DarthOrange's forum posts

#1 Posted by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -

@l1ghtn1n said:

It's a cool game but really a lot of that is because of the way it used the Wii U controller, without that it's just an alright survival horror game. Also not sure why they'd port it over almost 3 years later?

I agree 100%, take out the gamepad stuff and what you are left with isn't particularly great or unique. Juggling the two screens is where a lot of the tension came from.

#2 Posted by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -

I bought the recent humble bundle for indie games on Nintendo platforms and have a couple Wii U games to give away. Please post when you claim one, so people after know that it's gone.

Bit.trip Runner 2: A08L0WJM25NG2XN3

Thanks duder! I took Runner 2.

#3 Posted by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -

The 2015 Nintendo World Championships, while by no means perfect, was pretty damn great. It dragged in a few spots but by and large was entertaining. Pacing was a bit off though. The kid commentating during Splatoon was awful. Playing all of the classic games as emulations on the Wii U was also a mistake, they really should have had them playing on the original hardware. Blast Ball was just plain boring and ugly to watch. Not having all the Mario Kart 8 players together was also odd and it sucked that they didn't have everything unlocked. All that said, it was still pretty damn entertaining and the Metroid and Mario Maker sections in particular were great.

Assuming Nintendo does another one of these next year, which games would you like to see? Would you want to see the format or player count change?

Assuming the format and player count remained the same, I would like to see the following games.

Stage 1: Super Smash Bros for Wii U. Two groups of 8 playing free for all eight player smash. No items (except maybe the Smash Ball) with a three minute timer. The bottom four of each group do another 8 player smash where the bottom four get sent to the elimination round. In the event of a tie for 12th place have a single-stock tie breaker match.

Stage 1 Elimination: F-Zero GX. Chapter 9, best time moves forward.

Stage 2: Mario Kart 8. 200cc, all twelve players at once, four tracks. Bottom four players eliminated. And have all the damn items unlocked this time.

Stage 2 Elimination: Super Mario 3D World. Champions Road, first player through or the player that makes it the furthest in 7-10 minutes.

Stage 3: Ice Climber. Mountain 32. First three players to reach the top or the three players who make it the furthest in 5-7 minutes move forward.

Stage 3 Elimination: Kid Icarus Uprising six player free for all.

Stage 4: Nintendo Land. Donkey Kong's Crash Course. No time limit, just the the two highest scores move forward.

Final Stage: Pikmin 3. Bingo Battle mode best of 3.

#4 Posted by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -

@colorwindsaid:

However, I do occasionally write about a game that I rage over. Skate, Devil May Cry, SoulCalibur V, etc.

These were all fun games that were totally playable though!

Uncharted is also pretty great. I love the multiplayer in them specifically because the gameplay is so solid. But hey, opinions.

#5 Edited by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -

@likeassur said:

I feel as though if I say anything but Bernie Sanders, the internet will crucify me. So Bernie Sanders because he is perfect and infallible.

Also, @darthorange: Your links from George Pateki on for the Republican party all lead to George PAteki's website, just thought you should know and I'm a bit saddened it took until the third page for this to be pointed out. People are really giving the other side a fair shake!

Fuck I apologize. Those Republicans were the ones I most recently added and I was having trouble with the table. That said I have no idea how the hell I ended up giving everyone a link to Pataki's website. It has been fixed. If anyone else sees something wrong or someone new joins the race by all means let me know and I will update the OP.

As for felling obligated to support Bernie Sanders, by all means express your own views! This thread has been pretty damn civil and we have avoided personal insults so far (knocking on wood).

#6 Posted by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -

Updated the original post. Added Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry and Donald Trump under the Republicans. Added Lincoln Chafee under the Democrats.

In other news, my boy Bernie Sanders has been doing surprising well. He was only 8 points behind Hilary in a Wisconsin straw poll.

There was a pretty good blog post about him in the Huffington Post if you want to read a bit more about him. It is filled with a ton of other links as well.

#7 Posted by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -

@456nto said:
@fredchuckdave said:

@demoskinos: I'm aware, it just seems like an inordinately pretentious word to use unless you're using it as a reference; if a word isn't readily recognizable in the context that an educated viewer can understand it you should pretty much never use it no matter what. English has enough obscurity as is, no need to make it completely unintelligible. If I'm reading Cormac McCarthy and I see a word I don't recognize I enjoy looking it up, on a random internet forum not so much. Excessively erudite verbiage is not a thing worth pursuing.

Just because we're talking about politics doesn't mean we need to pretend that politics is the realm of Ivory Tower academics or anything, it's just the opposite actually (at least in America).

I'm with you. If you said the word "milquetoast" out loud in public, people would laugh at you like you just farted very loudly. What a pompous word.

Would you guys mind telling me where you are from? I am really curious about where in the world milquetoast can be misconstrued as someone being a pompous ivory tower academic.

#8 Posted by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -

@demoskinos: I'm aware, it just seems like an inordinately pretentious word to use unless you're using it as a reference; if a word isn't readily recognizable in the context that an educated viewer can understand it you should pretty much never use it no matter what. English has enough obscurity as is, no need to make it completely unintelligible.

I don't think milquetoast is a particularly uncommon word. And speaking of context, Romney was often described as milquetoast by his detractors around the 2012 election. Googling the words "Mitt Romney milquetoast" reveals a plethora of links from 2012 about him.

http://www.politicaljack.com/threads/mitt-romney-spineless-milquetoast-two-examples.34984/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/313674/milquetoast-mitt-mark-steyn

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/06/1071657/-Why-Mitt-Romney-s-Milquetoast-Response-has-NOTHING-to-Do-With-Fear-of-Limbaugh

http://www.redandblack.com/opinion/milquetoast-romney-fading-fast-in-key-battleground-states/article_625e8450-0b3a-11e2-83f2-001a4bcf6878.html

Also we are on a message board. If there is ever a word you don't understand Google is literally right at your fingertips.

#9 Posted by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -

If all the people who were sad that Bernie Sanders "doesn't have a chance" actually got out there and started volunteering for his campaign, he'd have a chance.

Yup. People create a self fulfilling prophecy when they spread that kind of stuff.

How can anyone possibly think that voting for one superficial face or another will make any difference to the interests and desires of the people who finance the party? Do you think electing one CEO or another is going to change what the shareholders want from the company?

Elections are not how different political ideologies shake out and determine the nature of governance; lobbying is how that works. Government is a business and if you don't have capital in it, your vote might as well go in a suggestions box.

That said, I dunno, if you're liberal vote for Sanders I guess. Even if he were to win, what would actually be different from the ole Hil-dawg? Maybe vote for a third party. If it's going to be an unethical, money-grubbing clusterfuck no matter what, at least try to create some actual competition.

You're telling me you honestly think Hillary and Sanders would be the same? Even just looking at the donors between Clinton and Sanders you can see the difference.

#10 Posted by DarthOrange (4131 posts) -
@punched said:

It's too bad that it's pretty much already locked into Bush vs Clinton. I don't think either would make a very good president. In an ideal world, you'd end up with Paul vs Warren but not a chance that happens.

I can't help but feel disillusioned at this point. I still pay attention to the issues, but this presidential contest is Hilary Clinton's to lose and I don't think the Republicans will get their shit together enough to avoid either a far-right crazy or a Romney-Esque milquetoast centrist.

So are you guys planning on voting in the primaries or nah?

@joshwent said:
@darthorange said:

I present the question, who do you feel would make the best president and why?

Absolutely and definitively none of the above.

Any Republican or Democrat in the White House, no matter who they may be and how strong their integrity, will become little more than a mouthpiece for their party, and therefore powerless to enact or even encourage any lasting positive change. The Obama that ran and won thanks to the teeming teary eyed masses, is objectively not the Obama as president. And as optimistically earnest as someone like Bernie seems, I guarantee you he'd be a different person in the Office.

The only hope the US has to end the posturing, trend driven politicking that leaves the needy needing and only serves those already in power to gather more of it... is to vote third party.

I deeply encourage any Democrats here to even briefly peruse the Green Party platform. Fwiw, I personally disagree with most of those positions, but for others here who feel they fit along the "liberal" lines, the Green Party is working for everything you care about. That other "liberal" party that panders as hard as it can while doing as little as possible, has become a hollow sham. Yet tens of millions of well meaning folks gleefully feed that machine hoping "this time it'll be different".

It won't.

I hope that if enough people vote 3rd party maybe the big 2 will at least shape up.

To you guys saying you will vote third party because you feel that is the best way to move towards change, how do you feel about the Supreme Court? At least one or two of the current justices are likely on their way out, so whoever is president is going to get to appoint the next justicesesjustice's justices' (spelling?). Do you guys feel that either party would appoint a similar person or do you feel that helping a third party get closer to winning is more important?