CRank: 5Score: 28820

I definitely woulnd't put artificer at #2. She scales the worst of any of the characters with on-hit items (which are the majority of the good damage items in game atm) because she hits the slowest. Sure flamethrower specifically is good with them, but it's essenitally suicidal to use in a lot of situations (which is why when you see people doing 90+ minute artificer runs they quickly stop using it as the enemies scale up in threat.)

With no items, or very limited i...

2489d ago 1 agree0 disagreeView comment

Lots of games are simply not available in physical and this is a change publishers are actively pushing for. We both know that's not an option for a lot of games, and the % of games it's not an option for is increasing over time.

I am absolutely in favor of holding people accountable for their actions. Like I said, ban him. Refuse all future service to him. All for it. I woulnd't even have a problem with a company like twitter or patreon or whatever seeing that...

2491d ago 2 agree1 disagreeView comment

It's actually not. There's like, no hard line to be drawn on what does and doesn't constitute offensive, or under what circumstances. There is no way to draw the hard line even if you wanted to. It's a private company. They can and should be allowed to deny service for any non-descriminatory reason.

What they should not be allowed to do is have control over your stuff after you bought it using the legal cover that you only purchased a lisence.

2491d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

Responding with "you don't own anything" is techincally true, but again, j*that's the problem.* Companies should not be allowed to retain control of how you use your products after purchase. There are a handful of exacptions, but this isn't one of them.

The ongoing service? Yes. Ban him from all of it. That's fine. But they *should not* simply be allowed to decide "you can't play your games anymore" and prevent you playing games that ...

2491d ago 4 agree10 disagreeView comment

Your little slogan there contradicts your own statement. We all already agree that free speech needs to be curtailed for the greater good. The legal example is shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater (which is likely to lead to injury.)

The only question is where exactly the line is.

Also, you neglect a principle that's just as important. Freedom of association. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech, and while ...

2491d ago 8 agree1 disagreeView comment

Which, is, itself, the problem. That companies are allowed to pull that kind of thing.

2491d ago 5 agree6 disagreeView comment

There are more types of bigotry than the mega-blatant kind. And people don't necessarily realize that they're part of the problem.

You know how long I used the term "gyped" before I realized I was perpetuating a racist stereotype about Romani people?

2491d ago 4 agree3 disagreeView comment

Technically, they didn't steal anything. When you buy Digital games you don't buy the game, you buy a lisence, that can be revoked at any time for any reason (including no reason at all.)

Nobody is *legally* in the wrong here.

2491d ago 5 agree6 disagreeView comment

It's not the ban, it's the ability of a platform holder to revoke access even to the offline portions of your game.

I'm both gay and black, I have a personal steak in people like him being shut down and ostracised whenever possible. So yes, ban him. Prevent him logging in. Ban his specific PS4 so it can never log into the PSN again even on alt accounts. All for it. But that doesn't change that the ability of Sony (or any other company) to simply deny you ac...

2491d ago 15 agree22 disagreeView comment

I'm going to break the narrative that I'm an "sjw" (whatever that means) and disagree here.

Did he deserve a ban? Yes. Absolutely. If someone did that on a platform I owned or controlled it woulnd't be a temp-ban, it'd be a perma-ban.

*However* the ability to flat out revoke access to all your games because you purchased them digitally is all kinds of BS. The platform holder simply should not have the right to dictate when and i...

2491d ago 12 agree8 disagreeView comment

That's...not right.

FF 7, 8, 9, 13 trillogy, 14 and 15 have PC ports that are *far* easier to mod than the origionals and thus look far better. Also they run natively at 1080p, and require less CPU grunt to do it.

FF10/10-2 and 12 have full remasters available on PC, with most of those same benefits + new high res texures and additional features besides.

For FFs 1-6, rendering at a super high resolution doesn't do anything anywa...

2493d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

laptops exist. As do even smaller devices, actually.

2494d ago 1 agree3 disagreeView comment

Ignore these people. FF X-2s story is *way* better than it's given credit for. People just don't understand how subtext works. (like how through most of X-2 Yuna is totally miserable and rather desperately searching for what she thinks will make her happy. Your first clue is that "happy" Yuna in the beginning is a fake, and then happy real Yuna is having the emotions imposed on her from the outside (the sphere grid.) Both of which are direct references to a speech she made i...

2494d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

If most people want something changed, or don't want something changed, or just a loud enough group of people want whatever it is to convince the people making it to make the change, that *is* the free market. Wether you like it or not. It's not suddenly tyrrany because you disagree, it's how capitalism is supposed to work.

Never mind I didn't even advocate for banning it. Or even changing it. I pointed out the fundamental problem with the idea that people ...

2497d ago 0 agree1 disagreeView comment
2497d ago Show

IDK, maybe jewish people or freinds/family of jewish people who deal with enough of that IRL and don't want to also deal with it in their games? Just a thought.

2497d ago 6 agree34 disagreeView comment

"I want you to change it" and "You're not allowed to have it" are different things.

Not to mention the whole, you know, free market you types tend to love so much. Well if the free market says they should have warnings and/or their product gets buried or something, who are you to say otherwise, right? That's not book burning. That's the "invisible hand"

2497d ago 4 agree15 disagreeView comment

You're assuming people know things they don't. If people see a homophobic slur written on a wall, they don't assume "oh that must be a reference." That's not how it works. And that can't be how it owrks, because it's not feasable for everyone to always look up everything, and always assuming the best serves only to let truly vile people fly under the radar and normalize their bigotry.

The N word has *always* been common. And for the *overw...

2499d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

The N word is used by black people. It's still offensive. Because context is important. When 'group' X uses 'slur x' that refers to members of their own group, everybody generally, *knows* that they're not actually attacking them for that thing.

When people outside the group use it, people don't know that, and often have little/no way to know that, and that fact is very important because of the well established history of people using those term...

2499d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

False Equivilance.

Cops chose their profession. Gay people don't choose their sexuality. Regardless of your feelings on cops or gay people, attacks based on one or the other are *fundamentally* different things.

2500d ago 2 agree10 disagreeView comment