Rbz Posts
Data Zero wrote...
Bull
Fucking
Shit!
Btw Long War mod?
Maybe, I just get this shit off the net.
Spoiler:
Data Zero wrote...
Hate those bastards. Love the moment when he jumped to map and got blasted to shite by 3 overwatch troops.
Back on the lamia point.
Can anyone tell me the difference between these two images?
You fucking can't.
Can anyone tell me the difference between these two images?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
You fucking can't.
Spoiler:
You know, all this talk about siblings just makes me harder. Play Hoshido for proper incest.
Spoiler:
The jap milf is actually mom. What's that, dick? Yea, I don't give a shit either. We are of one mind.
Spoiler:
>Sticking your dick in gold digging crazy
Highly likely, since I'd reload right after seeing her snuggle scene.
As a side note, this game sounds almost exactly like Words Worth. Good shit; recommend watching it at least once.
Let us depart, comrade.
Ikimashou, Dogmeat-chan
This is the only excitement I can muster for the game at the moment. Bethesda's asking for pre-orders and we don't even know what the fucking release date is.
Spoiler:
Ikimashou, Dogmeat-chan
Spoiler:
This is the only excitement I can muster for the game at the moment. Bethesda's asking for pre-orders and we don't even know what the fucking release date is.
All I care about is who's making the fucking thing. If it's not Obsidian, the only dev that can be trusted with Fallout, then I'm missing this train.
Lamia porn. So that's what XCOM's been missing. Good to know the snakemen have a waifu, those slimy snipe-you-with-an-overgrown-pistol cunts.
If that triggered you, you've played Enemy Within.
Spoiler:
If that triggered you, you've played Enemy Within.
WideEyedMan wrote...
I'd love to horad those 100+ wolf hidesHere's another point about the game I noticed, and you can trust me on this as my senses are more refined than Geralt's ability to distinguish the tit milk of a water hag from that of a noonwraith without a taste test: hoarding is completely fucking useless. There's just no good reason to play this game like skyrim. This stems from CDPR fucking the potion system, thus making hoarding just a means of torturing that teleporting horse. I keep a maximum of 10 of every unique crafting material and selling the excess fat, which makes me fit, healthy and rich, as the lard business is booming. Unless there's a schematic that demands at least 11 of a particular material, I posit that this strategy is a flawless method for inventory management.
I make an exception for alcohest. If a single bottle of that miracle vodka can refill all my potions and bombs, then the more wannabe ruskies I can save from a life of alcoholism and hitting on nekkers the better. (A bit of a lore note missing from the game. The reason these drunks fancy nekkers is because they believe they can get some sexy hickies.)
WideEyedMan wrote...
despite having an advantage of ten levelsOne thing I noticed is that levels don't mean shit. They're just there for setting arbitrary cutoff points that separate the bitches from bosses. What's that, an enemy is 6 levels higher than you? Come back in a level and their skin will no longer be made of adamantium.
What does mean shit is equipment. I've literally switched my weapons only 3 times despite getting a shit ton of schematics that I can't use and, while I'm level 9, they're still lvl 3. I mean for fuck's sake, this game is trolling me with a schematic for a lvl 37 lightsaber that'll be a 300+ damage upgrade to whatever kitchen knife I'm holding now. All this means is that I can't kill low level enemies any faster than I could before and higher level assholes are more tedious to deal with.
Yrden is still the best power. It was trash at first; a completely bastardized version of what it was back in W2, but that alt cast is the shit. Useful in literally any fight and practical as fuck. #Yrden4lyfe
WideEyedMan wrote...
Honestly the prologue was incredibly boringThat griffin battle was the best shit ever.
More on the combat. I'm on hard mode, and all that means to me is that combat means something. I've used every witcher sign without having to force myself to, thus, as far as I'm concerned the powers are well designed and balanced. Quickly adapting to the circumstances and utilizing what's best for the situation feels awesome. I remember believing quen was for casuals who didn't know how to dodge roll back in witcher 2, but I've been using the fuck out of it here and even figured out a way to utilize it as part of an ongoing assault. The best part of combat is successfully dodging attacks from packs of monsters, just dancing around the pricks, then charging with an attack toward one as a means of dodging another. This is all proper witcher shit (along with witcher sense), and since CDPR promised more witcher shit, this is a promise delivered upon. I need more griffin battles. Forget neckers, fuck drowners, screw ghouls, alghouls and the league of shadows. Nothing beats the combination of witcher shit with the thrill of fighting some big motherfucker that can wreck you in a few hits and has "special needs." Not the retarded kind, but the can't be beaten by just spamming attacks kind. Also, the gore is amazing. I get a chub just seeing Geralt finish off some fuckwit bandit with a good old decapitating backhand slice.
Am I the only asshole who extinguishes the lights people are using? For example, I just walk into an inn, look around for any trouble and notice all the lights are on. I swiftly assassinate these visual blemishes and leave to ride off like a badass into the sunset.
A resurrection for the massive erection I have for this (said for rhyme's sake) perfection.
Past the first area. The game's gorgeous, has amazingly detailed sound design and I have no problems with the combat. It, for the most part, plays just like Witcher 2. The game does suffer from Ubisoft design, where many points of interest are just copypasta. However, so far all the quests have been varied and interesting.
I don't understand this alchemy refill shit. I get CDPR wanted the console version to sell, but casualizing the game to such an extent? As far as I'm concerned Witcher 2's alchemy and potion drinking system is the canon system. You find the fucking ingredients, you make the potion, you drink that shit, then you wipe off the sweat from your brow, and it's gone. Go back to step 1. Refills are bullshit and it makes no fucking sense. Also, potions are fucked. Gone are the days where I can have a potion last for literally 30 minutes to an hour. No, now they last a handful of seconds and the only advantage of having a swallow to water is that swallow refills with alcohol.
This is tolerable for the most part. But what pisses me off to no end is the auto-sheathing, in case babby's first Witcher comes along and doesn't know how to fucking play the game. If I manually unsheath a sword, then that's the fucking sword I want to use. If it's not the right one, then that's on me. This is how the game should play, but instead Geralt auto-sheaths the correct sword upon engaging in battle and if I pick the wrong one myself he'll automatically switch swords like the helpful cunt he is. This continuous casualization bullshit will be the death of CDPR games. This seems like a trivial matter, but respecting player agency is of utmost importance to me. If a game tries to play on my behalf without my input then I wonder why I'm playing it in the first place. They better come out with a option to toggle that shit soon.
Other than that
Edit: I'm playing on mostly ultra settings, save for shadow quality and tree load distance which are on high. Not sure how bad the game looks on low. The flora probably resembles cardboard more.
Past the first area. The game's gorgeous, has amazingly detailed sound design and I have no problems with the combat. It, for the most part, plays just like Witcher 2. The game does suffer from Ubisoft design, where many points of interest are just copypasta. However, so far all the quests have been varied and interesting.
I don't understand this alchemy refill shit. I get CDPR wanted the console version to sell, but casualizing the game to such an extent? As far as I'm concerned Witcher 2's alchemy and potion drinking system is the canon system. You find the fucking ingredients, you make the potion, you drink that shit, then you wipe off the sweat from your brow, and it's gone. Go back to step 1. Refills are bullshit and it makes no fucking sense. Also, potions are fucked. Gone are the days where I can have a potion last for literally 30 minutes to an hour. No, now they last a handful of seconds and the only advantage of having a swallow to water is that swallow refills with alcohol.
This is tolerable for the most part. But what pisses me off to no end is the auto-sheathing, in case babby's first Witcher comes along and doesn't know how to fucking play the game. If I manually unsheath a sword, then that's the fucking sword I want to use. If it's not the right one, then that's on me. This is how the game should play, but instead Geralt auto-sheaths the correct sword upon engaging in battle and if I pick the wrong one myself he'll automatically switch swords like the helpful cunt he is. This continuous casualization bullshit will be the death of CDPR games. This seems like a trivial matter, but respecting player agency is of utmost importance to me. If a game tries to play on my behalf without my input then I wonder why I'm playing it in the first place. They better come out with a option to toggle that shit soon.
Other than that
Spoiler:
Edit: I'm playing on mostly ultra settings, save for shadow quality and tree load distance which are on high. Not sure how bad the game looks on low. The flora probably resembles cardboard more.
Fuck the usual suspects, all eyes should be on Bethesda. This is a hazing. Nice is not an option. The Bethesda monkeys will dance for my amusement and like it.
cruz737 wrote...
An eye for an eye is not an adequate comparison.But it is, in the sense that it and "intolerance for the intolerant is still intolerant" are both statements expressing some sort of value. When you read the eye for an eye statement you understand it has no relevance to anything you said in your post. It's just something people say when they want to express a value in a pithy manner. "Intolerance for the intolerant . . ." is also such a statement, which can be used in countless contexts that have nothing to do with anything you said. The early bird catches the worm. With great power comes great responsibility. No man is an island. Et cetera. What I did was examine the statement by itself, devoid of the context it was used in.
cruz737 wrote...
There is no logical way to take the statement itself and come to the conclusion that being for freedom of speech means you're okay with hate crimes.It isn't logical, and that's because I wasn't talking about any of that, as explained above. I'll use what you just wrote to demonstrate my point about that philosophical statement I outed: rejection of hate crime and the unwillingness to allow it to occur unchallenged is intolerance of intolerance, which in this case, is a good thing, I would think.
cruz737 wrote...
If someone said a slew of profanities about my race/ethnicity/identity/whatever, of course I can disagree, ignore, or tell them to fuck off. Maybe you're mistaking disagreeing as intolerance?Not disagreement in and of itself, but if you go out of your way to prevent yourself from being exposed to such a bigot, then you're exhibiting intolerance of they who are themselves intolerant, which, again, isn't a bad thing in this case.
cruz737 wrote...
Assuming you meant to write it in a way where it's not a death threat, would you have that "House Nigger" in your example be hauled of to jail?Nothing so extreme. Intolerance of his bigotry can be as simple as being censured and shamed by the rest of the community. BTW, it was inspired by a real world example (exaggerated for comedic effect). SJWs have convinced themselves that bigotry against whites and men is not bigotry.
Shit, if I ever go full SJW, then believe you me, I'll be the first in line to kill me.
cruz737 wrote...
Just because /b/ or other places use it for greentexting stories doesn't mean it wasn't meant to quote people.Oh, I'm well aware of how it's used on 4chan, but I was seriously wondering when it became a thing on fakku, because all of a sudden my text
>hulks the fuck up.
Also, I'm loving your ava. Palutena is fucking thick, just the way I like 'em. Reminiscent of this artist. My ava is basically a reaction image.
Spoiler:
cruz737 wrote...
>can't into reading comprehensionYeah except bringing up an unrelated crime isn't actually picking apart the argument.
You're practically committing a slippery slope fallacy.(with a bit of strawman thrown in there, because why the fuck not? Might as well go full SJW!)
Also
>It's the context, the "why" that matters
>I don't care why you wrote that pointless platitude
Yeah, okay. I hear you loud and clear.
More dense than a black hole. Let's go over this nice and slow.
You wrote: "Intolerance for the intolerant is still intolerant." This is a saying like "an eye for an eye makes the world blind," or, as Socrates once said, "move bitch, get out the way." A platitude trying to express some kind of philosophical idea. You then started going on about implying implications and how strawmen ride the slippery slope into your expectant buttocks as if I gave a shit about anything you said regarding gamergate. What I wanted for you to do was to separate that statement from the general thrust of your post, because I wasn't responding to, nor judging anything else you said. Taking the statement by itself, I was remarking on how fatuous a sentiment that the statement advocated was, then explained why with 'it's the context, the "why" that matters . . .' which you took out of context to contrive some gotcha moment. Oh, the ironing. I then concluded with an example of the statement's philosophy in practice (to demonstrate its absurd logical conclusions) with some contrived bullshit that, once again, had nothing to do with anything you said. Since you're hot for SJWs, let's concoct a satirical example with them:
TRIGGER WARNING: violence, slip n'slides, thought police
House Nigger: I'll [reprehensible behavior] all ya'll cracka ass crackas.
Whitey: Das raciss, bruh. I won't stand for that.
SJW:
>2015
>Not tolerating intolerance
>Not checking your privilege
>Muh safe spaces
Thus, being intolerant of intolerance isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor hypocritical. Regarding gamergate, I did not disagree with anything you said in your initial post. Imagine a bobblehead. For the brief moment I read your post, that was me.
>>greentexting
>It's called quoting.
My bad. That button I pressed to "quote" you must have been reprogrammed for targeted shitposting. The more I know.
Just to be clear about how I'm approaching this discussion, I despise modern feminism. You seem to think I'm arguing the feminist viewpoint.
Awkward way of wording that as you're talking about me, rather than at me, in a response to me. But I suspected as much that was what you meant and waited to let you clarify your position. To respond to that I will say that "quality" is not pertinent. The statistical trend is what matters in this discussion. That is,
This is one comment of yours that makes it seem as if you're not talking to me, as it has nothing to do with anything I ever said.
Unsurprinsingly, males focused on some, whereas females did on others. So, genders seem to have "default preferred" type of games, which is not bad nor good, just different tastes.
I am not going to quote what TL;DR quote from the paper, but an overview is, male players tend to look for competitive, conflictive, violent type of games, say RPG, RTS, Fighting, etc games, whereas female players tend to look at problem solving, task completion, narrative, type of games, say Graphical Adventures, Puzzle Games, etc.
Knowing this, which I am sure is known by developers (or at least their companies) when they develop a figting game, they are going to target male players, so characters, specially female characters, are going to be sexualized.
Again, you're talking past me, not at me. I literally condensed everything that was just quoted from you into two sentences:
Later followed by my evaluation of that fact:
What isn't justified? It's not clear what you're declaring unjustified here.
Every one in his feminism playlist. They were good entertainment. I vidya while listening to long youtube videos.
The point was that women tend to play games that aren't focused on having a protagonist, which is why they're exposed to less sexualization.
Fair enough, I'm not saying everything I could on this matter either. I once wrote a great text wall of china essay on why sexualization in video games will never go away so long as human nature remains as is, so I know the amount of detail I'm leaving out of my posts for the sake of a modicum of brevity.
Again, I can't tell if you're actually directing this at me, as I couldn't give a fuck about the sexualization of any gender. But according to dipshit feminists, they think it degrades all women when a man "objectifies" a woman. You know, sees her as a sex object. Then they go on about the "male gaze" and whine some more about their stupid interpretation of reality. Unlike you, I'm very willing to dismiss this concern. Fact is, every straight man who sees an attractive woman is looking at her as a sex object; it's instinct. Sexualization in video games is just an extension of the human propensity to sexualize those they are attracted to in real life. Pornography is just an extreme form of sexualization. If porn isn't "a big deal" to these people then I don't see why sexualization in video games should be either.
>Can't into reading comprehension
It was an example to demonstrate the silliness of the line of thought I quoted from you. Nothing unflattering was implied about you personally.
Incidentally, I wanted to bring up Hitler, but he wouldn't return my call as he was too busy being summoned elsewhere. Fucker's always busy. You should hear how he argues with himself about this Godwin fella.
Go ahead and play moral and thought police though.
Take a chizzle pizzle and listenizzle. I don't care why you wrote that pointless platitude, but being the pedantic cock that I am, I couldn't help but demonstrate the simple minded lack of nuance in that thinking. Again, I don't care what you were talking about when you said what I quoted, thus I quoted only the part to be addressed.
If anything, I blame myself for bringing it up in the first place. This is why I stay away from SD. The path to insanity is just a few clicks away.
Also, when the fuck did greentexting becoming a thing here? I remember the good old days when I had to manually sexify my language.
idmb22 wrote...
As Rbz pointed out, not every game is like TERA, but then again, what I was referring was that both characters get "equally sezualized" not in quantity but in qualityAwkward way of wording that as you're talking about me, rather than at me, in a response to me. But I suspected as much that was what you meant and waited to let you clarify your position. To respond to that I will say that "quality" is not pertinent. The statistical trend is what matters in this discussion. That is,
idmb22 wrote...
there are much more female sexualized characters than males.idmb22 wrote...
However, I really want to stress that a "female character" does not equate a "woman" or a "female player" in real life. As Cruz stated, at the end of the day, that is a fictional chatacter (be it male or female) which exists within the boundaries of whoever developed that wold.This is one comment of yours that makes it seem as if you're not talking to me, as it has nothing to do with anything I ever said.
idmb22 wrote...
Another important fact is that, the most "popular" or the most "advertised" game are games whose target market are male players, be it good or bad, that cannot be changed and it has been proven that "sex" sells, so it is not something you can really "enforce" or "control" as you would measure water for example.Unsurprinsingly, males focused on some, whereas females did on others. So, genders seem to have "default preferred" type of games, which is not bad nor good, just different tastes.
I am not going to quote what TL;DR quote from the paper, but an overview is, male players tend to look for competitive, conflictive, violent type of games, say RPG, RTS, Fighting, etc games, whereas female players tend to look at problem solving, task completion, narrative, type of games, say Graphical Adventures, Puzzle Games, etc.
Knowing this, which I am sure is known by developers (or at least their companies) when they develop a figting game, they are going to target male players, so characters, specially female characters, are going to be sexualized.
Again, you're talking past me, not at me. I literally condensed everything that was just quoted from you into two sentences:
I wrote...
Most games made on decent budgets are competitive and/or violent, which are the kinds of games most men like play. Naturally, some of the budget is spent on making sexy women to pander to men's sexuality or just because the developers themselves are men who like to see that kind of thing in their own games.Later followed by my evaluation of that fact:
I also wrote...
None of this is inherently wrong and I used the word "naturally" earlier because human expressions of sexuality will never go away.idmb22 wrote...
Another point to take into account is, generally, female players do not play RPGs, Fighting or similar games. Does this mean no female player play those games? Hell no! Does this mean it is justified? Hell no!What isn't justified? It's not clear what you're declaring unjustified here.
idmb22 wrote...
Not sure how many videos from TL;DR have you seen RbzEvery one in his feminism playlist. They were good entertainment. I vidya while listening to long youtube videos.
idmb22 wrote...
However, if we look at the other extreme, say Solitaire or Bejeweled, those do not rely characters to be played, or if they do, they tend to be something non-human or, at least, not sexualized characters, why?The point was that women tend to play games that aren't focused on having a protagonist, which is why they're exposed to less sexualization.
idmb22 wrote...
I do apologize if my previous post seemed short sighted, I just wanted to avoid this. :SFair enough, I'm not saying everything I could on this matter either. I once wrote a great text wall of china essay on why sexualization in video games will never go away so long as human nature remains as is, so I know the amount of detail I'm leaving out of my posts for the sake of a modicum of brevity.
idmb22 wrote...
Now I am wondering something, what makes female characterters sexualization a big deal? I am NOT trying to dismiss the concern, I am genuinely asking.Again, I can't tell if you're actually directing this at me, as I couldn't give a fuck about the sexualization of any gender. But according to dipshit feminists, they think it degrades all women when a man "objectifies" a woman. You know, sees her as a sex object. Then they go on about the "male gaze" and whine some more about their stupid interpretation of reality. Unlike you, I'm very willing to dismiss this concern. Fact is, every straight man who sees an attractive woman is looking at her as a sex object; it's instinct. Sexualization in video games is just an extension of the human propensity to sexualize those they are attracted to in real life. Pornography is just an extreme form of sexualization. If porn isn't "a big deal" to these people then I don't see why sexualization in video games should be either.
cruz737 wrote...
>being tolerant of people's views and opinions that oppose mine means I'm fine with murder>Can't into reading comprehension
It was an example to demonstrate the silliness of the line of thought I quoted from you. Nothing unflattering was implied about you personally.
Incidentally, I wanted to bring up Hitler, but he wouldn't return my call as he was too busy being summoned elsewhere. Fucker's always busy. You should hear how he argues with himself about this Godwin fella.
cruz737 wrote...
Maybe...just maybe I was talking about people making blacklist, or trying to stop any discussion from taking place. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to listen to a certain viewpoint or partake in a certain discussion, but there's a fair amount of people on multiple sides wanting to completely shut down someone else.Go ahead and play moral and thought police though.
Take a chizzle pizzle and listenizzle. I don't care why you wrote that pointless platitude, but being the pedantic cock that I am, I couldn't help but demonstrate the simple minded lack of nuance in that thinking. Again, I don't care what you were talking about when you said what I quoted, thus I quoted only the part to be addressed.
If anything, I blame myself for bringing it up in the first place. This is why I stay away from SD. The path to insanity is just a few clicks away.
Also, when the fuck did greentexting becoming a thing here? I remember the good old days when I had to manually sexify my language.
idmb22 wrote...
I can assure you it is not the case and that men and women are evenly sexualized in the same ridiculous way. XDDon't kid yourself. Men are sexualized a lot less, or do you only play games like Tera Online. Most games made on decent budgets are competitive and/or violent, which are the kinds of games most men like play. Naturally, some of the budget is spent on making sexy women to pander to men's sexuality or just because the developers themselves are men who like to see that kind of thing in their own games. I've noticed that japanese games tend to have more bishounen, or good looking men, than other games, but they're also more heavy handed in their sexualization of women. The japs have mastered titty jiggling technology. None of this is inherently wrong and I used the word "naturally" earlier because human expressions of sexuality will never go away, but don't bullshit yourself into thinking that there's some sort of parity to the sexual pandering. For every game you name that sexualizes men to a degree equal to or greater than women, I'll name at least 3 that focus on having more bonerific women.
cruz737 wrote...
2. Intolerance for the intolerant is still intolerant.What a stupid, simple minded philosophy. It's the context, the "why" that matters when being intolerant. Intolerance of intolerance is justified when the intolerance not being tolerated is, for example, bigotry or pernicious values.
"What's that, KKK, you want to kill black people? How intolerant of you, but we can't do anything about it because being intolerant ourselves would make us superficially seem like hypocrites."
Misaki_Chi wrote...
Spoiler:
I like you. You seem to be what modern feminists give lip service to being. Regarding the sexual attention you get while gaming: it's a biological thing for the most part. Men are just generally more aggressive when it comes to expressing their sexuality. Some are simply assholes about it.
Also
Misaki_Chi wrote...
I can't help I have a bubble but (-3-)See my avatar for more info. I'm just a simple man enslaved by hormonal impulses.
idmb22 wrote...
He is not really "anti-" anything.Doesn't need to be. His playlists on social justice and feminism are what I'm after. As long as he's logical and intellectually honest and consistent, all's well. Watched one vid and so far so good.
idmb22 wrote...
I am just going to leave this Spoiler:
Never seen this channel; thanks for recommending. Always on the lookout for good anti-feminist/social justice videos.
Chlor wrote...
She's also little more than an opportunistic conman.It's conWOman, you misogynistic pig porker. Check your fucking privilege.
I'll have you know I'm a card carrying member of The Patriarchyâ„¢ with a Shitlord score of 160.
