EXTomar's forum posts

#1 Posted by EXTomar (4921 posts) -

Pretty sure Brown didn't steal anything. At best he threw a tantrum by tossing the stuff back cashier. Does that mean he needs to be arrested or shot?

#2 Edited by EXTomar (4921 posts) -

@zevvion: They want what they think is justice done. They don't so much care for the evidence saying this was a justifiable shooting in defense of a man who was a known criminal. They want a man to go to jail because they think what happened was a representation for the injustice done to their community. Its a mob mentality that is dangerous and the reason direct democracy, or in this case justice, doesn't work.

On the other hand, those in power also have their vested interest in seeing justice done. They don't so much care for the evidence showing that the public's suspicions are justified in shooting an unarmed teenager who's only problem that was throwing a temper tantrum. They want a man to go free because they think what happened was just business as usual in the community. Its really a "good old boys club" and the reason direct democracy, or in this case justice, doesn't work.

Just saying...

#3 Edited by EXTomar (4921 posts) -

@manmadegod said:

@milkman said:

@athleticshark said:

@milkman: I'm not about to justify the news but at some point these are people making the decisions. Our culture and our country.

Also generalizing and relating the founding of our country to rioting leaves me speechless. A little thing called the revolutionary war happened.

Obviously, I would prefer if people didn't riot. But I'm not going to let that distract from the real issue here.

I'm not sure your point with your last statement. The United States of America was literally founded on riots and protest over taxes.

Just reading through the thread to catch up, and I can't help but comment on this. Comparing what happened in colonial America to Ferguson is disingenuous. I assume you are alluding to events such as the Boston Tea party, an event with a clear goal and message. Ferguson is chaos and looting as the family of the victim calls for peace. The concerns of the colonists were being aired for years before war broke out (ex: Virginia house of burgesses). These grievances were levied against a Parliamentary Monarchy, which is a far cry from means in which people in our society today can protest/change government. The events in Ferguson are a reaction to a single event of perceived injustice.

If Ferguson is in some way equivalent to the founding of the United States, then what protest isn't it comparable to.

So a little history lesson: The Seven Years War had a branch in the New World called by us as "French and Indian War" which was an astounding success. If you lived in the colonies out on the frontier, you were probably weeping for joy at the British Army breaking the back of French colonial aspirations in your backyard. The problem was that this success was expensive and labor intensive. Now they had a bunch of British troops stationed over here and spent a lot of money to win where the sensible thing to do from London's view was to order the states to host the army and apply taxes to help pay for the gigantic expense. For a lot of colonists, this made sense: American Colonies where the beneficiaries of the war where they should pay something for it isn't crazy or unreasonable.

At the start, it wasn't that any of the states were unhappy to host troops and pay taxes or that they weren't represented (as far as Parliament was concerned, states could ask Parliament to pass laws and acts just like any other constituents). The problem was a state would say "Lets do this tax" or "This is the best place to station troops" and some general or London would "We'll do this instead". Up until the final break a lot of people considered themselves British subjects and had no interests in breaking with 'home'. There is a lot of evidence lying around that if London had just said "Massachusetts (or whatever colony), you need to give us 1 million pounds. Raise it how ever you want" and negotiated like that then a lot of the problems and unrest would have been reduced.

Fun side note: This "mistake" was the basis of The English Civil War years before which is why a lot of left for America in the first place...

So now we see there is a place where the citizens have some complaints and suggestions but those in power appear to not listening or care about it. When the protests get bigger, instead of trying to find a solution and bring in those leaders to work out a solution, those in power bring in bigger troops. Yeah..its totally different.

#4 Posted by EXTomar (4921 posts) -

Does this mean only Ubisoft can understand Ubisoft games?

I'm all for having reviews posted in launch/live environments but the marketing speak hurts.

#5 Edited by EXTomar (4921 posts) -


Forget whether or not Wilson or Brown are good/bad/whatever people. The issue is that society has decided is okay for the police act aggressively even in the slightest issues and altercations while black kids have been having "the talk" about how to be suspicious and fearful for decades.

Side note: It is practically impossible to indict most police officers because the way most states write their laws gives a lot of coverage to police officers performing their duties. That makes a lot of sense but also doesn't promote constraint. Unless Wilson was standing over him saying "This is all part of my sinister plan!!" and twirling their facial hair, there is little that can be done.

#6 Edited by EXTomar (4921 posts) -

@soylentgreen said:

@extomar said:

This is true if you ignore a bunch of other games and reality in general. Destiny came out for both platforms and worked as promised but never mind that.

Why have people been saying this recently? Destiny was busted following launch. Remember all those weird error codes (centipede, bluebird, a hundred others)? I couldn't get into the game for three days because the servers were janky, and even after that I kept getting dropped mid-game for like a week.

It blows my mind that Nintendo hasn't had any issues yet. They're supposed to be the ones who don't know how the internet works, right?

I don't know...why do people say this Destiny had a bad launch? I guess...? Okay...?

I don't deny that there were problems but to say it was bad or unplayable shows how intolerable the consumer has gotten to anything less than "pristine launch". Actually this is a good thing because it keeps vendors honest where I only object to the suggestion that nothing has launched correctly where I look at Destiny and saw it worked.

ps. Snail is probably correct that the point is we narrow our vision to "just first party games" but then I remember games like The Last of Us and TitanFall launching fine as well. So...shrug?

#7 Edited by EXTomar (4921 posts) -


Casual and relaxed conversations COVERED FROM HEAD TO TOE IN BLOOD AND VISCERA. I guess it is the age of dragons.

#8 Edited by EXTomar (4921 posts) -

This is true if you ignore a bunch of other games and reality in general. Destiny came out for both platforms and worked as promised but never mind that.

#9 Edited by EXTomar (4921 posts) -

@dudeglove said:

@extomar said:

An author using "dues ex machina" in their story isn't automatically bad but using it because they have no alternative to get to the ending makes it feel like a cheat or extraordinarily contrived.

Side comment: It is interesting to compare this movie to Wolf of Wall Street. If Wolf of Wall Street was like Interstellar, there would be constant comments like "Belfort is funding this party with money stolen from the company's account and put into that company's account..." The important thing isn't the stealing or the party but Belfort so telling us about the stealing and the party in excruciating detail isn't "helpful".

Did we see the same films? Wolf of Wall Street has Di Caprio breaking the fourth wall at various moments (either on screen or off) to constantly tell the audience what's going on with his little scams, often in attempts to be "funny" (because destroying livelihoods and group sex with prostitutes is just great!).

Interstellar at least has the decency not to be so puerile, it's just lacking in its execution/delivery. At no point does McConaughey turn to the camera and go "Hey y'all! We're gunna go into space and I'mma fly around a black hole and there'll be cool time shit and everything!"

Yes Wolf had those 4th wall moments and that isn't what I meant either. There are multiple moments in Interstellar where something extraordinary or momentous is happening but instead of letting it happen and letting it wash over the viewer, there is a handy dandy voice over telling you exactly what is going on which serves to kick them right out of it. That is the problem with Interstellar where it isn't that the movie is talking to the audience but that it seems to be focused on telling "you the viewer" why "something" is going on instead of focusing on the meaning of what that "something" is.

It feels like a basically a failing of "show don't tell". The idea that man can transcending time and space to reach out to someone he cares for is an awesome idea for film (or books for that matter). Telling us in excruciating detail how while it is happening is not a good idea because it can pull the viewer out of the moment and the illusion.

#10 Edited by EXTomar (4921 posts) -

@epiccyclops said:

@jimbo said:

Have Bioware just completely forgotten how to make games? I've tried playing through the prologue with both mouse and keyboard and with a controller, and both control schemes are utter dogshit. What the fuck were they actually thinking with the tac cam? It's like it was designed by somebody who has never played or even seen a game before, and merely had the vaguest concept of a tactical game described to them. I'd have felt embarrassed about turning this standard of work in for a homework assignment, let alone for a professionally made retail product.

If you want to play it like a third-rate action game and watch your party very inefficiently kill everybody then this game has you covered. If you want to actually play the thing like the tactical party-based RPG it's purported to be then it's a complete mess. The tac cam is unfit for purpose in its current state and pretty much wrecks the game from a 'play it tactically' perspective. It makes me long for the halcyon days of DA2's tactical combat, that's how fucked it is.

I'm hesitant to address this, as it kind of reads like one of those 0/10 metacritic reviews, but the last sentence got me. You honestly think DA2's combat was better?? Your main complaint is the tac cam, but DA2 didn't even have that. You want to play it like DA2, then do that, and ignore the tac cam!

I have to point out there is another possibility: He may think both DA2 and DAI have "less than desirable combat engines".

I'm inclined to agree with the core complaint though: If it is an action game, then it should offer action game controls. If it is a tactics game, then it should offer tactics controls. DAI doesn't appear to do either well so it is fights don't feel great and are more frustrating than they feel they need to be.