Slaunyeh's page

Goblin Squad Member. 1,833 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 251 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Last weekend, I put my finger on the element of the Agent Carter series that was sticking out to me. I didn't mind that the guys were sexist creeps. I didn't mind that the society was sexist. But it occurs to me that Agent Carter, who grew up in that environment is bothered by it, as if she had a 21st-Century sensibility about the whole thing. When she gets the assignment to get lunch orders, why does that irritate her?

I thought this was a common theme of the post-war era. During the war, women had taken on more and more positions of importance. When the war was over and the guys returned home, those women were suddenly pushed back out in the cold and expected to just go back to the way things had always been.

You're finally being taken serious, and suddenly you're back at taking lunch orders. I totally get why that would be "irritating" (to put it mildly).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty bad taste to pick a fight over it right here, right now, though. It doesn't matter if you think the victims were dicks or not. They were gunned down. Policemen were literally executed.

Don't give me any g'damn "murder is bad, but..." b$&#$$!%.

Not now.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Werthead wrote:
Jackson can probably eke out another trilogy from the story of how Legolas loses weight between the events of THE HOBBIT and LotR.

He could probably also do a movie (or a trilogy!) on the wacky adventures that Bilbo and Gandalf clearly gets up to on their trip back to the Shire.

As for the actual movie. That was, uhm, certainly a lot of fighting. Bard is pretty cool. Legolas is as lame as ever.

I was kinda disappointed how Tauriel's main purpose was apparently "be plot device for Legolas antics". I'd have liked her to do just one thing that Legolas didn't swoop in and take over (other than cry over Kili which is, like, the one scene she gets where Legolas doesn't come in and go "move over, I got this.")

If only Kili had fallen in love with Legolas instead of Tauriel, he'd still be alive!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
yellowdingo wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Last I checked, Idris Elba isn't mentioned for the cast of this movie, so that's a really weird exception to make. That's like going "oh it's probably Gwyneth Paltrow because she walks with legs."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going with 'great'. It's entirely within character for a would-be Sith to run around with a way too elaborate saber.

Also, I really hope that Sith is Gwendoline Christie.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
I'm not trying to be obtuse, here, but ... I didn't get that at all watching the film—not for an instant.

I didn't get that from the movie either, but I did see interviews with Ridley Scott that suggested that the Engineers being mad about Jesus was the point.

From the actual movie, it doesn't make much sense. But then again, neither does Shaw's conclusion that they stopped communicating with earth 2000 years ago. Unless, of course, it's reasonable to assume that she can know with 100% certainty that no other references than the cave paintings she has already found can exist on Earth.

Personally, I think it's pretty wacko to conclude that "hey, we've found five cave paintings now. Yeep, that's all of them."

The Engineers could literally still be on Earth (and, of course, considering that they have the same DNA as humans, they are), and Shaw would have no idea.

(And don't get me started on how a scientist can take the realization that "hey, they have the same DNA as humans!" and reach the conclusion "...so they must have created us" instead of "so they are us.")

But of course, Shaw turns out to be completely right in every baseless theory she comes up with, it's like she read the script or something!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
He's curious, plus working for Wayland.

Who, by the by, is behind one of the most anticlimactic "surprise twists" in the history of the movie industry. :p

"SURPRISE! I lied about being dead!" (uh, okay. Why did we care that you came along in the first place?)

"And also I want to ask the Engineers vaguely different questions than Shaw. Talk about classic surprise twist!" (Uhm, okay, this still does't explain why you couldn't just have been aboard the ship like a normal person. Though I suppose at least it explains why the medical-whatsit machine is spontaneously misogynistic.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Suspending my disbelief: Shaw clearly has 3-4 doctoral degrees. She's an archaeologist, astrophysicists and biologists, plus probably one or two more. That's hard to believe, but it's easier having her involved in all primary scenes than to have multiple mouth pieces for the plot. Suspension of disbelief.

AND she likes to base her scientific findings on nothing, and then support her unfounded theories with the deeply scientific argument that "it's what I choose to believe." :p

Also, you definitely don't need guns on scientific expeditions. Even for scientific expeditions on foreign worlds where no one has ever been and that you have no idea whether is home to a species of indigenous space bears.

Lord Snow wrote:
The bottom line is that it doesn't feel like the movie is aware of just how dumb what just happened is.

Exactly this. There's a big difference between a movie of people doing dumb things, and a movie that doesn't seem to realize the people are doing dumb things.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sheesh. *This* is what I come back to? o.O

*backs away slowly*

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

No, it's not. That's what some people have made it about, and what Zoe "Drama" Quinn would like to turn everyone's attention to, but that's not what it's about.

It's about journalistic integrity, or lack thereof. Quinn was the catalyst in bring an issue that has existed for a long damn time to light.

If that was actually true, why is Zoe Quinn being the subject of all this hate? Why drag Anita Sarkeesian into it? Why is no one calling Nathan Grayson's mom and yelling "YOUR SON IS A WHORE"? (disclaimer: you shouldn't, but these are things that happens to Zoe right now.)

None of the "breaches" of "journalistic integrity" that sparked gamergate actually happened.

Should we have a discussion about the very close and probably very unhealthy relationship between gaming websites and game publishers? Sure. That would both be interesting and appropriate. But that's simply not what gamergate is about, and anyone trying to have a serious discussion under the '#gamergate' banner are hard to take serious. That tag comes with a lot of unbelievably vile baggage.

Frankly, that so many people here apparently supports that level of harassment has pretty much put me off these forums. Because ew.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And why does she even drag up Zoe Quinn? I understand that you can have a disagreement with Anita's point of view (calling it an attempt to destroy gamer culture is maybe a little strong). She has opinions that you can disagree with, at least. Zoe... probably has viewpoints, but it's not like she's made a point of telling anyone about them. She just kinda exist and apparently get tagged with "well, she's also a woman and everyone hates her for some reason, so she probably wants to see the video game industry die."

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Because of anglo-saxon cultural imperialism! Doesn't fit neatly into one of our euro-centric categories? Too bad!

(Also, I'm mostly kidding. I just love to say 'anglo-saxon cultural imperialism'.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
GamerGate was created by the disgusting depths of 4Chan to shame women who are trying to change the culture of gaming for the better. I will never support the harassment of any creator.

Exactly this.

If you want to debate journalistic integrity in the gaming industry, that's fine, but that's not what "#GamerGate" is about at all.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Uh. That's not the disgusting trend that is being exposed here. The disgusting trend being exposed is how a vocal minority (hopefully) will latch onto anything to spread disgusting lies and lash out at women, while hiding behind weak claims of "journalistic integrity".

I mean, they are literally discussing the pros and cons of harassing Zoe Quinn until she kills herself. (warning: not for the faint of heart.)

Are you sure that's the side you want to be on?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is completely off topic, but perhaps a future reference for the OP:

I tend to instinctively avoid any thread that has "plz look ladies" or equivalent in the topic.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
If you have to have a "reason" to include anyone who's not a hetero white male, then your story's going to look like a whole lot of pale, boring sausage.

Well, when you write a story you're not just watching random events unfold. You are (usually?) making deliberate choices, so anything included is bound to have a "reason" to exist. In the perfect world, that reason should be in service of the story, rather than a 'diversity checklist'.

At least, that's how I understand his point.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kittyburger wrote:
ignoring the fact that all fiction is supposed to send a message

I think you are using the word 'fact' wrong.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Do all 'white' people share certain benefits?

Absolutely! Though I hesitate to call an increased risk of sun damage a benefit. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Because that's not how D20 games work? Seriously, it really isn't. The game is designed so that the majority of one's ability is defined by class; ergo, if you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.

Apparently it's how this D20 game works.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SeeDarkly_X wrote:
I don't give it a lot of thought past, "I like heroines."

Hi! I'm a heroine addict.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

PRO - I am a feminist, and so I can see where allowing a female character to take on the mantle of Thor is a good thing for equality in comics.

CON - I am a huge fan of Norse Mythology before I ever heard of Marvel's version of Thor, and I've not read more than one or two issues in my entire life, and only because they were crossover issues with titles I did read. So, for me making Thor male is like... O_o cause Thor is male. Thor is not Freya, Thor is not Hel, Thor is Thor. Thor is male.

There are not-dumb ways to combine the two. And, to be fair, we don't know if they are going for one of those.

(Though the official statements aren't filling me with confidence.)

Also, just to lay that to rest, I get that 'Lady' is female, whether it's a noble title or not. That's why "Lady Thor" sounds silly. So does 'Dame Thor', 'Thor Girl' or 'Miss Thor' (though that would be an awesome name for a drag queen act).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Lady Thor


Sorry, but that just tickles my funny bone. It's like a female Captain America calling herself "Lady Steve".

Though I suppose if she was Sif, calling herself Mrs. Thor would make sense. In the 50s.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, that feat is not a joke? Seems like something you'd release on April 1st.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Seriously, though, she actually is. A lot. I still don't know how I managed to con her into marrying me. I guess she's a sucker for goofballs.

Maybe she's the one who used her Super Intelligence to con you into marrying her?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember a Dark Heresy game a while back. The group got themselves into some hot water, surrounded by evil cultists they are brought before the cultist leader who just wants a pleasant chat. He promises to let us go, on a few conditions.

It's all quite civil, really.

Also, all the PCs are nervously eying my Adepta Sororitas, because really, this is a "do as he say or die" situation. So I just smile politely to the GM and say: "I shoot him."

Things went to hell quite fast, after that.

I'm working on making her a more... 'constructive' character. :)

(incidentally, all the PCs survived more or less intact. In unrelated news, flamers are <3).

I don't know what it is about Dark Heresy, but I find it very easy to just not care about the consequences and just do what my character would do. This would never have happened in a D&D game.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Word Crimes will be pretty legendary. That's the one that stood out for me the most.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
That looked so fixed it is not funny.

What, someone bribed Germany to try extra hard? :p

1 person marked this as a favorite.

7-0. They should have gone for the two-point conversion!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azmyth wrote:
Whenever I talk to anyone about the game, I deliberately avoid calling it anything other than D&D. I believe that deploying that kind of language perpetuates the mentality of edition wars and community polarity around them.

You don't have edition wars because they call the editions different things. You have edition wars because there are different editions.

Stubbornly referring to all editions as "D&D" and refusing to clarify which you mean is just going to lead to a lot of confusion. It can work in your private gaming group because, presumably, everyone will know what you're talking about. We're not your private gaming group.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
There are kiosks, right?

Uh. I would assume so, but who knows what those southern savages gets up to. :)

Also, remember to wish them a nice trip from all of us!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the easiest thing would be to pick a country and a pre-paid option, and then check the roaming fees. Due to recent EU legislation that limits how much companies can charge, cross-country phone usage, while inside the EU, should be fairly cheap. (I just can't remember if this went into effect on july 1st, or if it's on august 1st)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
It's that last part that bugged me. Apparently it is no longer enough to be making money, the product must be making a whole lot of money. (IIRC CoH was still turning a profit, but only a modest one)

From a business perspective, it makes sense. If you spend a million dollars to earn two million dollars, that's basically free money right? Why mess with that? But what if you could instead spend that one million dollars to earn ten million dollars? Wouldn't it be financially irresponsible to not pick the second option?

From a business perspective, that makes sense. Assuming, of course, that you're not in a business where people are emotionally invested in your product.

(Of course, stories of the "real reason" circulates, suggesting the decision was not financially motivated at all. At best that's hearsay though, and we might never know for sure. Still, sharing stories of how much NCSoft probably sucks is what keeps us warm at night!)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Honestly, expecting several millions of users in a monthly payment MMO is not a reasonable threshold any more.

To be honest, I don't think it ever was. Before WoW, a playerbase in the 200,000s was a strong and healthy game. And, really, that's also been true after WoW.

I think the game publishers are finally starting to realize this, as the "MMO Craze" appears to be dying down some. I really like the MMO game format, but the past 10 years have been silly (and surprisingly short on innovation).

That said, for the shock of CoH's termination, I think the main reason it stung as hard as it did was that it seemed to come completely out of the blue. If it had happened after the game had stagnated in "maintenance-mode" for years, I don't think it would have been much of a surprise to anyone. It would still suck for those of us who liked the game, but at least we had probably seen it coming.

That's not what happened though. CoH was gaining momentum, there was a lot of plans, new powersets, new zones, new stories, and the development team seemed really excited and then boom. One day. Game over.

It was unreal.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Brienne in book 4 was not about her, or the enemies she faces, or anything else like that. It is solidly meaningless... unless you realize it's the way for GRRM to show us Crackclaw Point and the rest of that corner of Westeros.

GRRM does that a lot. He'll make someone a PoW character to give us an insight into what's going on in some part of the world, even if the character itself isn't doing anything interesting.

Imho Brienne's chapters are really more about exploring what the world on the wrong side of a castle wall looks like in wake of the war, than progressing any particular storyline.

The guys in charge might think the war is over, but the smallfolk probably disagree.

I enjoyed Brienne's chapters exactly because she was spending so much time just traveling through the "real" world.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
justmebd wrote:
This week's episode is going to be 66 minutes long. That's 10 extra minutes of bloodletting!

And it has a lot of ground to cover. I'm a little worried that some of the expected season cliffhangers might actually be pushed to the start of the next season.

I want everything now!

Spoilers. For everything. Seriously:

Arya finds the head of the Statue of Liberty on the beach and realizes she's been on Earth all along!

No, but seriously, what I'd expect:

* Stannis' intervention in the north (from the episode description, this seems to be pretty much guaranteed)
* Jon Snow's meeting with Mance (as a precursor to the above. Here's hoping that they don't decide to write this as Jon negotiating a peace and Stannis screwing it up. Stannis needs his moment in the sun.)
* Tyrion dealing with both Shae and Tywin (hopefully including a brief hint to the Mountain's fate. I think people would appreciate knowing that Oberyn wasn't entirely unsuccessful).
* First appearance of Lady Stoneheart. Frey hangings optional. This is actually the major point for me, and would make a great final moment of the season.
* Arya abandoning a dying Hound.

This is a lot of major plot elements to stuff into one episode, and I'd worry that they would kinda be diminishing each other's impact if everything was in.

So probably some of these plot threads will be left unresolved? Maybe. Maybe not. I look forward to seeing what they come up with.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Anyway, I have high hopes for SW VII. Hopefully it will do well.

No offence, but I kinda hope you'll hate it. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowborn wrote:
Am I the only one that thought the beetle discussion was the best part of the episode? That wasn't in the books.

I've seen a lot of people complaining about the pointlessness of that scene, wanting them to have cut it to devote more time to the fighting. Personally, I really liked that scene. It was a moment of bonding between two brothers who haven't had nearly enough scenes together. I'm glad they kept it in.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dazylar wrote:
I presume so - I've not delved into the spoilered text so...

I think I completely misread your first post. Sorry! :) Yes, seems people have been pretty good with the spoiler tags.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I was a kid, I liked watching the Eurovision because it was full of all these exotic people and countries you'd never heard of. I liked that.

As age and cynicism set in, I kinda hate it. As a song contest, it's old fashioned, and pretty lame. And then 2006 happened and was awesome beyond words. All of the Eurovision, past and future, was justified in that glorious moment. :p

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
And it makes them jerks. And it's stupid.

Absolutely. The "I can't imagine anyone might be even vaguely different from me" mindset is disturbingly common.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sgriobhadair wrote:

Str: 18, Dex: 9, Con: 14, Int: 15, Wis: 13, Cha: 8

(randomly rolled, but happens to be equivalent to point buy 29).


What would you make with these stats?

Ooh. Let's see. I'm picturing an alchemist (vivisectionist, perhaps?) who has been experimenting on herself to the point where she's become obscenely buff. However, the added bulk has slowed her down a good deal (never mind how her hands have started to shake when she goes too long without her custom cocktail of drugs). She also tends to be rather impatient with the common plebs who just don't get her genius! A character flaw that has grown more pronounced the more she expose herself to her own experiments.

Elf would be an obvious choice, but I'm also thinking half-elf (or human blah blah), putting the bonus points into Dex or Int. Probably Int.

I'd play her!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Am I The Only One? wrote:
Aren't barbarians supposed to be unbalanced? I mean, that's what makes them rage, right? Lack of balance in life?

It's their huge upper bodies and tiny little legs. Try to be stacked like that on a ship in a storm. No wonder most barbarians hate sailing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's been going for a few weeks over here, and is great. Enjoy!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Heh, one thing that struck me about Black Widow... her background as a former KGB agent gets increasingly awkward, the longer this movie franchise is going to continue. It's something you could ignore away, but she did make direct references to being ex-KGB this time around.

"What, you were like seven years old when the KGB collapsed?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
its warmongering in a negative light

Sorry I don't have a lot to offer, but the above kinda made me snicker. You can put a positive spin on a word like 'warmongering'? :)

Aaanyway. Yes, sure. I've been in lots of games like this. Although, the vast majority of "real world" games I've been playing in are World of Darkness games, where the overall theme is that governments suck, and also tend to be very US biased, so clearly the US government sucks. WoD was very 'punk' in the 90s. :)

And then, still white wolf (why does white wolf hate America??), there's Aberrant where the US is pretty much a second tier villain who doesn't trust the rest of the world and have their own 'Directive' to *ahem* "take care" of domestic supers. (On the flipside, I've also played in an Aberrant game where the players were Directive agents.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
I suppose I should be amused by all this nerd rage over what some people call characters. I mean really does it matter? As long as you understand their meaning and you obviously do or you would be confused rather than enraged.

Your definition of nerd rage is hilarious.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
Personally, "toon" bugs me in MMO's too.

So much this.

But to answer the OP's question, I'd probably just grind my teeth and not say anything. I know what you mean.

Also, I only see 'murderhobo' used as an ironic statement on the nature of adventuring. I've never seen anyone seriously refer to their character as a 'murderhobo' instead of 'character', so I don't think that comparison is particular apt.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh. I've seen a lot of TMHT as a kid, and I never once wondered about his race. Or why he had an army of ninja.

When you fight mutant turtles, I guess it never did register as important whether you're from Japan or Okinawa. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ivan Rûski wrote:
Not that Fichtner is a terrible actor, but he's white. I'm not usually one to complain about a race swap, but in this case it's pretty important to the character.

Shredder has a race? And it's important? o.O

1 to 50 of 251 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>