[QUOTE=Egon Spengler;47211621]Hot Pockets/Pizza Rolls are really unsatisfying/disappointing and kinda nasty :([/QUOTE]
Almost all premade frozen food designed to be cooked in a microwave (like pizza pockets, hot pockets, tv dinners etc.) are all gross as hell.
Cook pizza pops and hot pockets in the oven instead and they taste so much better, no joke
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47211676]Almost all premade frozen food designed to be cooked in a microwave (like pizza pockets, hot pockets, tv dinners etc.) are all gross as hell.[/QUOTE]
As a maybe unpopular opinion on the other side of this, I think there are frozen pizzas which are just as good as getting it from a pizza place (e.g. red baron)
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;47211733]As a maybe unpopular opinion on the other side of this, I think there are frozen pizzas which are just as good as getting it from a pizza place (e.g. red baron)[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree with this though, especially Freschetta/Red Baron frozen pizzas
I end up eating about 1 or 2 frozen pizzas per month on nights when I can't cook or anything
[QUOTE=Egon Spengler;47211621]Hot Pockets/Pizza Rolls are really unsatisfying/disappointing and kinda nasty :([/QUOTE]
you gotta get the good hot pocket flavors. pepperoni pizza and steak and cheese are top tier.
[QUOTE=The golden;47212151]I disagree with literally everything you've said and I think the vast majority of it is simply BS but I would like to address this one thing in particular.
Morrowind's combat is worse..why exactly? I know what you're going to say, because it doesn't *look* as good. Yeah Skyrim's combat looks nicer with new animations and killmoves but the actual stats of your character, your build, your progression, means nothing to your combat performance and the progression of your character.
You should actually do some research into Morrowind's combat system and how in-depth it actually is stats-wise and what it takes to make a character that is effective in the role you picked for it. And before you say "but stats are dumb who cares" then I wonder what you expect from a fantasy RPG. Skyrim has nicer animations for combat but the actual depth of the combat is as shallow as a glass of water.[/QUOTE]
I don't care how good the combat looks, if I'm touching a guy and my huge-ass battleaxe isn't hitting him directly in the face after multiple swings I'm gonna call it shit combat
Dice rolls have no place in a real-time first person game where you can actually visibly see your weapon connect
[QUOTE=greeley;47209772]Once again, i tried to watch Arrested Development but find it really really unfunny.
It honestly baffles me why its so liked. I've watched about 7 episodes now, still find it really cringey and forced.[/QUOTE]
woa this unpopular opinion i do not understand at all
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81Nl7VYFEaI[/media]
probably has the sharpest writing of any comedy i've seen on tv. the amount of jokes in it is just so dense. you can have one line that's making a direct joke, referencing a previous joke, with something going on in the background that gives it a double meaning all at the same time which makes it super fun to watch again.
tho i will admit season 1 is probably the weakest of the 3. it's one show that just gets better and better
[QUOTE=The golden;47212151]I disagree with literally everything you've said and I think the vast majority of it is simply BS but I would like to address this one thing in particular.
Morrowind's combat is worse..why exactly? I know what you're going to say, because it doesn't *look* as good. Yeah Skyrim's combat looks nicer with new animations and killmoves but the actual stats of your character, your build, your progression, means nothing to your combat performance and the progression of your character.
You should actually do some research into Morrowind's combat system and how in-depth it actually is stats-wise and what it takes to make a character that is effective in the role you picked for it. And before you say "but stats are dumb who cares" then I wonder what you expect from a fantasy RPG. Skyrim has nicer animations for combat but the actual depth of the combat is as shallow as a glass of water.[/QUOTE]
i dont want depth i just wanna attack people
Final Fantasy remakes would feel much less outdated if Square-Enix was willing to co-operate with Bandai Namco Studio.
[QUOTE=_Axel;47209723]So when men are portrayed as attractive it's a power fantasy, when women are it's objectification?
Your affirmation here is nothing more than your interpretation, who's to say sexiness can't be empowering? Who are you to project the intent of the author on him without substantiating those claims?
This kind of argument just stems of sex-negativity to me. It's especially ridiculous when people claim it applies to games like Bayonetta where it actually is pretty much the opposite.[/QUOTE]
And isn't "sexiness is empowering" your own interpretation of it, too? How is it any more true than what Prismatex said? And even if it was, why is there a need for the difference? Why are men almost always the ones with tons of muscle and raw power, no-nonsense characters who attack head on and take the lead, while the females are the assassins, the femme fatales who use their beauty to their advantage and use speed and technique rather than strength?
No, those character archetypes aren't inherently bad. There's plenty of Booker Dewitts and Bayonettas out there, and I'm not saying there's a problem with that. I'm saying that there is a very clear problem when gender defines the character, which is very obvious in the games industry, and that's not equality
[QUOTE=The golden;47212151]I disagree with literally everything you've said and I think the vast majority of it is simply BS but I would like to address this one thing in particular.
Morrowind's combat is worse..why exactly? I know what you're going to say, because it doesn't *look* as good. Yeah Skyrim's combat looks nicer with new animations and killmoves but the actual stats of your character, your build, your progression, means nothing to your combat performance and the progression of your character.
You should actually do some research into Morrowind's combat system and how in-depth it actually is stats-wise and what it takes to make a character that is effective in the role you picked for it. And before you say "but stats are dumb who cares" then I wonder what you expect from a fantasy RPG. Skyrim has nicer animations for combat but the actual depth of the combat is as shallow as a glass of water.[/QUOTE]
I've said it before and I'll say it now. [i]It doesn't fucking matter how complex the calculations under the hood are. If I hit a man in the face, and I see my weapon impact his face, then I fucking hit his face. If the game tells me I fucking missed it has a terrible combat system.[/i]
Or you built a shitty character who couldn't hit the side of a barn.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;47213816]Or you built a shitty character who couldn't hit the side of a barn.[/QUOTE]
If you swing and the game shows you hitting, and then the game goes "no no, you didn't hit, your accuracy isn't high enough" the game's combat is utter shit. sure, if the stats aren't right then he shouldnt do too much damage, but to just outright miss EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE SHOWN HITTING HIM then your combat is truly shit.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47213686]And isn't "sexiness is empowering" your own interpretation of it, too? How is it any more true than what Prismatex said?[/QUOTE]
I'm not pretending my interpretation is any more true than Prismatex's. My point is that's just what they are: Interpretations. What a sex-negative feminist would perceive as a display of perverseness and submission to the "male gaze", a sex-positive one would perceive as a liberating expression of female sexuality that breaks the shackles of traditional puritanism.
[QUOTE]And even if it was, why is there a need for the difference? Why are men almost always the ones with tons of muscle and raw power, no no-nonsense characters who attack head on and take the lead, while the females are the assassins, the femme fatales who use their beauty to their advantage and use speed and technique rather than strength?
No, those character archetypes aren't inherently bad. There's plenty of Booker Dewitts and Bayonettas out there, and I'm not saying there's a problem with that. I'm saying that there is a very clear problem when gender defines the character, which is very obvious in the games industry, and that's not equality[/QUOTE]
Saying it's a matter of equality implies that discrimination occurs or that people aren't granted the same rights depending on their genders. Characters from fictional works aren't people, nor is representation in media a right. No person is being treated unfairly based on their gender in this situation.
Now that doesn't mean your criticism can't be valid. To say that men and women are treated differently in media is a lot less radical and more verifiable than portraying some wild speculation of the author's intention as facts when it's obviously very subjective and unsubstantiated.
You ask why there would be a need for a difference in portrayal. I don't know if there is such a need, but I don't understand why such difference would be harmful in any way. Why would different portrayal of the sexes in media necessarily be a bad thing? In fact, such differences in media often reflect the ones that exist in the real world. The example you gave, for instance, can be explained by simply looking at the actual, real differences between sexes. On average, men are physically stronger than women. That's not to say there are no physically strong women or weak men. But most of the time, if you were to pit a man and a woman against each other in a close combat fight, the woman would be disadvantaged if she relied on raw power. If she wants to gain the upper hand she thus needs to capitalize on her strengths; speed, technique, or cunning for example.
Most fictions are grounded in some capacity in reality, and as a result such differences appear on screen, unless a female character has physical strength as one of her defining characteristics.
The same thing can be applied to the depiction of gender roles in fiction. People in the real world behave differently depending on their gender, partly because of cultural norms which have an influence on what is considered manly or womanly, but also partly because of mental differences that are part of the biological distinctions between male and female. Fictions also often choose to conform to reality in this regard.
And sometimes they don't, by engaging in stereotypical portrayal of genders, for instance, which is what I assume you meant by characters defined by their gender. This is an artistic liberty in the same vein of magic in fantasy or FTL travel in sci-fi. It doesn't necessarily mean they actually imply such characters are representative of their entire gender, just like fantasy authors don't necessarily think magic exists in the real world.
You say it is a "very clear problem". I think an issue with such one-size-fits-all terms is that its implications are quite vague. Feminists critics often say that such or such trope is "problematic", but by that they could mean anything from it being tasteless to it actually propagating misogynistic thinking in the general population.
Since I don't really know what you refer to by that, I'll give you my stance on the matter. I would agree with you in most instances if you mean by that that it's lazy writing or distasteful, but it's certainly not threatening equality at large like I explained earlier in my post.
Some people actually are pretty happy with the differences they were bestowed with. Many men like feeling manly, many women like feeling womanly and think it's part of their personality. Transgender people who feel uncomfortable being trapped in a body of a sex that doesn't correspond to their gender obviously care about these differences. Would you argue that we should discourage any kind of gender particularity, both in the psychological and physical realm and the cultural one? That's like saying that the only way to make all animals of a zoo equal is to feed them lettuce regardless of their species.
I think the main problem with your reasoning is that any kind of differentiation implies inequality. We all can thrive by embracing our differences, and even if that means we perform differently in different fields doesn't mean we can't be equal to one another.
jesus christ lol
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47214170]jesus christ lol[/QUOTE]
I hope my stance on the matter can enrich your point of view. If it doesn't, feel free to enrich mine by criticizing it.
I love sexy video game girl and dude characters
scanty armor is my favorite:quagmire:
[QUOTE=bdd458;47213840]If you swing and the game shows you hitting, and then the game goes "no no, you didn't hit, your accuracy isn't high enough" the game's combat is utter shit. sure, if the stats aren't right then he shouldnt do too much damage, but to just outright miss EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE SHOWN HITTING HIM then your combat is truly shit.[/QUOTE]
Depends on the game imo. Small top-down RPG games for example, such as baldur's gate, I'm totally fine with it working like that. Anything first person though it's horrible. I mean at the very least those games should just call it a glancing blow and deal minimal damage.
idk man normally i'd be willing to argue but if you seem a bit too convinced for anything i say to change your mind
[QUOTE=bdd458;47213840]If you swing and the game shows you hitting, and then the game goes "no no, you didn't hit, your accuracy isn't high enough" the game's combat is utter shit. sure, if the stats aren't right then he shouldnt do too much damage, but to just outright miss EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE SHOWN HITTING HIM then your combat is truly shit.[/QUOTE]
why do you guys have such a hard time suspending your disbelief? if its a stats based game and the animation shows you hitting them in the face but you "missed," just pretend they did a sick backflip and you missed or something.
[editline]25th February 2015[/editline]
there is more to a game than realistic combat mechanics and animations. a lot of the old as fuck games didn't have the technical abilities to show dynamically generated dodge animations, so you were just told you "missed"
I love Morrowind. It's one of my favorite games of all time.
But anyone saying the combat isn't utter shit is lying to themselves.
The combat would be a lot more at home in a more traditional RPG, the FPS style approach is definitely not kind to the heavily tabletop styled combat system
[QUOTE=bdd458;47213840]If you swing and the game shows you hitting, and then the game goes "no no, you didn't hit, your accuracy isn't high enough" the game's combat is utter shit. sure, if the stats aren't right then he shouldnt do too much damage, but to just outright miss EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE SHOWN HITTING HIM then your combat is truly shit.[/QUOTE]
i think people are kind of forgetting the game was made to specifically copy the dice roll mechanic of pen and paper RPGs. sure, it looks weird, but don't call the game's combat utter shit because you can't figure out how to work it.
[editline]25th February 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sitkero;47214793]The combat would be a lot more at home in a more traditional RPG, the FPS style approach is definitely not kind to the heavily tabletop styled combat system[/QUOTE]
it came out in 2002
[QUOTE=Primigenes;47214961]Because its 2015 and I'm not a fucking moron.
You're making a fucking comparison to two other games where I don't have to do that fucking shit.
I'm not fucking suspending my believe to justify why my hits aren't landed despite me clearly hitting something in Skyrim or Oblivion. However I have to do that in Morrowind.
You're comparing these fucking games and trying to justify a glaring flaw because otherwise it would be fucking unfair.
But guess what those "combat mechanics" are the gameplay. Thats for the majority of the game how I will deal with all of my problems and traverse the land.
I'm not going to imagine or suspend my disbelief in order to put a shittier game on a pedestal.
If you realize that older games may have awful combat compared to newer ones which may have vastly better combat then don't fucking compare the games in their entirety and going "X" game is better despite its glaring issues that outweigh every fucking pro because these issues are a constant. Fucking gameplay will always be shit the atmosphere and story are and always will be subjective.
Everyone knows why Morrowind's combat is fucking awful and its obviously the fucking opposite of the reason that the combat gets better in each TES game. Nobody needs you to fill them in.
If I want to fucking imagine explanations for why I didn't hit something I will play fucking Dungeons and Dragons.[/QUOTE]
wOAH
I think the powers in Europe made a massive mistake giving up their colonies and Africa would be significantly better off under European rule.
okay you seriously need to stop at this point. go calm down or something
you're freaking out over a combat system that was limited by its time and meant to replicate a certain style of play
and also considering stats are an integral part of most of those types of games in some way or another I don't see why you would play them in the first place if you're so against the idea of it
[QUOTE=Primigenes;47215049]You have to be dense to not understand how Morrowinds combat is worse.
"Because it doesn't *look* as good."
No because both Oblivion and Skyrim do the job that all fucking games should do. Invoke an immersive experience.
A first person game, a game in which you perceive events through the eyes of your character, making me miss what I'm clearly aiming at because of background dice roll calculations is fucking stupid.
You know what fucking games do that? Fucking games with auto attack not first person games where I have to aim and fucking click to do damage. You have to be fucking ridiculous.
Not to mention Oblivion starts up by trying to make combat more immersive by having things be an actual exchange even as far as click fest goes, and Skyrim just generally improves upon that.
Actual stats of your character
>I'm not fucking playing stats
[B]Nobody gives a fuck about stats, they are and always have been in every single fucking game a means to an end.
[/B]
And the way to getting to that end is to play the fucking game, and if playing the game is fucking garbage because the combat is abysmal then why should I give a fuck about any of your surface level shit.
Really, look at me grinding a shitty combat system to raise stats to improve my combat ability in a game with an already shitty combat system. Watch me punch Vivec in the face and end his life in one it.[/QUOTE]
jesus dude you're getting REALLY mad about a video game
but with that bolded part it's actually not in this game?
i've said it before and i'll say it again, it's meant to replicate a pen and paper RPG. stats are everything in those kinds of games, and it sounds like you're just trying to go into it like oblivion or skyrim (where stats don't matter at all) and getting destroyed for it.
i can't get into morrowind for other reasons (just a bit too slow for me tbh) but i can at least respect its combat system and see that it's by no means "shit"
[editline]awcv[/editline]
and idk maybe it's because i can suspend my disbelief properly (which this whole thread seems to have an issue with) but what i played of morrowind was more immersive than Oblivion or Skyrim ever could be
[QUOTE=Primigenes;47215098]Mad because I use profanity, whatever
It's meant to replicate a pen and paper rpg???? And? Games where you pretty much imagine fighting other things because well its a pen and paper rpg. Meanwhile Morrowind is not a pen and paper rpg. It's a FPS attempting to replicate something that obviously wouldn't fucking work.
Why on earth would I go into like Skyrim or Oblivion. Going into it thinking stats matter doesn't change the fact that gameplay is garbage.
Stats shouldn't ever dictate whether I hit something in a first person game in the first place, coupled along with the garbage standard Bethesda click fest gameplay the combat is garbage.
You're trying to translate pen and paper top down rpg shit to an entirely different medium. I'm not gonna respect Morrowind's fucking combat. There isn't anything to respect in a system that is none other than garbage.[/QUOTE]
your whole issue sounds like you're just not understanding it and instead blaming the game, honestly.
[quote][B]Going into it thinking stats matter doesn't change the fact that gameplay is garbage. [/B][/quote]
but it actually does change it? doesn't seem you've played enough of the game because once you level up a combat stat to a point random misses become practically non-existent.
[editline]awc[/editline]
also i said you're mad because you're making huge responses and swearing like a child
[QUOTE=Primigenes;47215130]They did, and for the most part it didn't fucking work because we're right here having a [B]conversation about Morrowind's combat being garbage and people are trying to find excuses for it like the end is nigh.[/B] Is any FPS game actually even copying Morrowind's combat system?
Yeah I wouldn't have those games if the game that starts the prophecy to the plot in Skyrim if Morrowind didn't exist. So yes Bethesda thank you so much for making a game that's combat has aged terribly and releasing sequels to this game while also making improvements to the overall gameplay along the way.
I'm going to go tell Eidos and Squeenix about how thankful I am for Deus Ex GOTY existing.
Seriously you don't feel embarrassed that you typed it.[/QUOTE]
dang i guess me and my friends who like morrowind's combat and have only played it in the past couple years didn't actually have any fun...
[QUOTE=_Axel;47214142]I'm not pretending my interpretation is any more true than Prismatex's. My point is that's just what they are: Interpretations. What a sex-negative feminist would perceive as a display of perverseness and submission to the "male gaze", a sex-positive one would perceive as a liberating expression of female sexuality that breaks the shackles of traditional puritanism.
Saying it's a matter of equality implies that discrimination occurs or that people aren't granted the same rights depending on their genders. Characters from fictional works aren't people, nor is representation in media a right. No person is being treated unfairly based on their gender in this situation.
Now that doesn't mean your criticism can't be valid. To say that men and women are treated differently in media is a lot less radical and more verifiable than portraying some wild speculation of the author's intention as facts when it's obviously very subjective and unsubstantiated.
You ask why there would be a need for a difference in portrayal. I don't know if there is such a need, but I don't understand why such difference would be harmful in any way. Why would different portrayal of the sexes in media necessarily be a bad thing? In fact, such differences in media often reflect the ones that exist in the real world. The example you gave, for instance, can be explained by simply looking at the actual, real differences between sexes. On average, men are physically stronger than women. That's not to say there are no physically strong women or weak men. But most of the time, if you were to pit a man and a woman against each other in a close combat fight, the woman would be disadvantaged if she relied on raw power. If she wants to gain the upper hand she thus needs to capitalize on her strengths; speed, technique, or cunning for example.
Most fictions are grounded in some capacity in reality, and as a result such differences appear on screen, unless a female character has physical strength as one of her defining characteristics.
The same thing can be applied to the depiction of gender roles in fiction. People in the real world behave differently depending on their gender, partly because of cultural norms which have an influence on what is considered manly or womanly, but also partly because of mental differences that are part of the biological distinctions between male and female. Fictions also often choose to conform to reality in this regard.
And sometimes they don't, by engaging in stereotypical portrayal of genders, for instance, which is what I assume you meant by characters defined by their gender. This is an artistic liberty in the same vein of magic in fantasy or FTL travel in sci-fi. It doesn't necessarily mean they actually imply such characters are representative of their entire gender, just like fantasy authors don't necessarily think magic exists in the real world.
You say it is a "very clear problem". I think an issue with such one-size-fits-all terms is that its implications are quite vague. Feminists critics often say that such or such trope is "problematic", but by that they could mean anything from it being tasteless to it actually propagating misogynistic thinking in the general population.
Since I don't really know what you refer to by that, I'll give you my stance on the matter. I would agree with you in most instances if you mean by that that it's lazy writing or distasteful, but it's certainly not threatening equality at large like I explained earlier in my post.
Some people actually are pretty happy with the differences they were bestowed with. Many men like feeling manly, many women like feeling womanly and think it's part of their personality. Transgender people who feel uncomfortable being trapped in a body of a sex that doesn't correspond to their gender obviously care about these differences. Would you argue that we should discourage any kind of gender particularity, both in the psychological and physical realm and the cultural one? That's like saying that the only way to make all animals of a zoo equal is to feed them lettuce regardless of their species.
I think the main problem with your reasoning is that any kind of differentiation implies inequality. We all can thrive by embracing our differences, and even if that means we perform differently in different fields doesn't mean we can't be equal to one another.[/QUOTE]
Sex-positive feminism != objectification of women.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.