No because fire emblem and SMT are better.

LOL

turkey honestly would've made a better choice

or meta

Hey I've worked in a dairy farm and it isn't inhumane

one dairy farm

Hell nearly everything is these days

which is the problem

Agreeing with Lemon. Again.

:I

Travesty

Quote from: Raw Sugar on April 18, 2015, 12:50:10 PM

Couldn't someone say that great things do come out of suffering?

Well, this is obviously the case.

The suffering of 107 billion humans before us is clearly outweighed by the long-term benefits!

totes

He's absolutely right.
If God is real, then he's a complete and utter cunt.

your fedora is showing

The only fighting game I've owned was Virtua Fighter 4 or something.
I don't like fighting games, they're not very fun.

you just suck at them, get good

*dark souls fan logic*

When I did that I was just jesting.

that's why i said "i'm just saying, i thought i'd talk about it anyway"

yeah, you're totally not missing the point at all

you can talk about how in dark souls, i suck at the game because i got myself killed by the giant monster in the tutorial a bunch of times before i figured out that you were actually supposed to run away from it (which goes against all my gaming sensibilities)

i would argue that the game failed to convey what i had to do properly

there's a message below the monster's feet that instructs you to run away, and that's your only hint--and the only way to see the message is if you go near the fucking thing, which will result in your swift death

soooooooo

my opinion is that you can't really be "bad" at video games
you can only be "better" or "worse"--relative terms

everyone plays differently, everyone learns differently, and so everyone is going to have their own unique experience
creating this notion of "suck" only serves to create a negative atmosphere, which is probably not a great plan

maybe "bad" means "worse than the majority of players", but that's sort of difficult to measure, so we just sort of casually toss it around to describe players who have a hard time doing X, which is a petty standard

"i did X on my firs try, so anyone who can't do X on their first try sucks"

She's not even actually naked though.
If she had glaring nipples and a cunt for the work to see, then sure, you'd actually have a point.

if they could've gotten away with her having nipples and a visible labia, they certainly would have
but that would be too overt--it would be extremely dangerous and controversial to do that

so they made her as visually lewd as possible without being overtly contentious

There doesn't need to be a reason for her being "naked".
Why did Michelangelo have naked women in his paintings?

there actually is an answer to that, though

nudity in renaissance-era art was often used as a way to convey that a particular figure is, in at least some respects, inhuman
(that is to say, they're heroes/gods/demigods--they were more than human)

for example, aphrodite is always depicted as nude because she's a goddess, and is above such earthly things such as clothing

david was a biblical hero, and heroes, by their very nature, transcend the quotidian functions of man--and thus, michelangelo sculpted him in the nude, to show that he's a more perfect/virtuous being than the average man

it would be silly to argue that we do the same thing today, in the hypersexualized, hyperconscious culture of the now

How? Because she's "naked"?

Yeah, no. That doesn't mean she's sexually objectifying.

why is she naked

here comes some bullshit story-related rationalization
because anything is okay, as long as the story permits it!...

♥ stephen fry

wasn't he supposed to have a debate with russell brand over this very subject