PHJF wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 11:42:
I had that same problem with the white background. Simply toggle Retro Colors on the left-hand menu and then switch back to New Blue.

My new-post-asterisk feature isn't working, though.

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 18, 2019, 09:40:
First, great to have you back nin. I hope you are back for the long haul.

ledhead1969 wrote on Mar 17, 2019, 05:35:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/44759/reuters-admits-they-sat-bombshell-beto-orourke-ryan-saavedra

https://news.yahoo.com/psychedelic-warlord-teenaged-betos-misogynistic-online-posts-013651735.html

Prez wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:52:

Beamer wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:46:

Prez wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:40:

Beamer wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:29:

Prez wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:22:

Beamer wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:18:
Far Cry's problem was that it acted like it wanted to be a political game, and set itself in a deeply political and current situation, then did nothing with it.

Uncanny Valley of having something to say. Of the 3 FCs of that time, it was the most vapid, and the plot by far the least fun or engaging.

I didn't realize militant Christian separists press-ganging small town America into taking over the country was somehow a mirror of current events.

White people using religion as an excuse to arm themselves? Committing terrorism as a claim that it's in defense?

Sounds pretty much ripped from the headlines. Taken to video game extremes, but, I mean, ask Christchurch how real this feels.

It's no more a thing now than it was after Ruby Ridge and Waco. Id argue it's far less. The worst terrorist attack in US history by an American happened over 25 years ago and was committed by an armed Christian separatist . We should have gotten on devs of the nineties for not addressing these in their games. Oh but I forget, we weren't as "woke" back then...

Sometimes I wish we as a society were still asleep. That ought to draw the ire of a few crusaders...

Yeah, but you know this is in the headlines constantly. This is all people talk about on reddit and stuff. We have actual white supremacists marching in the streets with some regularity for the first time in 50 years. People keep dying, particularly brown people in places of worship.

FC5 positioned itself as addressing that. Then it just... didn't.

What exactly were they supposed to do to address it? Not being a dick - just curious. Because they were obviously the villains of the game. Isn't that commentary enough? I honestly just don't get what it would take to satisfy people.

MeanJim wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 16:51:

The horrific shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, was designed from the start to get attention

Isn't that what all mass shooters want? And news outlets are eager to give them all the attention they want.

Prez wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:40:

Beamer wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:29:

Prez wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:22:

Beamer wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:18:
Far Cry's problem was that it acted like it wanted to be a political game, and set itself in a deeply political and current situation, then did nothing with it.

Uncanny Valley of having something to say. Of the 3 FCs of that time, it was the most vapid, and the plot by far the least fun or engaging.

I didn't realize militant Christian separists press-ganging small town America into taking over the country was somehow a mirror of current events.

White people using religion as an excuse to arm themselves? Committing terrorism as a claim that it's in defense?

Sounds pretty much ripped from the headlines. Taken to video game extremes, but, I mean, ask Christchurch how real this feels.

It's no more a thing now than it was after Ruby Ridge and Waco. Id argue it's far less. The worst terrorist attack in US history by an American happened over 25 years ago and was committed by an armed Christian separatist . We should have gotten on devs of the nineties for not addressing these in their games. Oh but I forget, we weren't as "woke" back then...

Sometimes I wish we as a society were still asleep. That ought to draw the ire of a few crusaders...

Prez wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:22:

Beamer wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:18:
Far Cry's problem was that it acted like it wanted to be a political game, and set itself in a deeply political and current situation, then did nothing with it.

Uncanny Valley of having something to say. Of the 3 FCs of that time, it was the most vapid, and the plot by far the least fun or engaging.

I didn't realize militant Christian separists press-ganging small town America into taking over the country was somehow a mirror of current events.

WaltC wrote on Mar 15, 2019, 13:02:
About the Boeing Max 737's: I was immediately struck by the fact that only one company, in Ethiopia, is crashing these planes. Don't know how many have been sold elsewhere to date, or to whom, but *those* aren't crashing, apparently!

grudgebearer wrote on Mar 14, 2019, 10:32:

Beamer wrote on Mar 14, 2019, 10:20:

grudgebearer wrote on Mar 14, 2019, 09:37:

Tone84 wrote on Mar 13, 2019, 23:14:
Not really a big deal IMHO. They're giving steam competition and forcing steam to do better. It comes out to steam a year later and you'll still get a steam key if you chose steam 1 year later.

Building a store-front/launcher to compete with Steam, while taking less of a cut of games sales, is not the same thing as buying exclusivity, and limiting gamer choice in where they purchase their games.

But did you have that choice in the past?
For most games, no, no you did not. They were on Steam, and just Steam. It wasn't some exclusive agreement, but it was the same outcome. Steam was the only marketplace carrying most games. Sure, Origin got some, UPlay got some, but these weren't really anything beyond their own first party games, and people avoided these marketplaces as much as possible.

The past is irrelevant. Epic is paying to limit availability of games to be purchased through any other means than their store. Plain and simple. This isn't a case where a publisher or a dev is just saying "Fuck steam, Valve takes too much of a cut, we aren't releasing our game there."

This is a case where a game was going to be released on multiple stores, and Epic came along and said to Snapshot games "we will pay you to only release your game on our store for a year, and give gamers no option but to purchase the game from us if they want to play it."

It's pretty straightforward.

grudgebearer wrote on Mar 14, 2019, 09:37:

Tone84 wrote on Mar 13, 2019, 23:14:
Not really a big deal IMHO. They're giving steam competition and forcing steam to do better. It comes out to steam a year later and you'll still get a steam key if you chose steam 1 year later.

Building a store-front/launcher to compete with Steam, while taking less of a cut of games sales, is not the same thing as buying exclusivity, and limiting gamer choice in where they purchase their games.

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 14, 2019, 09:51:
Somehow I am thinking being out of touch in that way is a positive...

WarPig wrote on Mar 13, 2019, 19:34:

This move was necessary. It's the Giants committing to a full rebuild, and without doing a full rebuild, they'd never be anything better than mediocre.

Well that's fine, but there's a way to do it that doesn't involve giving the guy over $21.5 million dollars just seven months ago.

From ESPN:

Let's look at two scenarios. Scenario 1 is what would have happened if they hadn't given him a long-term deal and franchised him for 2019 before making the trade. (Remember, the Giants didn't use their franchise tag this offseason.) Scenario 2 is what actually happened.

Scenario 1: $8.5 million paid to Beckham in cash, $8.5 million on the Giants' 2019 cap, $0 in dead money on the 2019 cap

Scenario 2: $21.5 million paid to Beckham in cash, $5.5 million on the Giants' 2019 cap, $16 million in dead money on the 2019 cap

That's not a typo. Because Gettleman (or ownership) temporarily decided to keep Beckham around, the Giants paid an extra $13 million out of their coffers and will eat $16 million in dead money on this year's cap for the privilege of doing so. This isn't really a big competitive concern since the Giants don't appear to be particularly close to contending in 2019, but it's a sign of how shortsighted the franchise was in signing OBJ before giving things up seven months later.

It's crazy. I do feel bad for Giants fans everywhere, and at the same time I feel good for Browns fans who deserve to finally be on the right side of a crazy deal for once.

And as far as the Browns go, if Mayfield progresses in his second year like he should, I think the AFC North is ripe for the taking this year.

Midnight wrote on Mar 13, 2019, 12:23:
If you need platform exclusive games to make your platform appealing, then your platform is weak and you're hurting consumers by making them use an inferior product to access the games they want to play.

Let us choose.

Kain wrote on Mar 13, 2019, 12:16:
I don't see it as "not being on Steam" as much as only being on the Epic Store. There is something crazy like 70 PC DD stores now across various countries. They are all being denied the opportunity to sell this game which in turn hurts the consumer due to lack of price competition.

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 13, 2019, 11:02:
Cubs fans said "next year" for 108 years. That said, the Browns have picked up multiple upper tier players recently. So, getting close to, or making the playoffs would not be entirely shocking. If it does happen, I'm sure there will be people claiming they saw it coming...

Jivaro wrote on Mar 12, 2019, 16:23:
I would just like to see less "opinion" in my "news" from any network. All these "experts" that are called in to tell us what to think about the facts...or worse, an incomplete list of facts lacking context...is why it's hard for me to watch Fox, CNN, or MSNBC at any time. All of them have actual news hours instead of editorial/opinion based talking heads but even during the "news" they fill it up with their fluffy opinions. It's just a terrible practice all the way around and now that it's been going on for a few generations I fear people wouldn't really know how to make a decision based on just the facts if they were given the opportunity. indeed, today it seems many people can't tell the difference between fact, opinion, and interpretation....but they are okay with it because they picked a side.

It's really troubling and it's one of the few things that I find everyone agrees on (mostly) regardless of political slant.