The idea, concept, movement and purpose does not make sense to me.

Now, what do I base this off of?

Is it my politics? No. While I'm not a left leaning person I also don't consider myself a right leaning one (Although my Commander Contrarian nature makes me argue for the right more often on these forums).

Is it my religion? No. While others of my faith see arguments against it based on our faith, that is not from where I draw my problems.

My problem is I was brought up to believe that men and women are equal and have the right and capability to pursue whatever career or life pursuit they wish. In school I was taught that a girl doing "boy things" is perfectly fine and that boys don't always "have to be tough". That our ideas of how men and women are taught to behave is a cultural thing that we do not have to adhere to.

Transgenderism, thus, does not make sense. How can someone have a female brain in a man's body if the way a woman thinks and acts is defined by a set of rules that we ourselves have created? My own brain as an autistic individual is certainly different from that of what is considered "normal" but it does not mean I think to identify as an alien stuck in a human's body (I am, unfortunately, well and truly part of the human race).

I see the idea that this or that person having a brain that, upon analysis, is closer to the opposite gender of their physical body is just someone that is like me, they have a unique way of looking at things that does not conform to normal standards. Transitioning therefore is to me someone essentially rejecting their unique perspective to adhere to the standards that society has set. While you will no doubt become angry at this comparison, it is like implants and facial reconstruction that some people go through so that they can adhere to society's idea of beauty.

Now. Does this mean I think those that identify as transgender are subhuman? No, I think the people that ridicule and harm transgender people are terrible and should be stopped from doing so. Does this mean I think laws should be made to stop transgender people from transitioning? No. While I think it is the wrong decision, it is ultimately up to them to decide what they think is best for them, even if I think they are making the incorrect choice, it is still their choice to make.

I just do not see the logic behind it. What is a tomboy for instance? Is that a boy stuck in a girl's body just because they don't play with dolls and have tea parties or other such generic ideas? Who's definition of "male" or "female" is supposed to be used for deciding this when so many cultures and people have different ideas of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman?

Again, what a person that calls themselves transgender decides to call themselves or do with themselves in regards to their body is up to them, but I just cannot agree the reasons that are given for it. All I seem to be able to do is ask questions, I am sure everyone here has their own thoughts to voice on this and I am sure I will be responded to with hate for voicing my thoughts but I felt I should voice them all the same in the hopes that I may understand better.

Since 2018 is pretty much over(thank god), pretty much all the GOTY/Top 10 lists are out by this point and a new year is quickly approaching, I'm gonna go ahead and ask: What games are you planning on playing this coming year?

They don't have to be games being released in 2019. Backlogged games or games you just haven't gotten around to picking up yet are also fair game.

For me, the list goes something like this:

-Horizon Zero Dawn

I got it for Christmas 2017, haven't played it yet.

-Assassin's Creed Odyssey.

Because Ancient Fucking Greece, not to mention I rather liked Origins so why not?

-Mutant Year Zero.

Sure, it's furry XCOM, but I liked XCOM, furries don't bug me and the game is getting good reviews.
'
-Gris

It's apparently really atmospheric and such. Also, it's 4 hours long, which is really nice in an era where every game has to be a 60+ hour open world game because apparently God said so 6000

-Outer Worlds

Assuming it's good, of course. I liked FO:NV and Alpha Protocol so there's a decent chance.

-Kentucky Route Zero Act V.

Yeah, I'm being super optimistic here and assuming just because it was scheduled for a "Early 2018" release it might actually drop in 2019. 4/5 acts are done and I kinda want to see the whole thing completed.

-God of War.

It's apparently really good and I've been avoiding Spoilers(other then Kratos kills a bunch of dudes, some of whom are Gods).

-Red Dead Redemption.

I'm not playing 2 until I play the first one, for numerous reasons. I know the newer game is a prequel but apparently a fair number of RDR characters are shown in RDR2 at an earlier point in their lives(including John Marston).

And I'm sure a couple games will take me totally off guard and I'll have to grab those as well, because it happens every year(Return of the Obra What? What is this thing? Wait, it's actually good?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTVLc2K7n0c

Essentially Razorfist claims the FBI as of recent times is inexorably corrupt and far outlived its original mandate and purpose and long overdue for dissolution. And of course he shows me a bunch of images of website articles (without showing which website it is exactly or linking his sources, and said article list itself as an opinion.)

But still I want to know what other people have to say about this topic of whether the FBI today is corrupt and what not?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-dives-in-11546298426

Trump may die before 2020. He may become too ill to run. He may say screw it or even end up in jail!

So, less about him, what do you think of her? What positions do you think she really will fight for? What challenges do you think she faces?

My thoughts: She is younger than Bernie and has positions on major issues similar to his.

Your thoughts?

Okay, there were a lot of amazing games as well as bunch of terrible games, but what about those games in the middle? These are games that had so much potential or was hyped, yet led to a disappointing release. Here are 10 games I thought were pretty disappointing.

10. Detroit: Become Human
Okay, please put down the pitchforks and torches for a minute. This game isn't inherently a bad game. The voice acting and motion capture are nice, and the graphics are very pretty and well detailed. But this game is also very repetitive in gameplay design. QTE, Button mash, and Dialog choices. The story is great with the branching paths, but I ended up liking Connor while other player characters felt really boring.

9. Fable Fortune

This was Fable's take on virtual card game like hearthstone, and instead of that game I decided to go with this one instead because of the fond memory I had with Fable 1 & 2. But I found it was no where near the level of Gwent from Witcher 3. I don't know if the cancellation of Fable Legends affected the release of this game, but it certainly did not called me back to the lands of Albion

8. Assassin's Creed: Rogue (XB1)

I never got around playing this game in the past gen consoles. After having fun with Black Flag, I thought this game would be interesting. Aside from a few cool Templar Characters and their side of the story, I didn't think I found much difference in the core gameplay as how assassins would've handled each situation. It is almost same as Black Flag, which I felt really disappointed because I think this game could've been so much more. Oh well, at least the story was kinda neat

7. Sea Of Thieves

I'm sorry, but this game still feels more like a tech demo for Xbox one X. There is little to no content here. I don't know if they added the AI crew like they said they would, but this game forces people to get friends and other players to operate a ship. I never could get anyone to play with me, and those short moments of laughing and arguing while sailing were too short. The gameplay is very repetitive. I would say the game still looks nice.

6. Far Cry 5

Some people might disagree with me on this, but I found FC5 to be lackluster. Yes, the game looks gorgeous (IDK how well it portrays Montana) and the outpost liberation is fun, but the story was kind of a bummer. First, you play as a silent protagonist named Rook, having a personality of sandpaper. Then, you face off against the crazy cult family. The characters are interesting, but I'd say they are nowhere near the levels of the ones found in FC3 and 4

5. State of Decay 2
So you know how in Angry Joe Show the Other Joe asks "You wanna play a zombie game?". That's how I feel about SOD2; The survival resource gathering aspect of the game is great, and it is even better when friends are involved. But the repetitive mission and the world feeling really barren (special zombies? Other survivors? Hello?), makes SOD2 disappointing sequel.

4. Vampyr
Love the setting, and the characters. Hate the gameplay and the combat.

3. We Happy Few
Ever since the announcement, the concept and the setting grabbed my attention. I was one of the first few people to try out the early-access, and I found the game to be alright back then. After the full release, I can see they made many improvements here and there, but was really disappointed by how the three story arcs basically played out the same. Yes, the stealth and scavenging for resources are nice. But there is very little consequences for acting out in the public.

2. The Walking Dead Final season ep. 2
Just like the TWD TV show, I feel the game series has also worn its novelty off. Same QTE, Button Mash, Dialog choices, walking around the map finding clues and items. It's all the same. The characters aside from Clem and AJ, feels really boring. I'm actually kinda glad TTG ended after this game because the future games, no matter what IP they decide to borrow from, would've followed the outdated format.

1. Battlefield V
The "I'm not educated to buy this game" Joke aside, My initial thoughts were that BFV was gonna be alternative scenarios of WWII. What I got instead was a game that can't decide whether it wants to be a game based on traditional WWII or an alternative timeline scenario. The campaign is kinda bad, especially the one with the ski girl as it completely disregards of efforts of the real soldiers who attempted very similar operation. But I guess we got this girl instead because "it's a possibility". The multiplayer is kinda fun, but the modes and maps are very limited, and the class roles are messy. Why add a time frame to cling on to life? That defeats the purpose of having a medic class. BFV isn't a terrible game, but it's not a great game either.

Remember how a large part of the plot of Avengers revolved around Loki controlling the minds of Hawkeye and other people with his the scepter that Thaons gave him (which turned out to be the Mind Stone)? Well it turns out that same scepter was controlling Loki as well.

Marvel's official website has now confirmed that the MCU version of Loki was indeed influenced by the Mind Stone in the first Avengers movie, which caused him to carry out the attack on New York.

If you go to the "Loki On Screen" page on Marvel's website, you'll find the following excerpt has part of his biography:

"Arriving at the Sanctuary through a wormhole caused by the Bifrost, Loki met the Other, ruler of the ancient race of extraterrestrials the Chitauri, and Thanos. Offering the God of Mischief dominion over his brother?s favorite realm Earth, Thanos requested the Tesseract in return. Gifted with a Scepter that acted as a mind control device, Loki would be able to influence others. Unbeknownst to him, the Scepter was also influencing him, fueling his hatred over his brother Thor and the inhabitants of Earth."

https://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/12/28/loki-avengers-controlled-by-mind-stone-scepter/

I honestly thought it was just him being scared of Thanos. I suppose the sceptre influencing it's wielder isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Once arrested on suspicion of second degree murder, James Fields, the 20 year old male who purposefully drove his car into a crowd of counter protesters, has been found guilty of first degree murder for the death of Heather Heyer. As well as five counts of aggravated malicious wounding, three counts of malicious wounding, and one count of leaving the scene of a crash.

More importantly, the jury rejected arguments by lawyers for Fields that he acted in self-defense during the events. Also that she totally didn't die of a heart attack or something dumb like that.

The jury will continue monday with the sentencing, which will be anywhere from 20 years to life for the murder charge plus whatever they throw on for the other accounts of wounding and assault.

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/502204161.html

So, it's been a long strange trip since this all happened back in August. We've seen a lot, done a lot, and faced a lot since then.

Has what we've seen since change your opinion on the event?

Do you think it's a fair result?

So it recently dawned on me that I, as well as a massive number of other video game nerds pay way too much attention to the actual industry. Generally speaking, we know whether a game (or sometimes a company) will crash and burn or be a hit long before the actual investors do.

Doesn't that give us a big leg up on the investors? Doesn't that mean that geeks who spend all day reading game news have a pretty solid chance at coming out ahead when investing in games?

Combine that with the fact that game stock prices are currently crashing, doesn't that make it a very good time to try to buy stocks while they are cheap?

I haven't really invested before, but this makes me want to try.
Does anyone with any knowledge on investment have opinions or advice on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey68aMOV9gc

Amazing what people are doing in their basements these days.

Makes one wonder what is going to happen to the mainstream movie industry.

Merry Christmas, US federal employees! Just what you needed to enjoy the festive season.

For those not aware of the details, the Senate has refused to fund a border wall, and Trump won't pass the budget, so the government can't pay for a load of its work. This is not a particularly big shutdown - only a modest proportion of the US bureaucracy is currently on indefinite leave.

Apparently there were frantic negotiations to prevent it, and when it became evident Trump wouldn't get the votes, he looked like he would accept a temporary extension. However, various conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh started complaining about the idea of Trump conceding, and so naturally he bowed to these rabid morons who broadcast to his base.

So, I've been wanting to write this for a while. Here is the thing that finally pushed me to do it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2LkD_X636bg&list=PLkJemc4T5NYZpiVwtRDxXfZvcLzovtITo&t=0s&index=2

TLDR, trying to enforce Merry Christmas over Happy Holidays (and similar things related to Xmas) is breaks down Jefferson's Wall. Personally, I think Merry Christmas is Politically Correct.

Now I recognise that it comes down to how you define, becuase, I'm going to assume, whatever most people's definition is, it would include something about Left/ Progressive exclusively. Becuase it doesn't get used against the Right. My definition is something like a politically motivated speech that is meant to suppress the opponents arguments. Happy Holidays is meant to be inclusive but a lot of Christians feel excluded Becuase they think it superceeds their traditions. 'The War on Christmas' campaign made many retailer backtrack and go back to only saying Merry Christmas. So How is that not PC?

So, what your definition of PC? Are the Conservative PC too?

And most importantly for me, why hasn't the Left started using it against the Right? Becuase that makes no sense to me

The idea, concept, movement and purpose does not make sense to me.

Now, what do I base this off of?

Is it my politics? No. While I'm not a left leaning person I also don't consider myself a right leaning one (Although my Commander Contrarian nature makes me argue for the right more often on these forums).

Is it my religion? No. While others of my faith see arguments against it based on our faith, that is not from where I draw my problems.

My problem is I was brought up to believe that men and women are equal and have the right and capability to pursue whatever career or life pursuit they wish. In school I was taught that a girl doing "boy things" is perfectly fine and that boys don't always "have to be tough". That our ideas of how men and women are taught to behave is a cultural thing that we do not have to adhere to.

Transgenderism, thus, does not make sense. How can someone have a female brain in a man's body if the way a woman thinks and acts is defined by a set of rules that we ourselves have created? My own brain as an autistic individual is certainly different from that of what is considered "normal" but it does not mean I think to identify as an alien stuck in a human's body (I am, unfortunately, well and truly part of the human race).

I see the idea that this or that person having a brain that, upon analysis, is closer to the opposite gender of their physical body is just someone that is like me, they have a unique way of looking at things that does not conform to normal standards. Transitioning therefore is to me someone essentially rejecting their unique perspective to adhere to the standards that society has set. While you will no doubt become angry at this comparison, it is like implants and facial reconstruction that some people go through so that they can adhere to society's idea of beauty.

Now. Does this mean I think those that identify as transgender are subhuman? No, I think the people that ridicule and harm transgender people are terrible and should be stopped from doing so. Does this mean I think laws should be made to stop transgender people from transitioning? No. While I think it is the wrong decision, it is ultimately up to them to decide what they think is best for them, even if I think they are making the incorrect choice, it is still their choice to make.

I just do not see the logic behind it. What is a tomboy for instance? Is that a boy stuck in a girl's body just because they don't play with dolls and have tea parties or other such generic ideas? Who's definition of "male" or "female" is supposed to be used for deciding this when so many cultures and people have different ideas of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman?

Again, what a person that calls themselves transgender decides to call themselves or do with themselves in regards to their body is up to them, but I just cannot agree the reasons that are given for it. All I seem to be able to do is ask questions, I am sure everyone here has their own thoughts to voice on this and I am sure I will be responded to with hate for voicing my thoughts but I felt I should voice them all the same in the hopes that I may understand better.

Since 2018 is pretty much over(thank god), pretty much all the GOTY/Top 10 lists are out by this point and a new year is quickly approaching, I'm gonna go ahead and ask: What games are you planning on playing this coming year?

They don't have to be games being released in 2019. Backlogged games or games you just haven't gotten around to picking up yet are also fair game.

For me, the list goes something like this:

-Horizon Zero Dawn

I got it for Christmas 2017, haven't played it yet.

-Assassin's Creed Odyssey.

Because Ancient Fucking Greece, not to mention I rather liked Origins so why not?

-Mutant Year Zero.

Sure, it's furry XCOM, but I liked XCOM, furries don't bug me and the game is getting good reviews.
'
-Gris

It's apparently really atmospheric and such. Also, it's 4 hours long, which is really nice in an era where every game has to be a 60+ hour open world game because reasons.

-Outer Worlds

Assuming it's good, of course. I liked FO:NV and Alpha Protocol so there's a decent chance.

-Kentucky Route Zero Act V.

Yeah, I'm being super optimistic here and assuming just because it was scheduled for a "Early 2018" release it might actually drop in 2019. 4/5 acts are done and I kinda want to see the whole thing completed.

-God of War.

It's apparently really good and I've been avoiding Spoilers(other then Kratos kills a bunch of dudes, some of whom are Gods).

-Red Dead Redemption.

I'm not playing 2 until I play the first one, for numerous reasons. I know the newer game is a prequel but apparently a fair number of RDR characters are shown in RDR2 at an earlier point in their lives(including John Marston).

Edited:

-Either Pillers of Eternity or Divinity:Original Sin. Both are apparently good but different from each other. Both have an apparently even better sequel as well.

And I'm sure a couple games will take me totally off guard and I'll have to grab those as well, because it happens every year(Return of the Obra What? What is this thing? Wait, it's actually good?).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTVLc2K7n0c

Essentially Razorfist claims the FBI as of recent times is inexorably corrupt and far outlived its original mandate and purpose and long overdue for dissolution. And of course he shows me a bunch of images of website articles (without showing which website it is exactly or linking his sources, and said article list itself as an opinion.)

But still I want to know what other people have to say about this topic of whether the FBI today is corrupt and what not?

(Edit: Using this post as a jumping off point)

Specter Von Baren:
Hhm. So this is the thread that got Saelune suspended. Hopefully this means they'll think about how they've been acting and shape up and be civil again.

"And they called [Obama] a muslim, a terrorist, they insulted his wife, his daughters ...
And now they want civility?

Okay sure you can have civility if you hop in a time machine, and change the past, so that you deserve civility because until then ... civility is not on the table."

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/9vvfyw/when_the_us_had_a_president_who_wouldnt_let_a/e9fk5hj/?context=3

Not my reddit post, but a point I agree with.

Civility is a tool of oppression. Civility is what those in power demand of those not in power, for civility helps them stay in power. Civility keeps people from calling out others for their misdeads. Civility worse yet, being used to oppress by people who neglect their own civility.

What civility is there in white supremacy? None. What civility is there in rape? None. What civility is there in murdering a black man who gun nuts could have used as a champion for the 'Good guy with gun' mentality but instead was shot dead, while white mass shooters are treated with the civility of being taken alive? None for those who deserve it anyways.

Civility is why I get punished here while Donald Trump and Republicans and all other right-wingers abuse and oppress me and people like me, and people unlike me, and hell even you. That is the real irony is that Republicans are even oppressing their own, yet their own praise them for the honor to be shat upon by their glorious bigot fascist leader.

It is not civility we should be demanding, but decency, compassion, empathy, and justice. But when 'civility' comes knocking, they want you to put your head down, get in line, while the police out you in local newspapers. Indecent civility is no civility at all.

The Stonewall Riots were not civil, but they were effective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

When gay rights activists were civil, they were ignored. Because civility is a tool of oppression. A quiet problem is no problem at all.

When LGBT people decided enough with civility, cause all it gets us is handcuffs and abuse, then it became loud and proud and...effective. We're here, we're queer, get used to it. No please, no thank you. A bold, uncivil statement of existence that those 'civil and fair' hetero bigots despised for now making them be aware that we exist.

A war, ironically called the 'Civil War' was even less civil than that! A war for the very humanity of a huge chunk of the American population, well, as far as one side was concerned, for the other side, the CONFEDERATES, did not even view Africans as people, but as property, as cattle. What civility is there in that? None. Ironic now that the two sides that opposed each other, the Republicans and the Confederates, are now the same damn side. Though if you look at the sides of the states, you will notice a pattern.

What civility did Hitler show the world? None. Should people have been civil to him? I mean, he was the legal ruler of Germany, and you never dare speak ill of those in power, you must be civil! But Hitler was not civil. He like so many others, dehumanized, reduced. I guess you don't need to be civil to people when you don't view them as people, hm.

Anyways, here is hundreds of instances of Trump being uncivil.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article?ion=Footer

Civility is a tool of oppression. Chains meant to keep the oppressed bogged down. 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

So we have a few people on here who might trot out this term a bit too often.

But the response fascinates me. It doesn't come to a discussion on whether the words that 'racist' was applied to was actually racist. Or different interpretations of the word racist.

No, it becomes an all out brawl on shutting down the opposition without thinking about their position. Usually in that same discussion, someone points out how the word shuts down conversations (which is correct) while simultaneously shutting down the person who uses the word racist. And the latter learns absolutely nothing other than everybody is a hypocrite.

PS. I think this site is actually much better with trigger words like racist. There are many worse places out there. But it still happens.

Also, discussion on what you think is/not racist would interest me.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-dives-in-11546298426

Trump may die before 2020. He may become too ill to run. He may say screw it or even end up in jail!

So, less about him, what do you think of her? What positions do you think she really will fight for? What challenges do you think she faces?

My thoughts: She is younger than Bernie and has positions on major issues similar to his.

Your thoughts?

So it recently dawned on me that I, as well as a massive number of other video game nerds pay way too much attention to the actual industry. Generally speaking, we know whether a game (or sometimes a company) will crash and burn or be a hit long before the actual investors do.

Doesn't that give us a big leg up on the investors? Doesn't that mean that geeks who spend all day reading game news have a pretty solid chance at coming out ahead when investing in games?

Combine that with the fact that game stock prices are currently crashing, doesn't that make it a very good time to try to buy stocks while they are cheap?

I haven't really invested before, but this makes me want to try.
Does anyone with any knowledge on investment have opinions or advice on this?

Happy New Year everyone

Anyone have any predictions for the year?

*Sigh* (English is not my native so I guess sorry for the grammar and typos)
I feel sad, the gaming now is totally sick, intoxicated with this "malpractice", because well, greediness.
After big debate on the forum of Hearthstone and the most recent Magic the Gathering Arena. I wanted to come on neutral ground and tell my opinion.
Loot box, microtransaction for skin or simple pay to skip (experience potion, more stash, etc..) is a bad thing.

Loot box (or booster pack for CCG), you can't directly buy what you want or the price for individual items is ridiculously overprice, some stuff are arbitrarily more rare for some reason, and often, loot boxes are filled with a lot of "useless" junk that barely few people care (like spray, icon or even flag in Heroes of the Storm for example). Just so you think the rare stuff is more interesting (gambling mechanic).
Like in HotS if you buy one character with gems it's like 5$, I have seen some skin with 20$ attached to it, wtf?

Micro for skin, well I think this one is hard, and some psychology and philosophy may get into, but for me, paying for a skin can give you an advantage that some other players don't have. Not everyone as the same kind of vision, if you have a different skin than the "normal one" you may blend better or may be harder to see for some players.
And why back then in a game like says Quake 3 arena, everyone had access to the 4 or 5 pages of 16 skins, now we have to buy them individually?

And the last one, which for me is the worst of all, the Pay to Skip.
No matter the form it takes, I despise all kind of P2Skip a game can offer, even worst when it's already a P2Play like WoW where you can pay 60$ to have a max level character.
Because of if the method of P2Skip exist it means the original game and the method to attain a certain aspect of game has been artificially slowed down, either by time gate, loot box randomness, restriction of daily quest or similar.
I just rage, because no matter what, paying for skipping is NEVER a good thing, because, all you do, is throwing money out of the window (in a way). You don't give money to buy more content, or to have access to thing you couldn't before, you pay to access them faster, because you made them slower so I could lose my patience and pay you to skip ahead.

Let now talk about the fact of paying for a virtual currencies, I think I have never seen a game that offers good well rounded virtual currencies, its always Pay 500 gems for 5$, 1100 gems for 10$ and such, but in the shop, almost no items cost exactly 500 or 1100, they have cost like 750 or 1300, so you are stuck with a portion of the amount you paid in virtual currency that you can't spend. So instead of paying says 7,50$ for an item, you paid 10$, because they made this artificially, again, not having something at 2,50$ so you gave them more than you would have.

So people say, let other people do what they want with their money, but the problem is, if you buy the skin at 5$ or the pay to get more boosters in Hearthstone, you say to the design that its correct to do it and thus making my own enjoyment of the game of not having P2skip worst. So no, you do have an indirect impact on me.

Now I am sad because more and more games are getting through this route of giving more and more granular content and trying to squeeze from us more money by using "morally grey" mechanics and design choices like more grindy games and gambling mechanic.

Honourable mentions to basically 99% of the mobile games which either use one or a lot of these practices.