Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for yuastnav

Real Name yuastnav   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Jun 25, 2010, 15:17
Total Comments 749 (Apprentice)
User ID 55800
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Older >


News Comments > No PC Halo 4 Because It's "Designed Specifically for Xbox 360"
77. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 7, 2012, 13:57 yuastnav
 
Meh, Halo was okay. Nothing special but I wouldn't call it forgettable because I am a sucker for Power Armour and the world/enemies actually looked nice, too.
The shooting was good, the regenerating shield makes as little sense as regenerating health (but for different reasons since there is no scientific basis how such a shield works) but I would've liked non-regenerating health anyway.

I agree with Beamer, though. The multiplayer was the part of the game that I had the most fun with. It was a really fun experience although the Banshee dogfights were kind of anticlimatic because, since they had the same turn rate, you would circle around each other and nothing would happen. Though it could be intense since the slightest mistake could give your opponent an advantage and kill you.
I also remember that you could shoot people out of the Banshees with the sniper rifle but I do not know whether that was actually true or part of my imagination.

This comment was edited on Nov 7, 2012, 14:02.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Linux Beta Applications
4. Re: Steam Linux Beta Applications Oct 31, 2012, 18:28 yuastnav
 
Four years ago I would have signed up without the hint of a second thought.
Don't have the time to play (many) videogames nowadays. Shame.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Valve on Linux Plans
26. Re: Valve on Linux Plans Oct 30, 2012, 05:47 yuastnav
 
Riker wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 21:01:
I'm curious to see where it goes. For now, Linux remains too fucking ugly and user-unfriendly for me to care about it.

Haha I think the same thing about Windows. Every time I have to solve some kind of problem (which happens with an increasing rate) I think to myself "How can anyone properly use this? This is usability hell."
I never really understood that argument and I've been using Windows twice as long as Debian.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On Sale
13. Re: On Sale Oct 19, 2012, 12:06 yuastnav
 
nin wrote on Oct 19, 2012, 12:04:
I think you found your problem.


Not really because I still don't understand how Valve managed to failed again.
If they can inlcude restrictions into their store surely they can do it for the main page. Anything else would just be lazy. :/
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On Sale
11. Re: On Sale Oct 19, 2012, 12:03 yuastnav
 
nin wrote on Oct 19, 2012, 11:46:
yuastnav wrote on Oct 19, 2012, 11:41:
I still don't get this. It says that Sleeping Dogs is 50% off but it actually isn't. At least not for me and apparently for other people, too.
How did Steam manage to fail again?

http://imgur.com/NPdY5


http://imgur.com/gxmzf
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On Sale
9. Re: On Sale Oct 19, 2012, 11:41 yuastnav
 
I still don't get this. It says that Sleeping Dogs is 50% off but it actually isn't. At least not for me and apparently for other people, too.
How did Steam manage to fail again?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On Sale
7. Re: On Sale Oct 19, 2012, 05:50 yuastnav
 
Jerykk wrote on Oct 18, 2012, 23:15:
How is Risen 2 a horror game..? Not sure why it's included in the sale. Still, $17 is a great deal if you enjoyed Gothic 1, 2 and Risen.

Ah, here we disagree. I loved Gothic 1 and 2, Gothic 1 is probably my most favourite game ever. I played them to death.
And that is why I didn't really like Risen and will probably not play Risen 2 (I played a bit of the beta and didn't like it) - because it is just more of the same and nothing new.
PB's performance has been disappointing lately and the route they have taken with Risen 1/2 is not to my liking. Though I am probably in the minority on this one.


Hmm, looks like I can actually get Dead Island on GMG (not available on Steam because I live in Germany) which means that I will have to use VPN to circumvent the activation on Steam.
Not sure whether I'd really want to do that...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Chaos on Deponia Trailer
3. Re: Chaos on Deponia Trailer Oct 14, 2012, 05:37 yuastnav
 
I bought it and never finished it, mostly because I agree with the RockPaperShotgun review on this one in the sense that the puzzles don't make any sense. Instead of having fun I was frustrated most of the time and eventually just used a walkthrough because many of the puzzles were just stupid and weird. :/

The main character is really annoying and that not in a charming way.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Chris Roberts' Star Citizen Announced
94. Re: Chris Roberts' Star Citizen Announced Oct 12, 2012, 19:28 yuastnav
 
Looks interesting but also kinda fishy.

Guess I'll just wait for X Rebirth then. At least I can expect with a fairly high probability that it's going to be awesome, just like its predecessors.

This just seems to ambitious (and maybe even uncertain what it actually wants to be).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
10. Re: etc., etc. Oct 4, 2012, 05:25 yuastnav
 
Foxnews, ladies and gentlemen.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
112. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Oct 2, 2012, 15:23 yuastnav
 
netnerd85 wrote on Oct 2, 2012, 14:12:
yuastnav wrote on Oct 2, 2012, 13:55:
Generally speaking having traditions is a bad idea because it implants a certain way of thinking and hampers the progression of society.
I disagree strongly. Anyone can create their own family tradition and it shows respect for previous generations. Traditions generally mean something to someone or a group of people. There is a time to let go of old traditions that mean nothing after time.

Thanks giving, Christmas, mothers day, bucks night are all traditions. Are these bad? No way.

Are you just saying traditions are bad because of religious traditions?
[...]

Maybe I am just a bit disillusioned because people hold up traditions very high. What really gets to me is when people use this as an actual argument.
"Why are we doing this?"
"Because it's a tradition, of course!"
NO! This is so irrational and wrong in my opinion. :/
I just don't like this kind of reasoning, so I'm just a bit jaded in that respect. You can have traditions, of course, but there should be at least a reason for why you have this tradition other than that it's a tradition.
I think what I wrote is rather extreme so I take it back a little bit, but I'll stay by saying that there better be a good reason for a tradition other than that it's a tradition.

[edit]
Sadly I cannot rationalise all of my reasoning because I actually like christmas but cannot think of any non-religious reason why it should exist.
A holiday for people to get together, have a good time, give each other presents and eat heartily is not a very good reason because everyone should be free to do so on any day they choose so I'm kinda stumped on this one. :/

netnerd85 wrote on Oct 2, 2012, 14:12:
yuastnav wrote on Oct 2, 2012, 13:55:
[...]
As that I am very opposed to the idea of marriage but it doesn't look like it's going away.
Why? What's wrong with marriage? What happened for you not to believe in the idea?

I just find it really strange that people need religious or governmental assurance that they live together. If people want to live together - that's fine! They can even have a ceremony and what not!
But why do people need this assurance?
For example there are people who may only want to live together for a certain amount of time but when they start their relationship they don't know that yet and marrying just adds another unnecessary layer i.e. when they finally find out they don't like each other they need a divorce and this just creates more problems.
Or polygamous relationships. For some reason this is looked down upon in many societies (I myself don't like polygamy but that is just my preference, there is nothing wrong if other people are okay with it) and this also is not encompassed by marriage. And it would also be difficult to do so.
People should be alive to live how they like and with whomever they like, so as long as all parties are comfortable with this arrangement, without having the need of such an, as I see it, artifical reassurance like marriage.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
104. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Oct 2, 2012, 13:55 yuastnav
 
D-Rock wrote on Oct 2, 2012, 13:01:
yuastnav wrote on Oct 2, 2012, 12:38:
The question is not why gay people should be able to marry.
The question is why the hell it is forbidden for them to marry in the first place. That sounds like an arbitrary law, why not get rid of it?

Marriage in this country has religious influenced origins and has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. I'd say that clear definition makes it more than just arbitrary. That's obviously changing and the issue at hand makes the question of why gay people should be able to marry the most important question. The answer to that question will ultimately determine whether or not it becomes legal.

If it's important to you, why not take the time to positively influence someone who's indifferent?

But if it has religious influence then it is arbitrary. For there are many different flavours of religion and they probably define it all in a different way. Apart from that there are also most likely cultures that either didn't have strong, religious influences and therefore didn't have religiously influences marriages or where marriage was separate from religion altogether.
So again: giving it religious influence and therefore making it just a bond between males and females makes it really arbitrary because instead of basing it on equality and freedom and other democratic values it bases it on a particular, outdated and archaic interest.

Generally speaking having traditions is a bad idea because it implants a certain way of thinking and hampers the progression of society.
As that I am very opposed to the idea of marriage but it doesn't look like it's going away. As far as I am aware married couple still get benefits when it comes to taxes (of course that may differ from country to country) and there is no reason why gay couples should be denied that freedom.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
95. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Oct 2, 2012, 12:38 yuastnav
 
D-Rock wrote on Oct 2, 2012, 12:33:
[...]
Marriage is a concept that is becoming less of a necessity in our society. No, it's not dead, but relationships outside of marriage are perfectly acceptible in our society. That's why I want to know more about what people see as a benefit to same sex marriage. Either way, I don't care, it's just out of curiousity.

The question is not why gay people should be able to marry.
The question is why the hell it is forbidden for them to marry in the first place. That sounds like an arbitrary law, why not get rid of it?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
92. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Oct 2, 2012, 12:29 yuastnav
 
at least it's now easy to find out what nicks cartman would use on the internet just by looking at this thread  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > A Valley Without Wind 2 Announced; Free for Owners of Original
6. Re: A Valley Without Wind 2 Announced; Free for Owners of Original Oct 1, 2012, 18:36 yuastnav
 
As much as I loved the game while I was playing it I cannot really disagree with the points you made.
It really is kind of a mess and man did it get repetetive after a while but when everything was still new it was so much fun just going out there and exploring the world, finding out new stuff etc.

I didn't even know you could get buildings as loot.
The way the base building metagame worked was that you could go to a screen where you could see the whole map and look at your settlements. These settlments would consist of squares which you could building buildings on. All NPCs that lived in the settlments had a number of action points per turn and you could order them to either go explore a cave and bring back other NPCs or make them build stuff or just chop up wood and what not.
The weird thing is that you could move around freely during your turn but for anything to happen you needed to end a turn and begin another one.

So again - it was messy and it probably wasn't such a great idea that they changed around the concept so much during the beta (afaik they released new versions almost daily), it almost looked like as if they didn't really think it through.
On the other hand they were really, really great when it came to fixing bugs and implementing new ideas (as I said: patches came almost daily) and they wanted to make a good game.

So I really hope it works out this time.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > A Valley Without Wind 2 Announced; Free for Owners of Original
1. Re: A Valley Without Wind 2 Announced; Free for Owners of Original Oct 1, 2012, 12:33 yuastnav
 
Sounds interesting.

I loved the first game but I played it mostly when they released the first public beta (for pre-orders) about a year ago and wasted a lot of time on it.
When the game was finally released I wasn't interested any more.

But I'm still intrigued about the changes they want to implement into the second game.
I really liked the base-building meta-game but from what I understand it was completely removed in one of the updates. Or am I mistaken?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
48. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Oct 1, 2012, 12:30 yuastnav
 
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 12:01:
yuastnav wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 11:52:
It does not speak in your favour that you seek out this topic only to complain about how you are annoyed by its mere existence.

Oh sorry forgot to take my politically correct pills this morning. Gay people are just that people, like anyone else. Just because they like to bump uglies with the same gender doesn't make them special snowflakes who deserve their own "gaming convention"

Last I checked sexual orientation had zero to do with video games. All this is, is another cry for attention. Who gives a shit who they like to shack up with?

Listen to yourself, "They deserve protection" If they didn't have the need to constantly announce "We're gay pay us extra attention" No one would care in the first place

Political correctness does not exist so I am not even sure what you are trying to say.
Anyway, being homosexual certainly does not make them special, I agree with that part of the sentence, but I do not understand the second one. What does that have to do with making a gaming convention? Why should they not be allowed to make a gaming convention?
Most gaming conventions are targeted at the white, heterosexual males so the argument that "heterosexuals" should also have their own convention is not really invalid. From what I understand heterosexuals are still permitted to attend a homosexual convention and vice versa but that still does not explain why oh why homosexuals cannot make their own convention.

Then you are saying that this is all just a cry for attention. I do not see it this way but I would like to understand your position and therefore ask why you see it like that. Why do you think that's a cry for attention?
I really don't get this. They are just announcing a convention for homosexuals. So what? Big deal. Why are you then so upset about this?
I mean: if you don't care then you can ignore it. Right? It does not even inconvenience you in any way.

c.f. Verno's post concerning the last point.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
45. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Oct 1, 2012, 11:52 yuastnav
 
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 11:44:
yuastnav wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 11:39:
RailWizard wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 11:25:
Verno wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 11:03:
RailWizard wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 10:35:
Verno wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 09:15:
Person on internet tries to handwave away their amusing homophobia, news at 11.

I neither fear gays nor want to be gay. Fucking amusing how often that's get thrown in there, like that just explains everything. It also completely defies logic, but don't let that stop you....

Education and social upbringing usually explain things actually but that's neither here nor there. In this case, you completely misunderstand what homophobia actually means. It's not just about being afraid, it's about irrational attitude and prejudice.

Yeah right, and that's exactly what everyone means when they use the term. Play stupid now.

Okay okay. You are not homophobic but homomisic.
Better? :)

So basically anyone who doesn't treat gay people as a entitled special interest group is either a homophobe or homomisic?

No but everyone who hates gay people is either homophobic or homomisic. Just as the words say. :)
Of course this only pertains to people who hate gay people because they are gay, i.e. a person could hate gay people but he may be just a misanthrope in which case he would hate all people and hate gay people for existing but not for being gay.

Sexuality is special in the sense that no person has any control over what one's sexuality is (even though some people on this site are of the misguided and uscientific opinion that this is not so) and as a minority it needs a certain amount of protection as long as such irrational behaviour like focused hatred towards homosexuality exists.

It does not speak in your favour that you seek out this topic only to complain about how you are annoyed by its mere existence.
This is a peculiar behaviour because a certain sexuality, or a lack thereof, is inherent to every person alive and some people are annoyed by that.

Allow me to demonstrate this through an analogy (yes, I can see the irony): If there was a group of people who could not survive in this atmosphere and had to wear a breathing mask all the time and they decided to make a gamer convention for exactly this group of people - naturally they would advertise this to get as many as people, sort of to create a safe haven where they would not have to wear these masks and what not. Would you also, as someone who breathes a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen as well as a minor percentage of othe gases, be angry at them because "it does get a bit much at times"?

There was actually science ficiton novel by Arkadi and Boris Strugatsky that included a similar theme.

This comment was edited on Oct 1, 2012, 11:59.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
43. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Oct 1, 2012, 11:39 yuastnav
 
RailWizard wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 11:25:
Verno wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 11:03:
RailWizard wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 10:35:
Verno wrote on Oct 1, 2012, 09:15:
Person on internet tries to handwave away their amusing homophobia, news at 11.

I neither fear gays nor want to be gay. Fucking amusing how often that's get thrown in there, like that just explains everything. It also completely defies logic, but don't let that stop you....

Education and social upbringing usually explain things actually but that's neither here nor there. In this case, you completely misunderstand what homophobia actually means. It's not just about being afraid, it's about irrational attitude and prejudice.

Yeah right, and that's exactly what everyone means when they use the term. Play stupid now.

Okay okay. You are not homophobic but homomisic.
Better? :)
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
33. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Oct 1, 2012, 05:11 yuastnav
 
UnderLord wrote on Sep 30, 2012, 21:36:
'Preference implies a choice' - False.
[...]

False.

pref·er·ence (prfr-ns, prfrns)
n.
1.
a. The selecting of someone or something over another or others.
b. The right or chance to so choose.
c. Someone or something so chosen. See Synonyms at choice.

The english word "preference" very well implies a choice.

UnderLord wrote on Sep 30, 2012, 21:36:
[...]
I prefer English Mustard to German, nothing I can do about that.
[...]

As has been demonstrated above saying that you prefer a type of mustard over another is a deliberate choice that you have made for whatever reason you might have. Maybe because it tastes better.
But you are not forced to eat English mustard. You can very well eat German mustard, even if it is not to your taste.
You do not have that option in relation to your sexuality, though.

The choice of your analogy was unfortunate for incorrect. (as all analogies are, without exception, I would recommend to refrain from using them since the English language is powerful enough to explain abstract ideas and concepts by itself)
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
749 Comments. 38 pages. Viewing page 14.
< Newer [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo