Jump to content

Hawkwing

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,049

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Hawkwing

    Borrowing Birthright This Time! What Difficulty Should I Start On?

    in Fire Emblem Fates

    Posted

    Started on Lunatic Classic yesterday, though I switched to casual the first chance I got. I'll likely still play the same as classic, but I'd rather not have to deal with starting a map from the beginning or loosing a good unit thanks to screwing up at the last second. I remember it taking a few playthroughs of Awakening before I was comfortable with ironmanning that game, and both the Fates games remind me enough of the thirteenth installment that I'll likely start doing challenge runs after I've completed them enough times to get familiar with what to expect.

    I managed to get to the first map after the route split and did Mozo's chapter before calling it a day, and I have to say that the difficulty of Lunatic caught me off guard, but in a good way. I ended up resetting several times on every map after chapter 2 and before the split thanks to the difficulty, and while there was some trail and error, it was the fun kind. It wasn't trying and retrying a level just to find the correct way to proceed, but rather adjusting my tactics to continue with what worked and tweak what didn't. It never seemed impossible, but rather that I needed to approach an encounter from a different angle. It did make me wish Fates had some kind of turnwheel function (albeit a heavily limited one) to help same on time, though.

    I may not have spent a ton of time on Birthright yet, but something I noticed immediately was that a lot of your units did come off as weaker compared to the soldiers you get in Conquest. Rinkah started at E-rank, Hana and Subaki could be killed in two battles, and Sakura didn't impress me as much as Elise did, though that could just be the lack of a horse. Yet, in a way, I find it rather clever that the units that start out in the "peaceful" kingdom aren't as immediately competent as the ones in the "warlike" one. Similar case with it being easier to gather money and experience in the prosperous nation while gold and exp is a precious resource throughout Conquest. The writing may have fallen flat on the worldbuilding, but I do have to compliment how it was implemented in gameplay.

    Also, I am really looking forward to using the exotic weapons and classes that you constantly fought against in Conquest and only had the barest ability to use on your side. They were interesting to combat and looked fun to use. I am also curious how many battles there will be that feature Hoshidan classes as opponents. I know Conquest had its fair share of fights against Nohrian classes (almost too many; it barely felt like there was a war with Hoshido at points) so I am curious if Birthright does the same.

    The Race Issue: Is it going too far? Has Disney hopped on the train now too?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

    I'm taking this to mean that you're reluctant to apply descriptions to any group on the basis that there may be outliers/exceptions, yes?

    Yes. Blame the sweeping generalizations both sides have made about the other and the difficulty of finding a middle ground for that. Especially when I've seen how off most of said generalizations are with my own eyes.

    On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

    Ah, you might be misunderstanding. Trying to ignore superficial qualities is good, but it only addresses your own prejudices. It can help to distinguish the terms:

    • Prejudice can be defined as a personal bias towards a group (eg: "I don't like ____ people"). Anyone can be prejudiced, and it's easy to notice this behavior in ourselves or others. It's comparatively easy to fix and usually the point of fiction where people learn to respect people from other groups (eg: Path of Radiance racial tension between Jill and Lethe).
    • Racism can be defined as something that causes a negative impact towards a group, such as through actions by individuals, or ongoing systemic oppression. Arguably, not every group can be racist towards certain other groups. By this definition, a black man not trusting white people is prejudiced, but if his actions have no meaningful impact on white people, then you could argue that it's not racism, but prejudice.

    It's helpful to not look at "racist" being a hard label for anyone other than those who embrace it (like KKK members) or constantly and consistently perform racist actions (like some politicians), and rather look at individual performing instances of racism (sometimes unintentionally). What separates personal prejudices from racism as a whole is that you might be doing something with absolutely sincere intentions, but causing negative impacts based on race. Technically, that's racism, but it doesn't make you a racist. The other part of it is that white people by default benefit from system racism, regardless of their opinions or awareness. 

    A key thing to understand is that when you say "I'm not racist", you're really saying "I'm not prejudiced". You probably are doing your best to be mindful of your behavior. But it doesn't mean you're not susceptible to making mistakes or benefiting from racist systems. People who try to say they aren't racist when called out on something they did are really just trying to exempt themselves from criticism. In that sense, by claiming "I'm not racist", a person is saying they're above reproach.

    So you are basically saying "Everyone is prejudiced, lives in a prejudiced system, and it is unavoidable to be prejudiced no matter what"? Perhaps as human beings it is unavoidable not to notice another skin color, but we also have the ability to choose for that not to influence our decisions. The thoughts may pop to our head without us wanting to, but nothing forces us to listen to it. 

    Also, what do you propose the common citizen to do to avoid benefiting from these "racist" systems? Would a white person get anywhere by asking their professor or teacher to take the exact same test as the black person? Or to request during a job interview not consider their race? We don't get to choose the circumstances we are born with, but we can choose what to do with the resources we are given. Some use these opportunities prudently, others squander it, yet we can always decided how to react to whatever life throws our way.

    I agree that these systems should be changed to make the playing field even. Yet while the common citizen can advocate for a change, it ultimately it is up to law makers to create the laws. Even then, enforcement of said laws won't always be fair, as mentioned a few times on this thread. I doubt anyone chooses to be part of a supposedly unequal system, yet that does not prevent people from being able to treat others equally and respectfully, regardless of race and position.

    On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

    For what it's worth, history is often whitewashed or sugarcoated, so I think it's worth keeping a critical eye on something that uses accuracy as a defense.

    It's also common for history to be twisted so that certain groups and people look less or more villainous or heroic, and to exaggerate or downplay certain actions that took place. Sometimes this done because there is only so much you can put into a product in the case of things such as movies, video games, and books, as well as studios having to account for the age rating. Even then, they aren't except from from doing what anyone can do; twist the past to fit their own views for their own ends. Any side can do it. It is why critical thinking, awareness, and research as so vital when discussing history.

    On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

    This might be getting a bit off-topic, so I don't know if we should keep discussing it here, but the bottom line is always that it's a conscious decision to add, cut, or ignore any design choices.

    What came to mind in when writing that section of my post was why Value didn't add female versions of the mercenaries in Team Fortress 2, as it is a good example of how a company can have plans to add diversity but other factors result in the idea getting cut. I was going to link the video originally, but decided against it since while the research and facts are sound, the presentation rather informal for this kind of topic.

    Anyway, memory was the main problem Valve faced with inserting the idea, as having multiple models for a single class would lead to performance issues, which is one of the last things you want in a fast paced multiplayer game. This issue was compounded by the production costs of creating distinctive designs for the new characters, building the models and the animations for them, hiring voice actors (keep in mind that the game has over 4,000 voice clips just for 9 characters), and how the work required to update the game with new items would be doubled with the addition of a female cast. On the competitive side of things, the different models might have different hitboxes, meaning that players would likely pick the gender model that is harder to hit over the one they like, and making both models exactly the same to prevent this issue would defeat the purpose of having two different characters. Robin Walker, one of the developers of the game, has stated in a few interviews that while adding female characters is not impossible, it is unlikely to happen due to the potential costs in game performance and production, and the development team never found a satisfactory compromise they were happy with in their attempts to implement the idea.

    This is far from a universal reason as to why certain videogames don't have more diverse casts, but it is a good example of how a developer may have wanted to implement one but other factors prevented the idea from coming to fruition.

    On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

    Video game leads are overwhelmingly white (or coded white) male characters and it's both creatively stagnant and rather exclusionary towards audiences if they make little to no effort for diversity.

    This point I can agree with. The characters, well, character matters most at the end of the day, yet there is nothing to loose from having greater diversity.

    On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

    Ah, don't be so sure, if you're participating in this thread, then you do care about politics, ultimately.

    Or my original post was pointing out how Disney has always been embarrassed about Song of the South and how refurnishing a ride would bee seen as a standard business practice if the timing of the announcement weren't so suspect.

    That, and how different news sources are saying different things about certain aspects of these protests to push their own agendas, and how this is nothing new.

    On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

    I don't blame anyone for being burnt out by how shit the world can be and not wanting to get super involved all the time. Yet, there are still ways you can help improve other people's lives without dedicating much if you can, and at the very least, staying informed is invaluable.

    Doesn't help that most of the issues I care about won't be solved by politics, but rather the attitude of the larger culture and society, and I don't expect those things to align with everything I believe in anytime soon. It's why I believe the greatest impact anyone can have is treating everyone we meet, whether neighbors, family, coworkers, or random people we don't know with respect and focusing upon inward characteristics over outward ones.

    On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

    You're more than welcome to share those thoughts

    Some points that came to mind on the positive side of things (speaking generally):

    - It throws the idea out there, which in turn the allows people to ignore, praise, criticize, dissect, analyze, apply or reject it. It can have an influence on others and can provide encouragement for others to present their own ideas and views on the matter.

    - Even a flawed execution can still raise awareness and, perhaps unintentionally, encourage people to research something to get a more informed view.

    - It takes time, but the more commonplace an ideal is, the more accepted it tends to become.

    On the Negative:

    - Intentions can change quickly, and it is easy to drop support of something if another group offers a better deal. It's even possible to play both sides if it is profitable.

    - People fight back against being strong-armed into showing support for an ideal they don't agree with. There are a multitude of positive examples of people standing firm in their own believes despite the danger and strength of the opposition, even if it costs them their life, just as there are destructive cases where people do as much in their power to hamper growth and hang on to their old ideals for as long as they can. Both of these send strong messages, whether encouraging or destructive.

    - A flawed execution of an idea can be just as dangerous as it can be helpful. It can encourage research, yes, but if someone doesn't put in the effort, it give them a warped perspective of a situation (especially if they don't do anything to combat it), which in several cases can build up over time and lead to taking actions based upon a biased or flawed viewpoint.

    Again, I am speaking generally, and this is more giving some quick thoughts than writing an essay. 

    Borrowing Birthright This Time! What Difficulty Should I Start On?

    in Fire Emblem Fates

    Posted

    Last year I borrowed my cousins copy of Fire Emblem Fates: Conquest, and asked for some advice. Once again, I thank everyone who responded. I frequently referred to the topic throughout my playthrough and it was helpful each time.

    This time, I asked to borrow Birthright, and my question is what difficulty should I play it on? I completed Conquest on hard casual, and in terms of pure gameplay, I would consider it the best in the series. It remained challenging yet fair throughout, it knew when to inform the player about a gimmick or mechanic and went to let the map design and enemy abilities speak for themselves, and I can count the amount of bullcrap specific to this game on one hand. That said, the sheer number of things to keep track of, combined with how long certain levels could last and how certain gimmicks could have been given a bit more time to stew, did result in me getting exhausted with the game.

    I know that Birthright is considered much easier, so after beating Conquest, would it be a good idea to start a blind playthrough on hard or lunatic difficulty? I also ask how well does the game handle permadeath, as I am curious whether to start on casual or classic mode. I enjoy doing Ironman runs for most games in the series, and I have done blind Ironman runs for  Shadow Dragon and Blazing Sword, so this wouldn't be my first rodeo.

    Thanks in advance.

    (Also, I swear I am going to do a Ryoma Solo run of the game after my first playthrough, as I am legitimately curious if he really is that powerful.)

    The Race Issue: Is it going too far? Has Disney hopped on the train now too?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    11 hours ago, AlexArtsHere said:

    You make it sound like white privilege is a curse for White people

    Not a curse, but it could be seen as an excuse to diminish the work someone did simply because of their race. Or the opposite side, saying that someone had a door of opportunity close on an opportunity solely because of their race. I am far from saying race is not a factor, but considering it the only one is a pointlessly limiting viewpoint to apply to every situation. Hence why I believe these situations should be analyzed, but it much easier to judge based on appearances.

    I suppose I should just say outright that I distrust any label, given how abusable they are, even when they have some degree of accuracy. Call it disillusionment from how polarized our current political and social climate is and how difficult it is to find a middle ground. Again. it is being used appropriately in this context, but it could easily be a different story in another one.

    11 hours ago, AlexArtsHere said:

    And I can absolutely guarantee minority people being casted in entertainment for their skin colour happens on an extremely infrequent basis because the entertainment industry is stills dominated by White people, specifically white men. Sure, some tokenism occurs but to imply it’s a widespread practice then diminishes the work of the minorities who have been given those opportunities.

    I am not in the entertainment industry, so I am not privy to how frequent hiring based on race is. I do know that casting someone for their abilities over their appearance is far from uncommon. Execution matters most at the end of the day, and tokenisms are rightfully a frequent topic of criticism in today's day and age.

    Since it was brought up, I do want to mention that simply because a field may be historicallu dominated by a certain group does not mean that said group is hostile towards diversity. I've taken several college classes in the field of manufacturing and worked in a few industrial jobs that were historically male dominated, yet still had a number of female employees/students. There was no hostility towards this minority by coworkers and those in charge, even though male employees outnumbered them. Being accepting towards a group does not immediately result in an even ratio, as that takes time to occur, which is something I've seen some groups struggle to understand.

    11 hours ago, AlexArtsHere said:

    And at the end of the day you’re still arguing semantics and distracting for the real issue which is that white privilege exists systemically, regardless of what name it goes by and whether or not you like that name. If we put more time into solving that issue rather than talking about how we don’t like the name of the concept, said concept would sooner cease to exist and any dissatisfaction with the name would be redundant anyway.

    And I'm not in charge of any corporations and I can't make any laws. It's a stupidly simple change to remove race, gender, nationality, religion, and so on from the equation, and every employee handbook I've seen points that out. Enforcing it is the difficult part, as there is always going to be at least one person against change.

    I can choose as an individual not to care about a persons appearance and instead care about their character, as that's what truly matters at the end of the day. I won't be changing society or the political landscape, but I can decide how I personally act. This is something shared between every single human being on the face of the planet.

    1 hour ago, Johann said:

    This isn't as strong a point as you seem to think it is. People don't choose to be black, or female, or gay, etc, and among those groups there's a tremendous degree of diversity. But people do choose to be republicans or police. While their ideologies and intentions aren't uniform between members of either group, they are both, at their core, groups designed to wield power over others. That these two groups also are overwhelmingly controlled by people using that power violently and cruelly means that anyone else in that group is, to at least some degree, enabling that cruelty.

    That was more a point about how absolute a viewpoint about a group can be, regardless of the variances of the people within said group. I suppose I didn't make that aspect clear enough. Point is, the same attitudes can be leveled at groups that didn't choose their lot in life as much as organizations made up of all kinds of people.

    1 hour ago, Johann said:

    When a white person says "I don't see race", what they're effectively saying is "I don't want to think/talk about racism", especially the racism that they may be guilty of or benefiting from.

    Couldn't that itself be considered a racist statement? That it is supposedly impossible for white people to not be racist about anything? That someone with white skin can't ignore the pointless physical attributes about another person and instead care about about the qualities that actually matter?

    Perhaps that wasn't what you were aiming at, yet the attitude that one can't be racist or sexist towards a majority still exists, and it simply flips the problem instead of actually solving anything.

    1 hour ago, Johann said:

    If race/gender/sexuality/etc play a role in the story, then they should be cast appropriately. If not, there's no reason to not have diverse casting or characters. Having diverse casts helps normalize diversity.

    Oh I most certainly agree. There really is no excuse to have diverse casts in this day and age, although execution of the concept obviously varies between works. Historical works with an aim of accuracy is perhaps the only field that can "get away" with supposedly racist or sexist casting (or at least, it receives the least amount of criticism for doing so).

    1 hour ago, Johann said:

    Development issues are a pretty weak excuse as for why there isn't more diversity. The bottom line is that the developers chose to skip over making diverse characters in favor of something else, which is very likely stemming from the lack of diversity in the industry.

    Models take time and money to create, voice actors aren't cheap, and characterization goes out the window on the competitive scene, among a plethora of other elements that go into making sure a game runs and is fun to play. Of course, it is always a good idea to design a game with diversity in mind, yet so much goes into the development process that not every idea can come to fruition. There are a lot of legitimate issues that developers have to face that would sound like lazy excuses in a different field. It is entirely possible to aim at something and miss the mark due to factors outside the creators control, with no hostile intent on their part.

    On the flip side, a game having great diversity does not always mean it is fun to play or well-designed, even if said diversity can still be a positive element that draws people to a game. There are enough examples where the gameplay sucks yet other elements such as the story, characters, music, art style, and so on still get people interested. It is awesome when a game manages to achieve this diversity while also having excellent gameplay, but considering how many games out there have excellent ideas yet don't always execute them well, this is far easier said than done.

    1 hour ago, Johann said:

    It's absolutely fair and right to not trust brands and companies (they're not your friends), but hey, a win is a win.

    I never trusted any large group to have the common persons best interests in mind, hence why I stopped giving a crap about politics and why I've accepted that scummy business practices will always be a thing, even if it is a worthwhile fight to stamp it out. Learning that car companies are entirely willing to ignore known issues because it is easier to pay off lawsuits than fix the problem, even if it results in a number of deaths, will do that pretty quickly.

    2 hours ago, Johann said:

    Bottom line is impacts over intentions.

    I see both productive and destructive qualities in this statement, though perhaps that's just my philosophers side coming out. I'll give it some thought before starting any debates.

    Any well-deserved critics' reviews you relied on?

    in General Gaming

    Posted

    SomecallmeJohhny, Retropolis Zone (an underrated reviewer, even if the length of their videos is a double-edged sword), and the game costing 10 bucks on the E-shop convinced me to get the MegaMan X collection. Don't regret my purchase, even if I quickly realized that it has been a long time since I have last played a platformer.

    SomecallmeJohhny's reviews of Metal Gear got me into the series, although Awkward Zombine and the "Let's Destroy Metal Gear!" comics by Hiiamdaisy also had a hand in that. Despite only playing two games in the franchise thus far, I quickly fell in love with its unique blend of silliness and seriousness, thought-provoking plots, and extremely well done stealth gameplay.

    The Completionist and the Resident Evil marathon by SomecallmeJohnny (noticing a pattern?), as well as being $20 on the E-shop led to me getting Resident Evil 4 on the Nintendo Switch. Needless to say, I have no difficulty seeing why this is considered one of the most influential videogames of all time and why it is a favorite of many. I had fun from beginning to end, my complaints were few, and it didn't take long before I started a new game to experience it all over again.

    These are the only cases I can think of where a reviewer convinced me to buy a game. Generally, I tend to watch reviews for fun and to either learn about a game I didn't have much knowledge of before or to get a different perspective on one I had already played. When actually buying a product, I tend already have some knowledge of the game beforehand, or it was cheap and the marketing blurbs and screenshots looked interesting at stores where you can buy older games.

    Anyone else seeing popup ads?

    in Member Feedback

    Posted

    I can confirm that these pop-up ads are appearing on both my laptop and my phone, whether I am logged in or not. They also show up on every screen, whether it's a topic, an index, or the All Activity page. The only place it seems they don't show up is on the home page of the forum.

    The Race Issue: Is it going too far? Has Disney hopped on the train now too?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    On 7/2/2020 at 12:51 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

    I definitely disagree. As a white person, I find the term "privilege" very useful. I'm not sure why you're equating it with meaning spoiled, that's not what the word means. Outside social justice discussion, it's most likely to be used in contexts such as:

    "I had the privilege of working with _____, who was both a great mentor to me and a great person" or
    "_____ had the privilege of growing up in a stable, loving household"

    Simply, a privileged person is one who is blessed with a fortunate circumstance. The point is that, living in the US (as well as similar countries such as my own), you are privileged to be a white person. It gives you advantages. This does not mean that you experience no hardships, nor that other people think you're some sort of spoiled brat; it just means that you're fortunate, and you should be aware of that. You can be an amazing saint of a human being and still be privileged. For me, learning about it opened me eyes to the lack of privilege others had and helped me see their struggles as real even though they were things I hadn't personally experienced.

    I think the word puts it about as succinctly and non-judgementaly as could be asked for, so I don't think the word is a problem. Rather, I think the problem is that some people are made uncomfortable by the knowledge of their own privelege and react negatively to anything trying to draw their attention to it. I think it's worth some introspection and discussion to figure out if that applies to you.

    I see where you are coming from. In several ways, I agree. You don't get to choose the cards you were given in life, and the deck is often unfair, but you can decide what to do with the hand and opportunities you are given. While circumstances do matter, I would say that the actions taken in response to the opportunities one has far greater impact, as that determines and builds a person's character. I won't pretend that race isn't a factor, but it is up to the individual as to whether or not they will let that influence their decisions.

     

    I will say that "spoiled" didn't come to mind regarding the phrase "privileged". The opposite, actually. It could be seen as telling someone "you didn't receive an education, get hired for a job, or earn a promotion because you worked hard. You got it because you were white." This could be considered an extreme interpretation,  but on some level that is what the phrase is saying. Perhaps race will always be a factor, but it is far from the only one in a person's life, and its influence can be nonexistent in a multitude of situations.

    This is part of the reason I am wary towards labels and such, as they tend to oversimplify matters that have a multitude of aspects to them. "White Privilege" is mostly being utilized in a matter-of-fact manner in the current topic, yet I have no difficulty seeing it applied as an excuse to blame race as the main reason some people are in better situations than others, when it is never that simple. Especially given how polarized our current political and social environment is, it is far too common to see any side make absolutes about another. Heck, in this very thread, there have been some pretty strong summations of republicans and the police, when there are several individuals in either group whose actions speak to the contrary just as there are people who fit the descriptions like a glove.

     

    All that said, I still dislike the term, but I do appreciate the different perspective. It caused me to think about the topic for a good while, and my post went through a few revisions because of that. Ever since I was a child, I never saw a difference between races, and never saw a reason to treat anyone differently because of it. I knew full well how prevalent racism is throughout history, yet I took that as a lesson that everyone is human, equally capable of virtue and vice, and that treating people differently based on the color of their skin was pointless and destructive. I wouldn't say I am "proud" for sticking by this principle, as I believe it should be the default stance on the matter for every human being.

    Yet these current protests did get me thinking if this stance had a few blind spots that I wasn't aware of before. That because I strived to not take aspects such as race, gender, and so on into the equation when interacting with others, instead putting more stock into a person's character, that I didn't take into consideration the moments when others didn't share this viewpoint. That not caring about race caused me to overlook the times it may have been a factor in another's life. My stance on treating people equally remains unshaken, yet again, I do have to thank you for giving me food for thought. It was a good topic to reflecting on, and I will keep these different viewpoints in mind.

    On 7/2/2020 at 12:50 PM, AlexArtsHere said:

    Basic example, a white person and a black person each apply for the same job with the same qualifications and the same performance in the interview. If the white person gets chosen for that job because the colour of their skin leads them to be viewed more favourably in the eyes of the person responsible for hiring (either intentionally or unintentionally), that's them benefiting from white privilege. It's not they're fault, they're not bad for being white, but it's an illustration of how deeply embedded racism and white privilege is into not only the U.S., but the U.K. and parts of Europe too.

    Replace skin color with gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, and so on, and this example extends beyond just race. Regardless of the difference(s) between the two people, this kind of situation is easily muddled. Sometimes the white person is hired because they were more qualified for the job, other times it is because of racism. It may even be both in some cases. Regardless of the reason, it is easy to twist the situation to make it appear that the other person didn't get the job because of the color of their skin, regardless of the other factors in play. This either leads to a corporation being rightfully criticized for racism, or it gives unwarranted infamy to a company that is difficult, if not in some cases impossible, to get rid of.

    The opposite situation can also be the case. The company may hire the black person over the white person due to having higher qualifications, or they may give them the job in order to fulfill a quota, or both. And just like the previous situation, it is easy to frame someone being hired to appease a certain group over their actual abilities, regardless of what the case may actually be.

    This situation extends beyond job interviews. While far from the only industry where this takes place, it is especially noticeable in the entertainment field. There are a multitude of products out there that have been criticized for their implementation, or lack thereof, of race, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, etc. Sometimes these criticisms are well founded, other time it might be complaining about an aspect that doesn't directly impact the story at all, and sometimes the situation came about due to a lack of time/resources and/or gameplay balance instead of malevolent views on the creators behalf.

    Disney remodeling Splash mountain as mentioned in the original post could be seen as a variant of this. Roller coasters getting a new coat of paint is common in the industry, yet Disney's timing makes it appear that the decision was done to get on the good side of certain groups. It is possible that they were planning the change for some time and made the announcement when they were confident they had enough resources to do so. It is suspect that they made the decision during the current social climate, but it would be far from the first case of odd timing. Their rather clumsy handling of LGBT content recently doesn't do them any favors, which lends itself to the point I am trying to make. That there are often several factors involved in situations like these, which not only affect the decisions made by those in charge but also how others react to the news and what viewpoint they take. Analyzing the context to find the truth is perhaps the best course of action in these kind of circumstances, but rarely is that a quick or simple process.

    The Race Issue: Is it going too far? Has Disney hopped on the train now too?

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    5 hours ago, epilepsyduck said:

    If we're talking about "demonizing" the cops here,

    They never specified which side was being demonized, or even if it was only one side. After all, what tends to make headlines and grab the public's attention? Cops doing their job properly and peaceful protests, or police and rioters inciting and taking part in violent actions against anything? This was the case before the current situation, it was the case decades if not centuries ago, and will likely continue long after this whole thing is over.

     

    Anyway, I hate the term "white privilege" the same as I hate any label that casts a net over a large group of people from all perspectives and walks of life. It encourages pointing fingers, placing blame, and getting people riled up instead of promoting positive changes. I am far from saying that racial issues (or other topics if speaking in a general sense) don't exist, nor will I deny that they can be difficult to notice if it doesn't affect someone personally. Yet descriptions like these are unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst.

    *MOBILE USERS ONLY* Press the middle key word to make a sentence!

    in Forum Games

    Posted

    Are you doing today I can come in at the end of the day I can do it was a good day for you to come home and get some rest and feel better soon and that is why I am asking for a friend to talked to him about it and he said he would be a good time to come by and see you soon

    Last night and I was like oh well I will be there in a few minutes and I will both have the game on the weekend and will I have time to go back in a little and see how you were doing and how much treasure and how many times have to go away from my house so you know the one of me and the obstacles that was in heaven in my head that was my thought of that before and it seems Disney world and story about how the world and story about how the cast bounced around 40 coins I think this would make you a good idea but it's almost over so you know what kind of charger for me to a good idea for us and the afterlife is it a few more hours of my day and the afterlife.

    ...Yeah I am as confused as you are.

    Corrupt a wish: FE edition

    in Forum Games

    Posted

    Granted, but their transformation amounts to putting on the crocodile cap from Metal Gear Solid 3.

    23 hours ago, Dragoncat said:

    @Hawkwing Nice ideas! They did include female generics in 3H, but not to the level you described.

    Thank you!

     

    I wish that the capes worn by certain characters/classes would actually have some combat utility, whether in gameplay or in the battle animations.

×
×
  • Create New...