thebexexpress's forum posts

  • 38 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by thebexexpress (38 posts) -
You don't have to talk like an illiterate, rebellious teenager to be your own person.

@Hashbrowns Not only do I strongly agree with everything Stephen Fry has already brought up, but it's absolutely ludicrous, in a pretty quantifiable way, to claim that the use of additional words constitutes a smaller vocabulary. You do know that a vocabulary is the range of words at ones disposal, don't you?

If you think that limiting your, yes, vocabulary according to arbitrary standards of which synonym of a word is the naughty one, then you're being extremely simple.

On a more personal note, I find that the occasional expletive adds a nice bit of texture to conversation, personally. Cuss on, gentlemen!

#2 Posted by thebexexpress (38 posts) -

Well, were you coming to Australia from Canada, I'd ask you to bring enough sour cream glazed timbits to feed the nation. I haven't seen sour cream glazed donuts here! It drives me nuts!

#3 Posted by thebexexpress (38 posts) -

@Still_I_Cry: That's good- although what I said stands in response to a lot of comments here anyway. Wasn't trying to be antagonistic about it!

#4 Posted by thebexexpress (38 posts) -

You know that song where the girl takes a boat to China, and has to get her laundry clean, and she's got to keep on moving? GO TO HELL, THAT SONG

#5 Posted by thebexexpress (38 posts) -

@Fattony12000 said:

Words have no meaning or power unless you give them such. Also, it was a slip of the tongue and a follow up on-the-fly reaction to it, in front of about 9000 internet people.

I should make it clear that I'm not 'offended' by what Norman said. Obviously what he said wasn't malicious or anything. What I wanted to highlight is that practices like this are harmful on a macro level, even if the people using the language on an everyday basis aren't huge dicks. Saying it's not is a bit near-sighted, and that's what people are doing.

I'd also like to emphasise that the term 'political correctness' is only ever used to dismiss a person's argument or concern without actually addressing it, implying that it's insignificant and trivial so that you don't have to think about things on that macro level. Which is why I don't use it, or appreciate comments that are built around it. Saying that people are "offended" is similar, it's a mindless dismissal of someone's concern on the basis that they're reacting emotionally.

#6 Posted by thebexexpress (38 posts) -

I guess people are putting out stuff like Serious Sam: Double D, which is a tie-in to a "musculated" game that shares some similar sensibilities. Do you mean that kind of thing?

#7 Posted by thebexexpress (38 posts) -

@Clonedzero:

people who get offended by mere words not even directed at them or contextually none offensive but because its a simple bad word are retards.
a word is a word is a word. for the word to be offensive it needs context. if that word is not used in an offensive manner then its not offensive. simple as that.

The problem with this argument is that there is always a context, especially when the word you're attempted to use outside of its context (for whatever reason) is so charged with meaning. The problem with using words describing groups of people that have negative or marginalising implications when referring to something negative isn't that those groups may hear you and get mad, it's that you're perpetuating the idea that the word, and what it describes, is negative. It's what you're supporting, not who's listening.

Anyway, the specific phrase used by Norman was that the stupid bracelet thing could be a "corsage for retards"- he wasn't saying it was retarded, with the word interchangeable with 'bad', he was equating the bracelet's qualities to those of a mentally handicapped person. I'm not saying whether or not that's a bad thing to do, but it's not really what you're talking about.

#8 Posted by thebexexpress (38 posts) -

Yeah, you may be disregarding the uni student demographic there! Bangin' PCs aren't always an option regardless of your preferences.

So what you're basically saying is that you think there's a market for more traditional "gamerly" games for lower specs? What kind of genres would you consider as constituting that?

#9 Edited by thebexexpress (38 posts) -

I feel like the main review here sort of downplayed some aspects of the campaign and war mode- I can't remember if it was in the quick look or the review, but someone said that the fact that they'd never really seen breaking a gate down take more or less than three hits somewhat undermined the tactical elements of the game. I've seen it take four a whole bunch of times, though, and completely breaking the opponent's boulder has come into play a lot lately too. If you're worried about it involving nothing but a speedy third run, I'd still encourage you to check it out.

It doesn't look like there's much happening on steam multiplayer, but I have a few friends who will play with me, and it's been great on that level.

im waiting for that to be fixed, does anyone know if this is a problem on the steam version? please be certain before answering

Well I sure wouldn't stake my life on it, Tarsier, but the people I was playing with (I always hosted) said the lag was pretty bad on the steam version.

#10 Posted by thebexexpress (38 posts) -

Sisyphus! He rolled a boulder through history, killing everyone. And it sounds like syphilis but isn't?

  • 38 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4