Twig

Oh man oh boy oh man. I keep forgetting about Fables. And don't they have King's Quest, too? OH MAN OH BOY OH MAN. Also! Does this mean I have an almost chance if I apply again? MMMMMH.

It sits pretty well with the rest, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe it's just weird to you 'cause Axe looks and sounds nothing like Gene Wilder? I DUNNO.

Thought it did. I remember hearing about it before the PC version came out, but it must've been a preview.

Why does it have to add anything? Why does he have to be impactful? This is what I keep saying! Who cares if it adds anything? It's just this weird dude who can for whatever unimportant reason give you magical powers. This amuses me. Also, I guess you didn't bother exploring? Because he definitely shows up more than just two times, if you bother collecting the runes... And it's always with the attitude of, "I didn't have to make you powerful, but I did. Why? Because it's fun!" EDIT: Actually he does sometimes warn you, like telling you Granny Rags is dangerous, but that's kind of whatever.

He talks like an idiot? In the third person, sure, but I wouldn't call it idiot-speak. He clearly knows words and is at least marginally not-stupid. The third-person angle is just a weird mannerism they gave him for whatever reason.

I wonder if Rockstar realizes that their PC sales would probably be much more impressive if they bothered with simultaneous releases. Ugh it's so frustrating. Doesn't GTA4 have built in YT uploading? Even on consoles? Although, I guess that's not a "let's play" thing, that's a "watch this cool stunt I recorded in-game" thing.

SO EXCITEMENT!

But that's what I mean. That's why he's so great, because he doesn't really give a fuck beyond giving you powers and watching what you do with them. Why does he need to be fleshed out? He's just this powerful being playing with toys. Why does there need to be an explanation? I mean, he could've been better. I'm not saying it was done well. But it's probably the best part of the STORY, for me. (That is, not the world.) I think it might've helped, too, if he wasn't such an Unreal-engine puppet, just standing still the entire time he was talking. When will game developers as a whole learn that you need to ANIMATE when you're animating? There are definitely some developers that understand this well, but they're few in number.

He says it when killing people. Axe is one of the best voices. I say that, but I really do like most of the lords' lines quite a bit.

I'm probably one of those people. Don't hate. ): But not really, based on that specific question you linked. U:

I... I made this, when I was first teaching myself how to do pixel art. like four or five years ago. I'm fond of it, flaws and all. U: I should maybe try doing art again. I always tell myself I should start TODAY but then I don't. STORY OF MY LIFE.

See, I like the Outsider guy. It amuses me to think that there's this all-powerful dude who just likes to fuck with people, giving them powers for no reason other than his own enjoyment, and that's literally it. There always has to be some huge motive for these guys in fiction, but I like that the Outsider doesn't actually have one. The Outsider is probably the best part of the story.

I know! I'm kind of excited. The one following that is more story, though. Also, I guess now that I think about it, they are going the way of "this choice is canon", as you can easily kill Daud. Unless the second DLC is supposed to be a "prequel" or whatever.

Yeah if you go low chaos, you get a good ending. If you go high chaos, you get a bad ending. There are also smaller things that affect the ending, too, like whether or not you rescue Piero/Sokolov from the onslaught, and... whether or not you kill Samuel, I guess! If you reach the last level with high chaos, it's also significantly different. In high chaos, the three guys who betrayed you will be fighting over Emily. In low chaos, Havelock will have simply poisoned the other two. But more importantly, Samuel is pissed at you for being a ruthless killer, and shoots a gun to alarm the guards. I killed him before he could get the shot off! OH! Yeah, and I guess you can just kill Emily. O: I saved her even in the bad ending. So that's another thing! That's the BAD bad ending.

This is what I would want. The good/bad endings ARE kind of severely different. It'd be super dumb to base the next game off of one or the other. It wouldn't be the first game to pick one ending and declare it canon, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Not to mention that some of what you propose, Mington, would not match the ending future-timefreeze-scenes. I mean, hell, I killed Samuel in my second, super-fast, super-violent playthrough, and the ending took that into account! (In a most hilarious fashion, of course. Corvo standing over his grave, like, "poor guy".) EDIT: On a second readthrough, you're clearly being at least partially intentionally ridiculous. Phew. Although, honestly, I just kind of want the Metal Gear Solid: VR Missions equivalent of Dishonored. I'm willing to bet I enjoyed the story more than most people, but it's still kind of... not good? The world was excellent, but the story was really cliche and lame. Just give me a bunch of challenges - some completely realistic within the context of the game, and some utterly outrageous, like the godzilla-sized guard in VR Missions - and I'll be pretty pleased. The most bestest pleased! U:

Well, they talked about Dishonored on this and the past three episodes. They frequently enough talk about Dota 2. There was also XCOM for a time. U:

Yeah it is!

Ahhhh, well, I completely misunderstood how it worked. Thanks for explaining it. U: Actually, thinking on it with this new clarification, I now better understand the reverse ripples. I should've realized it, then, as I am familiar with the concept, but I just didn't bother thinking about it at the time. I'm dumb! That's what I get for watching the video while distracted by other things.

I have this really bizarre problem, with the Idle Thumbs forums exclusively, when I am writing a post. I may have mentioned it before, but with some uncertainty as to whether it was the forums or my computer. Now I've encountered it on three separate machines. All with Windows 7 and Chrome, and I can't imagine I'm the only one with that combination! PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Sometimes, when I go to delete stuff from the post, the cursor will randomly jump to another spot in the text area, resulting in shifting characters, and deleting characters I never wanted to touch! ...Does anyone have any ideas?

Well, you called the car example "bullshit", which sort of implies it would be a complete waste of time. If that wasn't your intention, then I retract that notion! You sure about that? If we can do 1,000,000,000,000, why couldn't we add three more zeroes to the end, some day? Is there some physical limiting factor of which I'm unaware? Anyway, sorry again if that post was overly hostile. I kind of get a little overexcited when thinking about future technology.

I'm referring to algorithmically filtering noise from signal, given the data received by the camera. A bit more than a frequency filter. Ideally, you'd also have more than one camera/beam, operating at different frequencies, allowing for more information generated and received. Why can't computers perform bandpass filtering (as I understand it from a quick internetting)? Assuming the camera can supply the necessary information, I don't see any reason why a computer couldn't just ignore irrelevant data. And, even if the camera can't supply that information, there definitely exist cameras (or is it just the lens) that only receive certain frequencies of light - ala infrared cameras. I admit I have very little knowledge of optics. U: Anyway! I'm not saying it'd be easy, or even possible (certainly not with our current level of technology). But you're straight up denying the possibility? Technology advances in ways we never see coming, sometimes. Whether it's someone developing a trillion-frames-per-second camera or discovering a new way to simulate an already heavily-researched lighting technique in graphics or finding the newest, known, farthest-away galaxy or using a warped piece of glass to SEE that galaxy or what-ev-er... How long ago was it that no one even thought high-speed photography would be possible? And now we have this? I mean, robotics - a field in which this problem probably could easily fit - is hard. It's just incredibly hard. But if people sat around talking about how impossible shit was all the time, we wouldn't have running robots or robots that can navigate obstacles or flying robots or whatever. These things are kind of impressive, but also kind of super simple. These are things we, as human beings, take for granted - 'cept maybe flyin' - because our brains are magical. But it still somehow manages to be impressive! It's only going to get better as time goes on. How, given everything we've done with science thus far, how many supposed limits we've surpassed, how can you be so pessimistic? At the very least, it never hurts to try. Failure breeds just as much knowledge and experience as success (if not more!) needed to actually make it WORK the next time around. BURRRRR I hope this doesn't sound too hostile! It might. I'm tired, and I'm also playing a bit of a devil's advocate (although, strangely, on the optimistic side, rather than the pessimistic). U:

Computers can be pretty good at filtering out noise from signal.

You guys know there are different frequencies of light, right. Like, infrared vs ultraviolet, etc. I don't know if the tech will ever reach that kind of level - and kind of doubt it - but the idea isn't completely out of the question, as far as I know.

Taco Bell. Delicious! Utter trash.

Delicious trash, is what it is. It doesn't have to be Good Food to be goddamn tasty.