Yeah, that's the bad understanding I'm talking about. It's a purely surface level view of them, and it's not what makes them interesting or popular. There are plenty of games with that that suck, so it can't be the foundation of what Souls-likes are.

It's also a mechanic that Metroidvanias classically have too, so yeah...

As someone who, if anything, wants to gain weight, this has the inverse effect for me. Peanut butter is great because it's so dense with calories. (I try to avoid sugar though, but I don't think peanut butter has much added sugar, but I'll have to check next time I have some.)

I know I'm in the minority though. I'm a 6ft tall man who weighs ~125-130lb. I was stuck at 120 for a decade or more, and only recently have put on a couple more pounds. I don't have an eating disorder or anything, but I just struggle to put on weight, so my serving sizes personally for peanut butter are way higher than average.

Better than machines. The point of this is to filter the slop, or even things that resemble it, to train on and hide the slop better in the future.

Socrates? Is that you?

I'm not sure.aybe were all Socrates?

Maybe that was just them hitting on you. They were wondering if you were a gay woman or not. They were getting a feel for their chances.

I was about to say the same thing. Any Souls-like that actually understands the format is already a Metroidvania. Some think it has something to do with combat, or bonfires, but really it's the exploration that makes it soul-like.

Honestly, it's really just a new trendier way to call a game a Metroidvania. I can't think of any functional differences between the genres. Arguably, RPG mechanics, but many games using the Souls-like description don't have this, and Sekiro doesn't, so I think they're just two terms for the same genre. Metroidvania often has a 2D connotation, and Souls a 3D one, but they're both used for either.

The DNC establishment, not the party itself. There are many great candidates running under the party.

Honestly, this is still an argument in favor of it, in my opinion. Those people only have their opinions because they were normalized at one point in time. If they're angry with you then you did something right, and hopefully in the next generation that opinion will be even less normalized.

Is saying "they're just doing it out of desperation to feed their families" not a defence? If it isn't, I have no idea why you would say that. It seems the only reason would be to excuse their actions.

If they're doing it for the reasons you said, then yes, probably it'd be an example of the banality of evil. They are just doing their jobs to get paid. They aren't doing it to cause harm (according to you). It's not evil from malice. It's evil from not caring about the effects of their actions.

What do we do with evil people though? Surely we don't give excuses and allow them to continue doing evil acts. You seem to be saying we should do nothing.

Hey, you're saying you like reading, which is good, but you seem to be lacking in some areas. Look into "the banality of evil" as a starting point. I think you'll find it enlightening. You don't have to be doing something out of malice to be evil. I'd argue most evil is not done out of any form of hatred, but out of apathy or self-interest.

What do we do with evil people though?

Criminal prosecution?

Dude, they're working for the branch of the government in charge of law enforcement. What kind of criminal protection do you think they're going to face? The Nazis wouldn't have faced any prosecution without losing a war. When the justice system does not provide justice, what should be done?

At least you recognize things need to be fixed. Admitting this means you understand that the systems that you're hoping would hold them accountable will not do so. How do you intend to fix things if actions can't be taken to fix them? They won't be fixed by just recognizing the issue. Eventually the people have to decide that it's gone too far.

Yeah, after watching it, I mostly disagree with the Squad comparisons. It has FOBs, building, and logistics, like Squad, but most of the gameplay is pretty casual and very similar to Battlefield.

The weapons feel like Battlefield, with low recoil and everyone using full auto always. It also seems you're encouraged to just lob rockets and tank rounds at helicopters flying around. It's very Battlefield. You're a little slower than Battlefield, but there's no stamina or anything. It's very much an evolution of Battlefield, with some milsim elements, probably the most obvious being that you can't spawn on your squad, so respawns are expensive in time.

(It actually reminds me a lot of M.A.G., but there's very few who remember that.)

They still market with outrage, but not like this I'm pretty certain. The Netflix thing I believe is on purpose to generate outrage. They had people posting all over complaining that it's behind a paywall. You don't get marketing that good, even if you pay for it. The leak though? It doesn't feel like something they'd do.

Usually, yes, it's weird. One day a while back, a lot of my recent comments were all getting one downvote, and I was curious. Apparently one person was mad at something I said and went through my comment history to downvote things. There are times where it's somewhat useful to view, but obsessing over it is strange.

Humans are animals, but I get your point.

Definitely staged. What wife, upon discovering she's being cheated on, finds two friends to help her make a humourous sign like this, and then waits for them to be at McDonald's?

As for everything else? Who knows. These women do look more attractive than this man from behind, but it's hard to judge the entirety of a person from a picture, even if it's a good picture. I've seen less attractive people with more attractive people (though usually not multiple). There's a lot of ways to be attractive besides just looks.

Imagine exploring some caves and just wandering into one of these vaults...

I don't know if this is explicitly I Am Legend inspired, but it definitely has a lot of it in here. It's also doing its own thing. I like the style!

This should be encouraged. It is a useful tactic, and you can tell this because it's the tactic they use on us. You see all the things about not voting for a Democrat? Those aren't people abstaining from voting for moral reasons (at least originally, but it is spread by people who buy the message). It's spread because it keeps people from voting who would solidly be voting Democrat.