Chicken eggs are my go-to eggs, but I'm also a big fan of duck eggs. They have a slightly meatier taste to them.
Atlas's forum posts
Every now and then, I remember how much I like XCOM: Enemy Unknown, reinstall it, and say to myself "ok, this time I'm going to play on Hard Ironman and not give up forever as soon as one mission goes bad and my squad gets wiped".
And every time, I either end up uninstalling it, or playing on Normal Ironman instead.
I saw that same article, as Leigh Alexander (who I respect for her writing even while I greatly disagree with a lot of stances she takes) regurgitated it on BoingBoing. I also saw the Twitter discussion that emerged from it, and it really weirded me out. I've usually only seen people being positive about the game.
I bought the UK version and the first three expansions, but in all honesty, I haven't actually played it with a group. When I play board/card/table-top games, it's with my family (who are not the kind of people who would like CAH), or I'm playing MTG. I've played CAH online, though, and have greatly enjoyed watching other people play it.
I like CAH because I like the people that created it, and while I don't find the more tasteless cards to be especially funny, I really like the way that some of the cards are written, from like a syntax POV. I get that the game is fairly shallow, and gets worse the more you play it, and that it might not be the best game from a design standpoint, but there's few things that bring me more joy than seeing people discover the pure anarchic, transgressive glee that is Cards Against Humanity.
Also, it reminds me of Ryan :(
As an high-functioning-autistic introvert and borderline sociopath, I find Bethesda games to be a perfect way for me to experience and live in an interactive world without having to interact with actual people. I want to play an Elder Scrolls game all day all the time, at unsociable hours, and for however long I feel like playing. I want to play at my own pace, and let my character experience his/her/its own story. The idea of having human companions over the shitty AI ones sounds great, but the realities of having to play with other people far outweigh that upside. And the combat in TES games is fine for an RPG, but nowhere good enough for actual competitive multiplayer.
So basically leave me alone while I play Elder Scrolls forever pls
I wouldn't mind seeing more of the GameSpot personalities on Giant Bomb (or more of the ones that already appear i.e. Mary and Danny), but I don't like the idea of the Giant Bomb feed being crammed full of freelance-written reviews for random 3DS games and Steam trash. I like that Giant Bomb focuses more on bigger releases, while still making time for smaller games on the podcast and in Quick Look/UPF form.
My love of ES2 borders on being unreasonable. It really is one of the best games to play while listening to music, or a podcast, or watching a stream/YouTube videos.
That said, I haven't booted it up for a while, and I don't plan on buying the new DLC until it goes on sale. I don't think the last major DLC add-on had enough good new content in it.
@bisonhero: Man, if a CCG is in a position where it needs more card like Silent Arbiter, something has gone horribly wrong. That thing is so miserable to play against in EDH. It did win me a game of Conspiracy once, though...and I wasn't even the one that was controlling it!
I don't really play Hearthstone, so forgive me for coming at this from a somewhat ignorant position, but I play a lot of MTG and one big philosophical difference between the two is that Wizards' R&D has to allocate a lot of resources to rigorously play-testing new cards to ensure that they are balanced - and they still get it wrong occasionally, and then go on to acknowledge that cards like Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Dismember, and Pack Rat were mistakes. Not only that, but they have to test cards across multiple formats; Treasure Cruise was designed for Standard, where it sees plenty of play but isn't a dominant card, whereas they had to ban it in Modern and Legacy because it was essentially a new Ancestral Recall, one of the most OP and expensive cards ever printed.
Heartstone doesn't have that. I'm sure Wizards would love to be able to "patch" Magic when they realise that certain cards are way overpowered. But at the same time, Wizards has to hold themselves to a certain level of responsibility precisely because they don't have a safety net that isn't just straight-up banning cards, which they don't like doing. Blizzard, on the other hand, can release cards safe in the knowledge that if their vast player base clearly deems a card to be overpowered, they can change it, and that means that they don't have to hold themselves to quite the same standard. And once they change something major, all of a sudden you've completely changed the meta-game as a result, and it's back to square one.
I think that's why whenever a new Hearthstone expansion is released, I always see articles criticising Blizzard for printing busted cards, but only rarely do I see Magic players flipping out about cards that are perceived to be overpowered (and most of the time, they end up doing absolutely nothing).
If I'm not really enjoying a game, I'll still endeavour to at least finish it (if it's a game that can be "finished"), as long as there's at least something there to compel me to keep playing - Shadow of Mordor being a recent example of a game that I have zero investment in anything that's happening while acknowledging that it's a really well-made game.
But sticking with a game that I actively don't like sounds like a total waste of time. There's always another game that I could be playing, so I don't feel like I have to keep playing a game that I actively hate.
@atlas: This thread has been created by one dude. I am also a souls fan and I think the premise of the thread is kinda dumb. Hell, the first page is a bunch of people disgreeing with the premise. People should really stop making sweeping generalisations on the internet.
Do you honestly think I'd go to the effort of inventing a term for something if this thread was the first example I'd seen of it?
These games deserve all the praise they get. In fact Souls' fans are the most critical of the series. We've been raised on wholy original gameplay, great enemy and bosse design as well as engaging and mysterious worlds. Those are not qualities we get often or at all in the modern AAA world.
Anyway, most souls' fans will tell you Dark Souls 2 has several issues. It didn't meet the standard set by dark souls 1 and people were not shy about mentioning that. This narrative about a devoted cult of the souls series is ridiculous.
I'm sorry if all this enthusiasm for Bloodborne is getting on your nerves but raining on other people's parade isn't going to change the fact that you won't have anything big to play for the next 2 months. What I'm saying is: join us, join us, join us, join us, join us, join us, join us, join us, join us, join us, join us, join us...
The concept of Dark Souls exceptionalism doesn't mean that the Souls games/Bloodborne are bad games and that people who like them are bad people, in the same way that American exceptionalism doesn't imply that America/ns is/are "bad". It means that the people within its sphere believe that it should be held to a different standard than other games, that it should be looked upon differently, that it somehow innately "deserved" this right. There are plenty of other deep and mechanically dense games that require an extra investment on the part of the reviewer, but before Bloodborne I'd never heard of the idea of a reviewer "failing a game" by not being able to become deeply engaged with all the minutiae of its systems, something that is practically impossible considering both the nature of reviews and the inherent time constraints they cause.
My personal experience of these games is that I played Dark Souls for 10 hours, and very much learnt to appreciate the feel of combat and some of the level design, but I didn't have the patience or bloody-minded determination to keep playing it. It wasn't my cup of tea.