CDPR a year ago : "we're not going to 'crunch' "
CDPR this year: "mandatory crunch "
JS : " you said one thing then did the opposite.."
CDPR : "waah, some people seem to have an agenda. "
commenters here : "wah, stop picking on our favourite, it's not their fault they're liars."
So, do you not like any OPTIONAL mod, or is it just ones which go against your personal agenda ?
If that's the only main trophy you're missing, then you should be able to get the points by finding hidden areas. Get a guide and look some up, you don't need to find them all, but you do need to spend the points to get the trophy.
good luck.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH H
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAHH
WWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAHH
@shaggy2303
Maybe no-ones reported them yet, or the mods haven't got round to sorting them.
All I'm saying is that because the tagged comments are all over the place, it's not some 'great agenda driven conspiracy' that's the reason.
OR..
the comments are either spamming leaks and/or crying about the LGBT factors.
or, they're general vapid comments about not playing the game for some other reason
or, like yours and the one you're responding to, they're comments which are completely irrelevant to the actual article.
The only agenda is trying to keep the comment section relevant to the content of the article. i.e. the file size of TLOU2.
I mean, they've got games from 3 different development teams there;
Bully is Rockstar Vancouver, LA noire is Team Bondi and the other 3 from Rockstar North.
If the focus was supposed to be on the GTA dev, then maybe Manhunt and Lemmings (which they did as DMA design) would have been smarter choices.
I mean kids cope with a dude who's constantly watching them, judging them for the sake of presents (who uses magic deer to travel the entire globe in one night), a strange woman who comes into their room in the dead of night and swaps rotten teeth for cash and a rabbit that hides chocolate eggs around the garden.
I think they should be fine with LGBT folk.
"you don't get to dictate to others what they have to believe in or support and you don't get to tell them what they can or cannot say either"
And neither do you, yet here you are with YOUR incessant bitching and moaning.
Is that like the US army using COD as a recruitment tool ?
Is that what you mean? Because I think that's a little more concerning than this.
I seem to remember some minor fuss being made about it launch, more along the lines of, 'it's a shame that ...' rather than 'change this or we'll march..!' outrage!
It's also noteworthy that on metacritic there's a bigger proportion of negative reviews on the user side than the critics side. And it seems to be marked down for either being boring or a buggy mess, nothing to do with 'sjw' outrage.
Why would they bother doing that?
There's no pics with big red circles on them.
@Mr P
Firstly, the sites I've seen (such as kotaku, IGN, PC gamer, etc. not blogs or bedroom youtubers) just covered the stories as is. Laid out who accused who of what and didn't pass judgement.
Secondly, have you ever read a UK tabloid ?
You'll struggle to buy a Sun in Liverpool because of all the BS it wrote about Hillsborough.
You can't use the Daily Fail as a source on Wikipedia because it's so unreliable and prone to sensationalis...
Is it dark up there?
So, Mr Pumblechook, a lot of the people who knew and worked with Alec agreed with and supported Zoe - including Alec's own sister.
But, you and the other internet Sherlocks who've never met anyone involved, know different..
I mean, if you wanted to avoid it, you could just NOT click on the article with LGBT in the title that comes from a site called GAYmingmag.com..
And Remedy did not make any of the games you mentioned.
"[Remedys] history is largely white male protagonist and they were very much of the opinion that it was about time."
You should have watched the UK Playstation team (PS access) playing it last week. They showed off these features.
Some of them (like speed up and achievements) were already present in the old Steam version.
That pointing out someone said one thing then did another is not 'having an agenda'.
Especially when the 'shit' that's 'changed' was supposed to be a 'commitment' regarding their employees welfare.