I’m on the side that a remaster of a PS4 gen game dumb, but HZD was always the butt of the joke in regard to those awful generic bobblehead animations during every single dialog. It was laughably bad. With the reveal trailer, it does make a pretty big difference. Everything else? Not so much.

If this had been a PC game all along, these animation overhaul would have been a patch of the original game, but since the trailer insists that they re-recorded all motion captures for the dialogs of the whole game, they get to sell it full price again.

Yeah we were all busy that weekend, please bring Concord to PC again

Sales expectations here don’t mean “we think this game is so good it will move x million units,” that thinking doesn’t exist anymore. It starts from the money they put in it, and they deduce “we’ll need to sell x million copies to get the money back with the profit we want.” There have been a few interviews specifically about these two games saying that.

It’s the same old idea that AAA products (movies, games, same excuse) cost more to make than they bring money back - although we never know exactly how much of that is actually “investors expect an x% return by week y” where x is just too high and y too short and they never want to think longer term, and we never know how far an investment actually goes. Especially in the case of the Remake trilogy where keeping the same engine and world is supposed to drastically reduce the cost of the last game compared to if they had started a new game from scratch with the same content - except part 3 is unlikely to sell more than part 2 given that it’s a sequel.

At any rate, we all know it’s true that development time and costs keep going up exponentially, and no one likes it (and yet everyone wants 4k 60fps somehow).

No one has MvC2 on any playable system today, because it was removed at some point from all digital stores. Not counting the obvious piracy choice, the MvC2 community that’s still going strong has been crying for a rerelease for literally two decades. So that collection has a decent chance of doing notable numbers.

But yes, they pulled that bait test a couple times before and never went anywhere with it and that was super shitty. I don’t have any hope that this will revive MvC because it’s not up to the players, it’s up to Marvel to let Capcom make a good game. This collection is still very much appreciated either way.

Does the article say the headline is wrong? Or does it say conspiracy theorists listen to facts because it relies on a handful of willing participants who changed their mind when seeing facts and reports? Because that’s not the crux of the crazy conspiracy theorists.

Try again when the chatbot talked to the likes of Graham Hancock or the hardcore MAGA death cult. Facts don’t matter.

Rand pointed out that many conspiracy theorists actually want to talk about their beliefs. “The problem is that other people don’t want to talk to them about it,”

Just look at this guy who straight up pretends that no one tried to talk to them before.

It does talk about gish gallop at the very end, and claims that the chatbot can keep presenting arguments - but doesn’t actually say that it has worked.

Oh Luke was definitely asking her about their birth mother, knowing that it was the same woman. The question here is that Leia didn’t know what he was talking about. Since she gives him an answer about someone who died when Leia was young, maybe she’s just thinking that Bail remarried later.

Before the prequel trilogy came out, it could have been their birth mother she was talking about, and she just didn’t know that Luke was her brother; but after ep 3 came out, and we see Padme die, we have to assume Leia was adopted by the Organas, but Bail’s wife died when Leia was young and he later remarried, and Leia is thinking about that woman after Padme and before Bail’s new wife, thinking that she is her real mom.

And yeah, it’s completely possible that Lucas originally intended for Padme to be the one Leia was talking about, but the point is, the movies don’t actually specify if she meant Padme or the middle wife, so it can still be explained.

That detail wasn’t in any of the movies so the line in ep 6 still makes sense the way you thought. I’m pretty sure anyone would assume that’s what she meant, since we never hear that she knew she was adopted. Whoever made Bail’s wife die in the explosion of Alderaan is the one who messed up, or Lucas ignored that addition when making episode I.

The article really wants to remind everyone that the hero’s canonical name is Tir, and at first I thought that meant the site was actually using the name. But instead it makes a point to not use that name and call him Hero, so now the article’s insistence just seems sad.

Also for anyone like me looking for the date and confused by it not being in the first line of the article, it’s March 6 2025.

There’s giving a different importance to something that is, in fact, present in the art piece because it touches you more importantly than it did the author, and then there’s making shit up whole cloth. But like I said, the words you chose, and also the things you chose to defend, say more about you than the art

You can also replace woke with another word and it is indeed true that this hypothetical game has a message of female empowerment by having a strong female lead yes. Fallout can have an anti-capitalist message whether you’re pro or anti capitalist yourself and use your own word of choice to denigrate or praise the message. The word you chose says more about you than the message.

What was your point already?

Nah I was completely ready to believe that Fox News would take a joke Walz made about couches (which I knew he did) and claim it was an assault on money and freedom.

I once came across an explanation that the thigh is a metaphor for the balls (I probably heard that on the Overly Sarcastic Productions channel). I can only find this with a quick search :

Enorches (“with balls”), with reference to his fertility, or “in the testicles” in reference to Zeus’ sewing the baby Dionysus “into his thigh”, understood to mean his testicles).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus under epithets

A bomb that could destroy Earth’s core would be an admittedly impressive technical feat!

The best part is that it applies for any election

Come out first with 30% votes on round 1

Come out last with the same 30% votes on round 2

Complain that 70% of voters forged alliances that are against nature to repel them

Don’t worry, his party and the media are already discussing how the center can simply grow by picking apart the PS (center left) out of the left alliance, obviously.

Yup. I don’t even get what “populism” is when mentioned in media. Isn’t that-- democracy?

Populism is demagogy, it’s repeating people’s complaints back to them, to amplify them and place yourself as an apparent leader, but without actually bringing any solution - and when it does, it’s immediately far right “beat everyone out”. Democracy is actually creating policy and voting on it, which by definition implies people disagreeing in that vote. Populism is rounding up everyone with the same mind, excluding everyone else (not voting on anything) and trying to crush opposition with numbers and no policy. It’s the antithesis to democracy.

Edit - it might depend on the region of the world, I don’t think I’ve seen a lot of left wingers be called populists. Originally it just means the opposition between the people and the elite, so that would match what you say, and apparently some left parties are trying to return to that definition for some reason, but it seems the Pope is taking the other version that has become much more common.

1st round projections aren’t the same as winning projections. Those 240+ seats projections were illustrating the actual results of round 1, where the far right was ahead in a lot of places, not from guessing how round 2 would end, because… we don’t do it that way, I guess? But since round 2 only brings the candidates who scored above 20%, which usually means either 2 or 3, rarely 4 candidates, instead of 10+, that means everyone who voted on round 1 for the parties that lost would then vote for one of the remaining 2~3 candidates. And that’s anybody’s guess.

So you can have 30% of voters bringing the far right to the top among 10 candidates, but those 30% don’t win when there’s only 2 or 3 candidates left, because it turns out 70 always beats 30 - especially with the mutual agreement that a 3rd place center or left candidate would drop out in favor of the other to stop the far right. This doesn’t work in rural places where the far right was over 40% (some “centrists” still chose the far right over the left alliance, getting over 60%), but it works everywhere else - and that’s what happened here. Think of 2 round voting with >10 parties as a little bit more like one round ranked choice voting than first past the post with 3 candidates.

Realistically, we knew that the results of the first round was never going to hold, because it’s been like that for a few decades - like someone else said, 2002 saw the far right fail to get more on the presidential round 2 than the 20% of their score of round 1 (but that ceiling has been rising since because of Macron); of course there’s the concern of the growing number of regions that feel abandoned and turn to the far right, but beyond that, the real question was how well the left alliance would do, and how badly the “center” would drop. That’s the big deal, the left is back on top - now we just hope that union is strong enough and they don’t collapse again because of the constant demonizing that Macron and the media have been spewing non-stop (they really no joke honestly want the far right over the boogeyman “extreme left” that doesn’t exist), with the center left abandoning ship to side with Macron again.

Has no one seen the Assassin’s Fist series or what?

The “gospels were dictated by first hand witness” idea is a massive problem because that’s not first hand account at all, that’s actually someone claiming that someone else told him “dude I swear I saw it happen in front of me as clear as I see you” (or worse, the guy who wrote it claims that he found this text written by someone else 50 years ago) and we somehow chose to believe both the guy who wrote it and the supposed guy who told him that. Having something dictated is second hand account, not first hand, because that’s just changing the pronoun of the person speaking. And there were extensive analysis of the text itself to try to figure out what kind of person would have phrased this or that in certain ways, whether it says “I saw that myself” or “my uncle who works at Nintendo told me he saw it himself”, and that analysis, done for the entirety of the Bible, has gone pretty far, including the gospels. As far as I know about it, the biggest point about that analysis is which gospel was written first and which ones copied from which ones or added their own thing, rahter than 4 different people recounting their memories of the same events.

I don’t know about the timeline of the temple; I’ve heard it brought up before, but I haven’t heard that it was considered conclusive evidence for dating the text, so I don’t know more than that and how it holds to the text analysis.

None of those are first hand. The gospels were written by other people more than a generation (60 years) after, not by people who were alive in that period of 30 years.