stise

If you enjoy immersive-sim style games like Deus Ex and Bioshock/System Shock, Arkane killed it this generation with arguably the two best-ever entries in the genre, Dishonored 2 and Prey. You can currently get both in a bundle for $20 on PSN!

If you're a fan of exploratory, atmospheric puzzle-solving a la Myst, I'd highly recommend Outer Wilds, Return of the Obra Dinn, and Obduction. If you prefer your puzzle games to be a more singularly focused brainteaser gauntlet a la Portal, then The Talos Principle is A++.

I'll echo others' sentiments that it's not that the game is too violent in an absolute sense, it's that the level and fidelity of brutality is dissonant with the contrived nature of the plot. Characters' pragmatic sensibilities and senses of justice are arbitratily manipulated to perpetuate a cycle of violence that the game doesn't effectively justify. The cycle could be broken at many points, either with a voluntary abstinence from violent revenge OR the selective application of more violence to a particular situation, both of which the characters should be capable of at least meaningfully considering. The fact that they don't makes them feel more like toys in a toy chest than real people. Meanwhile, the in-game violence is presented with the aim of making victim and perpetrator feel "real" in the eyes of the player, which causes friction when the game refuses to treat them that way in its own plot.

It's true that in real life, shockingly traumatic events can come seemingly out of nowhere. But it's also true that people respond with a wide array of variably-effective coping strategies, and manage to find and create moments of joy, beauty, and serenity even within a framework of constant trauma. To depict one without the other is fantasy.

Drew is a legend. It sounds like a bizarre accolade, but he was maybe the greatest writer of video decks ever. He always hit that perfect balance of concise, informative, clever, and intriguing, and really understood how to spice a description with highly specific verbs.

This post makes it clear to me that you're mostly just looking for a sense of intellectual superiority from this conversation. The poster you're replying to never called for violence, nor did they commit the historical inaccuracy you're ascribing to them. There is no act formally titled "The Civil Rights Act," nor is there an act formally titled "The Fair Housing Act." Several acts are widely referred to by both historians and laypeople as Civil Rights Acts, including many 19th century acts, but most commonly in modern conversation the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, with the year often omitted when context is obvious (as it is if we're discussing the act passed after MLK's assasination). Title VIII of the 1968 act is called Fair Housing, which means many people often refer to the act as a whole as the Fair Housing Act. Most folks recognize that when you refer to any act as "The [x] Act" you are using a colloquial convention, of which there are multiple accepted permutations. But apparently in your mind legal acts and the words we use to discuss them are akin to immutable physical realities, and there really does exist one specific document which is, factually and essentially, The Civil Rights Act.

This spate of "I liked Giant Bomb until Abby was mean to cops" posts is genuinely puzzling to me. What site did you think you were on? Here's a post from 2014 in which the site's founder calls Ice Cube one of the best, most important rappers ever: https://jeff.zone/post/106389661636/was-ice-cube-a-good-rapper

Y'all know what Ice Cube said, right?

Nothing wrong at all with respectfully explaining why the contexts in which you can listen to the podcast are limited, and offering suggestions about what the staff can do to expand those limitations. That said, I'd advise you not to pursue the line of reasoning you lay out in point #2, because it muddles a valid request for consideration with arbitrary prescriptions about the function of language. Just about any utterance in running speech is complex and multifaceted; nothing is simply "pointless." Just because a swear adds little to the semantic content of a phrase when read back by a third party doesn't mean it had no function in the communicative context in which it was used. Maybe the user (consciously or not) chooses "fuck" over a different filler word like "um" because they want to make sure the emotional energy of the phrase is sustained through a brief dysfluency. Maybe it's simply the filler word or descriptor they most often use, and to use a different one would inaccurately mark the subject as strange or different. There's a bunch of possible explanations, but to assume it's pathological is both absurd and extremely unlikely to elicit any actual change in someone's speech. If you (or me, or anyone) posted 3 hours of extemporaneous conversation, it would be very easy to come up with a hundred critiques about how your word choice or mannerisms are superfluous/inefficient. And you would probably ignore all of them, rightfully so.

Does Jeff have a secret shellfish allergy?

Is Ben quietly forcing Jeff to ingest increasing quantities of shellfish during each Bombcast break????

Was Abby standing up during the Beastcast an attempt to warn viewers about Ben's shellfish coup??????

"Best" is probably the wrong the verbage for it, but some sort of Special Award for Outstanding Commitment to Healthy, Sustainable Labor Practices would be cool to see.

Limbic

Suspect Device

Deflategate

Corridge (rhymes with 'porridge')