly they contain subliminal advertising... Weirdly I feel strange deja vu like I've heard someone tell this exact kinda story before? Anyone else feelin' that?

My laptop is a piece of crap that sometimes has trouble with HD Netflix but it runs Unity fine until I start instantiating hundreds of game objects.

Basically, making him asian is an equivalent tactic to GamerGate creating #NotYourShield. You invoke an unprivileged minority in order to claim that your problematic portrayal is ok because it's not being enacted by white privileged males. BUT 1) The actual message is being constructed by privileged people. 2) Just because a minority does something problematic does not absolve the action.

This is 100% accurate, I think my brain just skimmed that appearance and assumed he was some minor character because he's on screen Super Briefly and (despite having seen it before) I was half expecting a french caricature.

Meteos was great! I loved the weird take on having a simple puzzle game with physics influencing it and it got super hard in late game. Also I don't know if anyone else will hear it but

As far as I remember he was often referenced but I just don't remember seeing him on screen and knowing in my brain that it was him. IMDB doesn't list him as being in the pilot, (unless there's a weird separate pilot page I can't find) so I think he was just meant to be existing off camera for that episode at least.

Also I love when Jacqueas Renault is finally revealed on screen we get a schlubby american looking guy instead of a suave French criminal to match the exotic name. Actually according to wikipedia he was also back in episode 4, did I just miss him then or was that a not full appearance? EDIT: See below for an explanation on why this post is entirely wrong.