Crembaw

Even that low bar is far more credit than it deserves. It is a pretty obvious intentional bait-and-switch piece intended to stir up controversy of questionable substance, and has all the trappings and essence of a blase, art-school-dropout who believes they're more intelligent than the public at large in general and their readerbase in particular. There's a general assumption that if something is labeled as a 'preview for media X,' it will be a preview for media X, not sub-basic analysis of the geopolitical situation of the Philippines.

I agree, people in general are getting far too worked up about it. At its core, this article is just a dumb asshole, doing what assholes do. There are articles that insult their readers like this every single day in other News Formats, they just have the decency to label themselves as opinion pieces - something that Video Games Writing still hasn't gotten a handle on yet. That doesn't mean that this article is anything more than garbage, though. If this piece were in The Economist or Forbes or Reuters people would probably be just as confused, befuddled or unwarrantably outraged, not least because those outlets tend to have standards for their work. Saying it is 'a thousand times more interesting' than a game preview, an inherently subjective piece of work anyway, doesn't suddenly make it anything worthwhile to any reader. There's more substance, tangible emotion and raw, textual talent in a Tumblr rant than there's to be found in this article.

Every time a sequel comes out there's one of these threads.

Fallout 3 sold 4.7 million units. It's fine if you didn't like the game, but it was undeniably one of the most-played singleplayer games last generation.

There is no reason, whatsoever, to think that either of them is anything but a fiscally conservative statist. Plenty of human beings that aren't old, white men identify with the Republican party, just like how plenty of racists identify with the Democratic party. It is a largely irrelevant difference and comes down to whose words stoke peoples' fear reservoirs more severely.

To have any chance at winning a nomination, let alone a presidential election in the United States, you have got to be a fiscally conservative statist that's able to pretend you're a moderate.

This happened in both of the previous runnings, though!

@darthorange The likelihood that Sanders would be able to conduct any radical change that his supporters would see as positive is about as likely as someone who designates themselves a socialist winning any kind of presidential race in the first place. At its highest, that chance was 13%, with Eugene Debbs in the 20s. We are a very, very long time away from the 20s. Besides, like Brodehouse mentioned, nearly all change that does matter substantially comes from lobbying - which shouldn't be surprising, because lobbying targets the branches that actually make and moderate the law.

I have the great privilege to live in a state with the following key features:

1. Both parties conduct open caucuses. This means I can go in, tick Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders for giggles, and feel moderately bummed when, inevitably, they don't become the candidates.

2. The state has leaned Democrat for the better part of the last three decades. Since we operate on a first-past-the-post system and the most populated areas are, barring San Diego, democratic strongholds, I can feel moderately certain my vote won't be a deciding factor either way.

This has given me a marvelous opportunity: I am completely able to vote along ethical and philosophical lines without repercussion. I will be able to tick the boxes on the big-name cards that tickle my particular brand of loonish, Spanish Anarchist fantasy, because unless 51% of the state suddenly thinks like I do come election time my vote will absolutely not alter the delegation that gets sent to the electoral college in any way. I'm fully aware that this kind of thinking is probably very detrimental to the entire function of American democracy, but frankly I don't care. The notion that I will almost literally not matter, at all, in my state's election has taken an enormous strain off my shoulders: I no longer need to pick a side. I have a horse in the race, but it is the lame, rheumatic perma-pony that would only win in the context of a Disney film. I can choose what I want, safe in the knowledge that less than a percent of people will be voting my way anyway. And if, Lord Willing, I happen to be wrong - if third parties manage to actually pick up votes because of people like me - then perhaps, finally, I can feel proud that I took part. And who knows, right? Stranger things have happened in the past.

Now, to begin the long and arduous search for the mythical Green party or Syndicalist candidate that happens to be pro-gun.

@humanity I was more remarking on Japanese companies and their reluctance to part with IPs, but thinking back to that Minecraft deal, you're totally right. They could definitely match any price offered.

I can't see MS' Xbox division being able to scrounge up any amount of money that Konami would find 'suitable' for that IP.

Plus, given Silent Hill's incredibly checkered history, even if the rumor is true I'd wager half the people who would buy it would hate it. If Kojima were still at the helm, that might not matter, since he's not one, generally, to be swayed by public opinion. I have no idea how Microsoft would handle such a situation, though.

Maybe they should save that litigation money to make guns that don't melt.

BLAZOW.

Lord I hope so!

Kind of weird that Shu hasn't gotten his account verified. Not that I'm calling this fake, it's obviously real as fuck, just a weird detail that stuck out to me.