Jump to content

Tryhard

Member
  • Content Count

    4,616
  • Joined

1 Follower

About Tryhard

  • Rank
    messenger of the gods
  • Birthday 02/12/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Scotland

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Gaiden

Member Badge

  • Members
    Edelgard

Recent Profile Visitors

15,751 profile views
  1. The simplest way to show this statistic is to say that the US has 5% of the worlds population, but 25% of the worlds prisoners. Not good proportions.
  2. Dark Alliance will probably be a good game, as were the older ones, but that trailer was awful. At least there has been a few screenshots and it looks decent so far.
  3. I can't really be bothered caring anymore, but I'm not exactly surprised. However, the Tories have been wishy-washy on Brexit so far, it's basically like them saying they should be elected to fix a problem they caused, so it's not like it will be any smoother. I'll cast my glare at Scottish unionists who didn't think this was going to happen, though.
  4. I'd argue it absolutely is. I've played New Vegas for 250+ hours, completed it 100% etc, I know how to get past the deathclaws before level 2, but a new player is not going to. Exploration doesn't really count for shit when deathclaws essentially kill you in one hit and I don't see every new player being very keen to constantly reload to do so. The intended route is clearly Goodsprings -> Primm -> Nipton -> Novac -> Boulder City -> New Vegas. Following the trail of Benny. And there is difficult encounters, some of which you pretty much cannot win if you decide to fight, if you go elsewhere. Not that I think there's much wrong with doing so, really. Fallout 1 has the aspect that if you go west after starting, you can immediately go to the military base and speedrun the game. More likely, you will die very quickly. But I'm curious about how this makes the game "open".
  5. not to mention from a purely gameplay perspective where new vegas fully wants you to be following literal roads, lest you run into cazadores or deathclaws for the entire first act of the game. Sunny blatantly tells you to follow the road after the tutorial to be safe. fallout 3, for all its faults, didn't put you on a track so heavily.
  6. It's not because they are dictators that I care about the invasions, it's that if we applied the logic that the US uses selectively, the US military would invade Saudi Arabia tomorrow. The US is known to support 73% of the worlds dictatorships through military aid. However, they are ignored because they are 'allies'. Allying itself with morally wrong forces is a common thing for the US government to do. To give you a lovely example, the US administration allied with warlords in the Afghanistan region to help them catch suspected terrorists. Ones that reportedly had underage sex slaves and told soldiers to keep quiet about this fact. I'm not necessarily opposed to intervention when it makes sense, but the standards that are being applied right now are openly mocked and rightfully so. The prevalent opinion from the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals is that the world is a geopolitical game in which global power should belong to as much as possibly to the United States. Something that is becoming (or has become) unpopular even though the vast majority of people do not like the Russian or Chinese governments. Why? Because worrying about what China does, does not help a struggling family in Kentucky, and so on and so on. It's for this reason that the US is seen as the number one threat to world peace over Russia and China by the world's respondents. Europe doesn't gain any sort of prize in this regard as they have their own problems, but it's not as if this opinion is that uncommon. What are the victory conditions for Iraq and Afghanistan? When do you plant the flag and say that you have succeeded? Or, am I right in assuming that a permanent occupation would have been preferable to the politicians still defending the decision? Saddam is dead, Osama Bin Laden is dead, and yet the only thing that has really been emboldened since those invasions is that there is more radicalized terrorists than when the US first entered. Sounds like a failure to me that you better cut your losses with. It's kinda like the war on drugs. Millions spent and lives incarcerated or lost and there is more drug use today than there was when it started. Even the UN reports itself that it is a failure.
  7. it's almost as if people on the internet are usually a bunch of whiners (that said, pokemon has needed a paradigm change in forever. not like this is the first game in which it's been stale)
  8. I somewhat despise the idea when people say that Trump is worse than Bush. Trump is more belligerent and a poor moral character, yes, but no one decision Trump has done has had the same effect as the blunders (if you are not attributing straight up malice/opportunism to them) that were the Iraq War and the decisions that lead to the 2008 financial crisis. For the latter, you could maybe say that we are overdue a market crash, but that has not happened yet. Bush was kinda the reason that modern Americans started to turn against "the establishment" in recent times. My fear is that some people have short memories and have attempted to rehabilitate Bush as a "decent Republican," or something. As if getting rid of Trump will cure the rot in the Republican party that already existed. Let's put it this way: you can speak politely and with civility, and still advocate for dropping bombs on foreign schoolchildren. Politicians have gotten a pass for a long time for being supposedly 'civil' in demeanour while advocating and putting into action horrible things. The one thing that you could say is that Trump manages to fail on both accounts, though as I mentioned I would argue that perhaps not as much as I feel Bush did. Either way, take Trump out and the problem is still going to remain with the Republican (and to a lesser extent, the Democrat) party. This wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but I've heard several democrats try to make amends with someone they vehemently disagreed with for years because it was politically convenient to do so.
  9. i warned you all about this but you didnt listen....
  10. I heard lula got released - what's that about
  11. I don't even like Randy (and he shouldn't have acted so petulantly), but those cosmetic DLCs have been in the game since BL1 and really are no big deal. They can technically be considered micro-transactions, but when BL1 was released, they weren't even considered micro-transactions back then because the concept of that was so far removed from what it is now. The games media were just trying to be pedantic and score some points, because evidently what Randy was talking about was pay-to-win "mechanics".
  12. As Shoblongoo said, compared to what? Sure, compared to a dictatorship, undemocratic is hyperbolic. Not comparing it like that, though, I would say valuing people's votes differently is pretty undemocratic.
  13. Support for the electoral college is like 44% or less while the popular vote is closer to 50% or more (Pew Research). And it's not really surprising that it's more of a partisan split because of events. It used to be above 60%. https://www.people-press.org/2018/04/26/5-the-electoral-college-congress-and-representation/ But of course if we are going by the system in which the electoral college is a better idea than a popular vote that doesn't matter, ha ha ha. Buddy, you've done this several times already. But keep responding, you are at least entertaining.
  14. even putting aside the plutocratic nature of this (reminds me of the type of arguments that wanted to kept wealthy, white male land owners being the sole voters), this would imply that simply being a resident of a less populated area or state somehow means you contribute more, even if you are dirt poor and can't pay taxes, or are unemployed. (unless you are going to advocate that unemployed people shouldn't be allowed to vote, which by all means, go right ahead.) this logic is all kinds of fucked. If I move from a city to a rural area in a different state, then suddenly my voting power should increase? Even if I got a similar job and similar living standards? Why? you simply are trying to defend an undemocratic position. something that isn't very popular, hence why you may get the sense you are being dogpiled. because that's not a position I would want to defend even if I was wanting to play devil's advocate. i have a feeling you don't want a good faith argument though.
×
×
  • Create New...