Shagger

Incredibly, I got exactly the same,

I don't even need to read beyond this sheer hypocrisy. Ever since you arrived here there has been no narrative that's correct except your own, no haw far fetched or controversial, not matter how many of us see flaw in it. When challenged, you become a victim and it's really getting old. Seriously, why are you here? Let me tell you, if the purpose to convince us that your way seeing thins is the way it should be seen, that you speak the one and only truth then are wasting everyone's time, including your own. I've admitted I'm wrong plenty of times, and I'm about to again. See? I was wrong. I should have given up on you ages ago, you are beyond hope.

I saw a story about that $2million Mario Bros cartridge and I suspected something was up. If this isn't illegal it should be. I mean, this if fraud.

That's the speed of the HDD that comes with the console as standard, so that's probably the one to go for.

Like I said, you don't need to use BBcode. The website itself recognises an image URL then reencodes the image link to display the image on it's own. It's the same with embedding YouTube videos, just copy the link into a post and the website takes care of the rest. I know it's something the "Old School" forum users might not be used to, but it does make things easier. If you encounter difficulties in the future using the site, don't hesitate to ask me for help.

@Razor1911 I've edited your post to insert the image you were trying to use. You don't actually need to use BBcode on the VGR forums to insert new images. Just copy and paste the URL of the image into your post. If that doesn't work, you can either click on the "other media" on the bottom right of the imbed word processor where you type you posts, then select "Insert image from URL" and input the URL there... ... or (what I usually do) download the image to your device then make use of the attachment function on the bottom left by either "clicking and dragging the image" from an open explorer tab or "choose files" to browse and find the specific image you want. I prefer this method because it turns the VGR forum into the host site for the image, so the image doesn't disappear if the original host deletes or moves the image. Should improve the quality as well. I hope that helps. On topic, in the UK, we refer to that vehicle as a pick-up truck, and I'm fairly sure the rest of the world does as well.

OK, @m76, before I get stated I do, in fact, know better than to debate with you because I know this is going to go. I'll question you viewpoints, nothing more and nothing less, but you'll register it as a personal attack on you when all I'm doing is challenging your views. I know what I should do is follow @The Blackangel's example and ignore you, but I wanna try this one more time in the hope that you do have the capacity learn, see a new perspective and respond like a rational human being. I'm doing that because I know you're a smart guy and I haven't given up on you yet. It's not the people you rather unjustly labelled as a negative element in society called "progressives" pushing the idea that fiction needs to mirror reality, fiction does mirror reality, or at least any fiction worth a damb dose. I say that because if fiction didn't connect to real world emotions, experiences, social tropes and relationships people share in the real world, there would be nothing to connect fiction to ourselves as people, it would have no impact. It doesn't have to be a blunt, literal reference to connect with us, it can be more metaphorical, buried by the overtones of the world crafted by the creators imagination, but it will be there. If all great writers and creators of fiction gave an aspiring creator one piece of advice, I reckon the vast majority would say the same thing. Write what you know. And because creators can in the end only be inspired, whether it be directly or indirectly, by the real world I could say that it's not even possible to have fiction that doesn't mirror reality. Did you know, for example, that J.R.R Tolkien based the Battle of Hems Deep in The Lord of the Rings on the real Battle of Vienna in 1863? From the attempts to destroy the walls with explosives to the cavalry charge to beak the siege and win the battle at the end, it's almost exactly the same. Nobody accused Tolkien of "hitting to close to reality" or told him to "keep real world references out" of it because he was just doing what good writers do. Write what he knew. We was a veteran himself and knew history, so those two things were a big inspiration for him even though his books weren't exactly documentaries. If you deny the simple truth that fiction reflects reality and pretend the connection is not there, it's little wonder you've become so superficial, immature and vain about it, not to mention how stubborn you are in your denials. If you still not convinced, let's try looking at it in a way more specific to a hero and how a hero in fiction is a reflection of reality. A hero's deeds are heroic in fiction need to be comparable to something considered a heroic deed in the real world, otherwise how could you even consider it heroic at all? For example, let's say saving someone from a burning building. That can happen in fiction just as easily in real life, and you said so yourself, "Nobody is trying to diminish real world heroes, or imply that if you don't look like adonis you can't be heroic IRL.", so why would it be such an issue for you to offer the same admiration to a fictional hero for doing the same thing just because they didn't float your boat? The last time I encountered logic like that was when I was a teenager arguing with some girl who insisted a boyband (I can't remember specially what boyband, but I remember they were god awful, even by boyband standards) sounded good because they were nice looking. That, for some reason, being easy on the eyes made them sound better. So you see, you bring to this the logic of a teenage pop fan. I'm not stupid, I know how vain the world of pop music is, I'm just saying that, for me, that whilst I looked at the Spice Girls as a teen and thought "Yeeep!", but that didn't make "Wannabe" any easier to listen to. Well, tell me what movies your movies your watching, games you're playing, books your reading and TV series you're watching because you're not picking them very well. The alternative is that you're talking complete nonsense because hero's have changed. Men are more emotional and conflicted than they used to be woman are more stern and wilful. Nobody's saying you have to like these changes, but how on earth you don't see them is beyond my understanding. Just look at how different Sean Connery's James Bond is to Daniel Graig's, for example. Now, I don't know if you for some reason can't see it, refuse to see or if you're just making up this false truth about how hero's have changed in fiction to strengthen your position here, but something sure as hell isn't right. We may just have to agree to disagree because I just see what you're talking about. Again, where are you getting this idea that people are painting what you refer to as "protected groups" as perfection? Not only is that straight up bullshit, it's not what people within those "protected groups" even want out of thier represented/inclusive characters. Don't take my word for it, go ask them yourself, and the best news yet you don't even have to look beyond this very thread. If what your claiming is true the backlash would be coming from those groups, not from where we all know the complaints about inclusion (not lack of inclusion) actually come from. (Sorry @The Blackangel, it's not my intention to draw you into this, I just to show this guy how blind he really it.) The only sensible thing you said in that entire post, but no comeback on any of the points brought up, so I'm just gonna assume that you didn't want to admit I actually right there. There's a big difference between helping the audience sympathise with the motives of a villain and painting the villain as a victim or condoning them. You're not a stupid man, you know the difference. Strange, a few chapters ago you were claiming that inclusion of "protected groups" were being written as too perfect to make them look more heroic, now all of a sudden members of the LGBTQ+ community are being portraited as "arrogant" and "fuelled with rage"? You can't even keep you own position of this straight! The thing is I think I know exactly what character it is you're referring to (Ellie, TLOU Part II) and we both know her rage and the fuel for her hatred and anger had nothing to do with her orientation. I'm not gonna go into what those motivations were because spoilers and the thread has nothing to do with TLOU, but you know what I'm taking about. Not to mention that's only one character. I admit that's an assumption and I could be wrong, but either way you still don't back any of this up with examples. If you're gonna say that all gay characters these days are written such a specific way, you have give an example of what you mean and explain how those traits, be it positive or negative, tie into that characters sexual orientation, otherwise what you're spewing is some unfounded and, quit frankly, quite bigoted nonsense. Before you say it, I'm not "calling you out" on that unfairly. Only a couple of weeks ago somebody posted something on the forms claiming that a decrease in deportations in America was causing COVID to spread. I told that person to back that up or I'd have to consider the post unfounded and racially incentive and would be deleted. This person couldn't do that, so the post was removed. Let me make it clear, I'm not threatening to do the same thing to you or your post, I'm just pointing that out for my sake before you claim I'm treating you unfairly. And not for the first time, let me make it clear I don't believe you're homophobic in any way, I'm just saying if your going to say something like that it's better to back it up.

Sorry to hear about this. I understand that it's frustrating. Is it possible to replace the drive in the console?

Vault-Tech from the Fallout franchise are very persistent and successful in their persuit of needless cruelty and power over every living soul. Quite an accomplishment for a company that simultaneously safeguarded the future of mankind.

I find it interesting that you ask why this is an issue, to then bring up "inclusion for the sake of inclusion without it making sense" to then use Battlefield V as the example. You know, that time EA and Dice decided to have the characters equipped with artificial limbs that didn't even come close to existing in WWII, but everyone lost thier shit because "A WOMAN ON THE FRONTLIES! YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT! BECASUE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!". Yeah, I remember what was ACTUALLY stupid about that. Nobody took the narrative of a Battlefield game seriously for years until a woman appeared in the trailer, then suddenly that was all that mattered. It was one of the most hypocritical backlashes I've ever seen for a game. The worst part about it was there actually was a justifiable means to the backlash that the haters could have used but didn't, and I'm going to explain exactly what that was right now. If they wanted to have a female character in the game based on WW2, why not take inspiration from the real examples of how woman served in combat during WW2 instead of making something up? The uprisings in Warsaw, the French rebels, the 588th Night Bomber Regiment of the Soviet Air force AKA the Night Witches (That would make a brilliant map for a Battlefield game btw. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look it up). Of course, I didn't see a single person say anything like that during the whole fiasco. On the contrary, most of them flat out denied stories of woman serving in the war, even the stories that were true. I know exactly why EA didn't want to base the female characters on real people, because that would mean basing the game on something other than the Western Front, something western media, not just in gaming, seems very reluctant to do. I described recently in a thread discussing Call of Duty Vanguard my frustrations with western media for never exploring anything in WW2 that wasn't the American perspective of the liberation of France, and Battlefield V is prime example of that. They wanted to have woman in the game, but they wouldn't dare do anything other than the liberation of France and post D-Day as if that's the only place anyone fought in that fucking war. Because they, as usual, didn't want to go anywhere other than the Western Front, the had to "make up" a woman to be in the war rather than take inspiration from the real history. But nope, none of the pre-pubescent, insecure keyboard warriors used this justifiable problem with EA and Dice's plan for the game against them, mostly because they too busy denying woman served in WW2 completely. Honestly, I was embarrassed to call myself a gamer during this shitfest.

Hero's are not defined by how attractive they are. That is nonsense I'm not gonna dignify with debating. It is true that the common pattern is for hero's to be attractive, but that's an unfortunate habbit of media. We live in a vain, superficial world that, whether you agree with it or not, is only interested in putting the most attractive people on the pedestal as heros. I do actually agree with you that enjoy the vision of a sexy character is nothing to be ashamed of, but it's important to separate that from what defines heroism, admirable characters and great fiction because those thing do not connect. They just don't. I also get your point about how hears need to be someone to admire and aspire to be, but I think your image of a hero is overly simplistic and archaic, the kind of definition of what a hero was decades ago. Someone who was a paradigm of perfection in every way. They are all that's good and prefect and any deviation is simply not so. Heros in fiction today are, and I say for the better, not at all like that. They are not defined buy who they are certainly not how they look, it's all about thier actions. What they achieve and accomplish. Hero's in fiction these days, and it has been like this for some time, are allowed to have flaws. They're allowed to struggle against the odds, not have it easy, go through trauma, make mistakes, be emotional. This is a good thing because; It makes them more relatable and attainable, which is actually a stronger inspirational message in the end. Creates room for more compelling stories. Makes what they accomplish all the more admirable as they have suffered and sacrificed to get there, so thier deeds actually more heroic. Leaves us as the audience more free to judge thier actions as justified or not. That builds strength in our own moral compasses and helps us define ourselves as the audience rather than just "behold perfection" and that be the standard. Don't question it. Superman has his Kryptonite, but every hero need thier own version of it and it's done best when it's something more down to earth, yet complex. Batman is Bruce Wayne's escape from his privileged, yet lonely and dull life. He could just be a rich, brooding little asshole feeling sorry for himself, but chooses not to and that's what defines him. I could go on and on about this self-cantered, misogynistic, smart-arse man-whore and certifiable prick, or could talk about a brave, smart, dashing, determined soul doing whatever it takes to keep the world save from sociopaths and madmen, and they'd both be James Bond. You see, heros are heros by definition of thier actions. Hell, most superhero's are written as having a double life to literally separate who they are from what they do. It's blatantly obvious why this is such a popular trope. Humanising them whilst still making them amazing. It's the same with villains. Just like how heros need imperfections, villains need admirable traits as well. Who wouldn't want to be as smart as Hannibal Lecter, we've all dreamed of having Darth Vader's power, I wish I was as witty as Freddy Krueger. The kind of capabilities and talents that could bring great benefits to world, but they choose to direct thier energy in a different direction, and that choice is critical. Without the choice, without the will, thier actions can't be evil. A storm my bring death and destruction, but nobody calls it evil or even hates it. Without that choice, a villain is little more than exactly that, a force of nature. You don't want to agree with a villain obviously, but it's important to understand them, otherwise there just not interesting. Before anyone tries to trip me up given the topic at hand, obviously being a woman or LGBTQ+ or whatever is not a flaw, but with characters expressing the very human aspects of who they are that also helps heros become more complex and yet relatable. If, just for example, the hero is a woman and I still admire her aspire to be like her despite the fact that she has deal with struggles and the the bullshit that comes with it, that's an example of a well crafted character. I would much rather watch her movie or play a game as her than the exploits of Cpt Perfect destined to succeed right from the very start without cost. That would be bloody boring. I hear you, and I can see what you mean by fighting for inclusion and invisibility. In the end, people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum are exactly that, people. Not better, nor worse. I truly understand that, but it's an unfortunate truth that a fight for inclusion and a fight for invisibility are, at least to some extent, in conflict with each other. You need people, the predominantly straight and cisgender general public most of all, to take notice of the fact there is inequality to bring about change, and that will inevitably bring attention onto campaigners as a separate, but just, force in the world pushing against the status quo. It seems very difficult to do that and blend into that society that needs to change and achieve that invisibility. Man, I don't envy anyone in that position, it must be a nightmare. If only the bigotry you described just wasn't there, there would be no need for LGBTQ+ as a definition at all. We'd all be living life, judged only by our characters and actions. Unfortunately, we have to live in this world. I believe that this world can become that world, but reading your post has made me realise that that transition is not going to be nearly as easy as it first sounds. Thank you for opening my eyes a little.

I couldn't agree with you less. Making an inclusive game (and not just including woman either) isn't nearly as hard as you make it out to be, it just takes a little courtesy and common sense. HZD, Life is Strange, the Tomb Raider, Tell me Why, Mass Effect, Dragonage, even more recent Assassin's Creed games seemed to manage. Are there people guaranteed to piss and moan no matter what? Unfortunately, yes, but that's not a feminist issue, people aligned with the opposite extreme are just guilty of that. I remember a few years ago a DLC was launched for AC Odyssey that was ment to carry on based upon choices one made in the game. Unfortunately, the expansion luached with a bug that meant people who chose to play the female lead and romanced a woman were starting the DLC under "Conditions" that only made sense if your character had romanced a man. People complained about this, Ubisoft apologized for the mistake and it was patched soon after. Were there crazy SJW's who went full tin foil hat on this to turn this into a misogynistic conspiracy against woman and the LGBTQ community when all it was in then was a continuity bug? Of course yes, but in the end it was a mistake, Ubisoft owned, apologized and fixed it, that's the end of the matter... or at least it should have been. In a counter protest that I can't quite believe happened, anti-SJW's attacked Ubisoft after patching this bug for "pandering" to SJW's and somehow forcing a left wing agenda on people, all because they patched a bug. The SJW's may have overacted, but at least they had something to overact to, but these morons who got thier precious little man-feelings hurt because Ubisoft game people an option to play a game as a gay woman would be hilarious if wasn't so stupid. We live in a world where game developers can't even patch bugs without somebody turning it into a social/political controversy. I used the terms "SJW" and "Anti-SJW" in this post to distinguish between them is this story, but ultimately they are two Half's of the same stupid, so that's why I call them "professionally offended". Just because of their specific disdains are different, doesn't mean they're both equally self centred, childish, arrogant, ignorant and stupid. That's why I personally don't tolerate the implied narrative that only one side is in the wrong with this, because that just isn't the case. Sadly, the only sound minded people in this sitting the middle are ignored simply because we aren't loud enough. We are drowned out the idiots on either side of us. Back to the meat of the topic though. I have to admit that if I were to take side in this, it would more likely be the side on inclusion because, in the end, me playing a character that's on the LGBTQ spectrum, is female, of an ethnic minority or whatever it happens to be does not affect me. It doesn't matter to me, it's not a threat to me, but what does it mean to somebody who lives thier real life in those shoes? To be represented, acknowledged, to see someone you can relate to put on a pedestal as a empowering character when you're perhaps used to being marginalized and ignored just for being you, it's a wonderful thing. And more importantly, it hurts nobody, except those who just prejudiced, and they can frankly fuck off.i Video games, along with all entertainment media, at least the expressions contained therein that are worth a damn, at least to some extent reflect reality. So the excuse "I don't have a problem with X group, I just don't want them in my video games" doesn't work because your problem isn't X group being represented in your fiction, and that it's represented in reality. That is what we call bigotry, and it is not a valid excuse. I admit this topic is a little triggering for me, I'll also admit it's kind of my failing as well because I'm the one who doesn't get it. I just don't understand who inclusion hurts and why. If inclusion comes at the price of historical accuracy or messing with a long established lore I can see why people would call it out and that they would have a point, but otherwise I just don't see how that hurts anyone. I somehow doubt anyone woke up in the middle of the night with a cramp screaming, "Oh, my leg, my leg! If only they hadn't put a woman on the cover of Battlefield V, then I wouldn't be in this agony!". So this is an open call, if anyone reading this can explain why inclusion hurts you, please do so. Don't be shy. I can't say I won't challenge your explanation, but I promise I will listen to it and give it a fair chance. This has been bugging me for years and I need an answer.

He's discussing Battle Royal as a genre, not a game. The concept is a competitive multiplayer with X amount of players started a match with every playing against each. Players are eliminated by each other one by one until only one player is left and declared the winner. Games that follow this format include PUBG and Fortnight.

Locking this thread as a thread already exists for this game.

With all due respect, I don't care how you personally respond in anger over things. Even if you're right, what purpose did your "calling out" of his response actually serve? I don't understand what you were trying to do, but I can say with some confidence it was never gonna help. You say you weren't trying to "stir anything up", but even after thinking about it hard I can't think of anything else you were going to achieve. So now I'm asking you, as a mod', to just stop. One made a statement, the other corrected him on it, the fist one said said "OK" to acknowledged the correction and there's nothing else going on here.

First thing I wanna say @Razor1911, if that works for you, then good for you. Don't change for anyone. However, I must admit, I do find it a little strange that you do find racing games easier to play with M/K because the interface really isn't designed to work with it. Keyboard keys are a digital input, they're either fully on or fully off, so they can't replicate partial or inputs the way analogue sticks can. You're either on full throttle or no throttle, full brakes or no breaks, full steering lock or no steering at at all. Technically, it should be a nightmare. I suppose it was like even for console games back in the day before the N64 and games made for Playstation's DualShock controller came out, but racing games back then were very arcade like and were made to work with the more simple controllers that they were back then, it's a very different world now with different expectations as simulation is more favoured and easier to achieve these days.

I did find one of my favourite albums through a videogame, but I must be honest it wasn't until years later that I recognised it for what it was. The game was Carmageddon and the soundtrack was an instrumental version of Fear Factory's Demanufacture album. Here's the song "Zero Signal"; First the version from the game. And the version from the Album itself.

That actually is quite surprising to me. I play so many games that either let you choose your characters gender of have female leads that I'd even say for me it may even be slightly more in favour of female protagonists. I don't play so many games with female protagonists on purpose, there's jut a lot on female protagonists in the games I happen to enjoy like Tomb Raider, Horizon Zero Dawn or The Last of Us Part II. Of coerce, in the The Last of Us part one the protagonist is male, but that held no relevance to my enjoyment of the game. I suppose the survey will include a lot of sports games (like FIFA and Madden) and military shooters (like COD and Battlefield) that I don't tend to buy and they come out every year, and since so few of those games (especially historical ones) have female protagonists that could be part of the reason why the scale tops the way it does. Look at it this way, there has been 3 Tomb Raider games released in the same time period as 7 COD's. So as alarming as those statistics are, I don't think they are truly reflective of what gamers choose to play. It's ultimately up to publishers/developers what gender they make thier characters, not gamers. EDIT: I Just had a skim through my installed games on my PC and I genuinely do have more games installed from my library's than have female characters than male, but vast majority are games that let one choose or have a mixture of both. So whilst I can accept the survays numbers as real, I don't think it demonstrated what, in general, gamer's attitudes tend to be.

I was gonna say PS4, but then I checked it out and was surprised to find how much mod support there is on the switch version I t may in fact be better than the PS4 version in that regard. Really, it ultimately comes down to if you want to play the game on the go or not. Still, I'm leaning toward the Switch version.

Well, @skyfire edited his post in reply to @Crazycrab well over a day before @Heatman replied, so @Heatman I think your making something out of nothing here.

I didn't read it wrong, your grammar and overall word craft was poor, there's a difference. What it should have looked like to express what you really meant would be something like this; Original Corrected Separating the description of why the game is easier to control with a M/K from the statement "it's a lot harder to play with a controller" into two different points (you literally called them first and second) and two separate sentences did exactly that, turned them into two separate points that didn't directly connect. I know this is the internet and not an English exam, but just a little care into the quality of the typed word can go a long way to making your points clear. I admit I'm not brilliant at this either. 3/4 of the posts I've made I've edited because I've re-read them and noticed mistakes.

That's both very vague and an opinion, not a fact. Saying MFS is easier to play with a M/K because of the complicated and varied nature of the game is fair enough, but why that doesn't mean controllers are difficult to use in general. I find M/K is better for RTS games, some MMO's and certain simulation style games like MFS, but more awkward and limiting compared to a controller for games that are stealth heavy and/or in 3rd person and/or primarily focused on melee combat. I'd never say "Controllers are better because they works better with Horizon Zero Dawn and Metal Gear Solid.", I'd say I find they're better for those games. I've banged on about this many times before because I just don't get that logic. The statement is obviously not true, it's a matter of personal preference, so why say that?

Just one quick thing, did anyone notice that Activision's logo is missing from the trailer footage? I wonder why...

In certain games, especially open RPG's, there are times developers have to have characters repeat important facts and expositions that other characters have already conveyed because the developers can't necessarily tell what order the player will talk to people and explore the environment. So yes, it can be a little annoying, but I'm with @m76, id's rather haver shit repeated than only said once, otherwise it's very easy to miss. I'm less inclined to defend this in more liner games and the dev's have far more control on how and when such information is feed to the player and can easily be made impossible to miss, but even there it would bother me that much.

I've been saying the same thing about GTA5 for years, and that makes sense for GTA, but not so much here. The difference being that we actually have it officially announced that The Elder Scrolls VI is coming, so avoiding buying this to assure a new ES game will come doesn't really work in this scenario. Not that I disagree that this new version is pointless, because it is. If I am understanding this correctly, they're not gonna charge full price for Skyrim ES owners to upgrade, but it should be free. I don't hold it against Bethesda to have the pride in this game that they do and want to celebrate this anniversary, but enough is enough and they need to stop milking it.