Reality vs Adventure

I hate waiting for checkpoints especially when I don't start back at the spot I quit at so I would have to play that part over again. I think it was easier to just go to the menu and equip weapons. The newer weapon wheel throws me off sometimes because usually time is still going but slowed, and the pointer never quite clicks on the item I need right away. Sometimes the wheel works great though. So I'm 50/50 on that.

Stuff looks like jello already in the can. lol You are a dragon

You have watched the tv series too right? I love 24. Drama, action, heroism, decision making, honor, wits. I've got the movie too and the whole series that I am watching off and on.

It's always hard having to choose who dies or how many. I remember taking an ethics class in college and from what I remember, you should make a decision based on what causes the least amount of suffering. It's hard because what may seem like the best decision in the the current situation, may have effects in the long run that could cause even more deaths or suffering. Do you kill 5 now and let one man go who would kill 100 later? Do you save an injured person and put a bunch of other's lives at risk? Remember Saving Private Ryan? Is one man's life worth 10? Would that one life in return save 100 lives or be a bum on the street? We never know. I was watching an episode of 24 last night. Should you let a nerve gas be released into a mall so you can track a terrorist to other potential attacks using the nerve gas? Let 1,000 die so you could try to save 100,000? Should you let one young person live in excruciating pain and use the last cure for an old person who would have certain death? Or kill the old person and cure the young one? The weight of morality is hard to balance sometimes. This kind of stuff in games, they should teach in ethics classes. Instead of boring textbooks. It would be very interactive and timed in your response instead of reading and thinking about it for a week before writing a paper over it. 1st reactions would be very interesting to study in people using video games for ethical decisions. Just a quick dialogue or something, not the whole game of course.

Assassins Creed Syndicate is exactly what I've been looking for. Beautiful London city scape in the late 1800's. I still want to check out We Happy Few.

Wow, that might actually be something! Even though the tv is the same distance, we perceive what we are used to seeing anyways. And I like to view things from far, even when I read. I still have good vision reading up close, but I would get a headache. So for me that would make sense that in 1st person mode is better if I didn't have to move so much. All the rules are broken in Dying Light though. Not sure what it is they did to make it work for me. Speed of camera maybe? Speed of character? Distance of objects? Some setting they did with camera optics made it work. Contrast? Color? Motion blur on or off? I don't know. And you being near sighted, there has to be some sort of camera setting in 1st person mode that is easier on your eyes. Wonder what that is. Or it could simply be our perception of things. What we are used to and comfortable with. But you also enjoy scenery in games, so you enjoy to see the view of things too right? So it must come down to speed of the camera or something. Is an interesting topic.

Maybe it's a far sighted/near sighted thing. I'm definitely far sighted. Not sure if that has to do with anything.

I used to have black lights every where and at one point I used a red light as my main light. I'm not light sensitive or anything, just liked it. Would a red light bulb hurt your eyes?

I do have to say that I was in a recent major battle in a game and I was having fun running around with an axe killing foes, but didn't want it to end. Usually battles like that don't last long in games. I like to feel the essence of battle instead of a quickie. But in this battle, I found that when I returned to areas after killing them, they and my warriors were fighting again. So I got to enjoy the battle as long as my heart desired because the enemy spawned back up in different areas once I left it. I definitely agree that I hate respawning when I would like to explore my environment. I'm gonna use Dying Light as an example; the environment is amazing and so many times I would just want to stop and walk around and look at all the ruins and dead, but always zombies coming after me. Every now and then though, you get an eery silence with no zombies, or maybe a couple wondering around harmless I loved those moments while I take it all in.

Yes, it has several modes so your character can be different sizes or 1st person, and even a cinematic mode while you ride and view everything from different angles from above.

I get dizzy in 1st person. Horror games are the exception. As long as the camera doesn't move so fast either 3rd person or 1st person then I'm good. I think scenic outdoor games do 3rd person better and slower horror indoor is better for 1st person. I have played RDR2 in 1st person mode and I actually liked it, especially riding a horse around. Other than that, I'd say no to 1st person in the outdoors. Plus I love seeing my character equipped with awesome gear. I do have to say, now that I remember, Dying Light was an amazing 1st person outdoor survival horror. They did a great job with it. And it was very immersive that way. So I lied. Forget everything I said. Just depends on the game.

As long as I'm not picking up a bar of soap I'm fine. But it does add scare factor in horror games.

That's a good question cause we can find some interesting differences here if enough people answer it. For me, I find 3rd person to be pretty immersive in games with scenery. The problem with first person I have is that it gives me a headache pretty quick. The reason is that in first person, the camera moves fast and there is a lot of drag and blur. If I were moving slow indoors in a horror game, 1st person is more immersive. I can put myself there easily. Outdoors, it doesn't work as well. I'm always looking all over the place. In third person, as long as the character has a natural flow and the environment looks realistic, or fantastical, I find it very immersive. Too many quest details written all over the screen, focal points, gear/weapon display, corner map, just plain clutter on the screen breaks immersion right away. When a doofus nut follows me around in a quest breaks it every time. Games that allow treasure hunting in story dialogs breaks the immersion of the story.

I used to put chips inside my sandwich as a kid, but a pizza? Chips are already baked! lol

You are a very decisive person. My mind changes a lot. That is true. I have a go-to game myself. I should play that one while I decide what to play! LOL

Assassin's Creed Chronicles of China is free from Ubisoft for the PC for the Chinese Lunar New Year. I haven't played any of the Chronicles games which are in 2D and I don't game on PC. But thought I'd share if you like 2D games. I'll definitely get it if it's free on the ps4. I now have 6 AC games I've been playing. Sounds funny, I know. Why not just finish one of them first and move to the next, right? Well, they all are big games and I really enjoy them. Also, I just became obsessed with the series. I'm just gonna take my sweet time with all of them. Play whichever I feel like playing, go enjoy scenery from one game to the next. I love this S%%T. Well, the games I have now are: (recently got Valhalla!!!) The Ezio Collection Black Flag Syndicate Origins Odyssey Valhalla I just started on Syndicate and Valhalla and a few weeks ago AC 2. All I can say is that all 6 games I have are awesome. So this is just an update of where my head is at. I eventually will have the whole series. But I can wait on AC3 since it's part of the Ezio Collection story which is 3 games itself.

Any type of business can be helped by the government if they wanted to during this pandemic. Japan has one of the largest economies ranking 3rd in the world. And no, that isn't socialism to help businesses during an economic crisis or pandemic. But the rich get richer, and we the people lose our entertainment.

Does a paid reviewer need a drug test? If there was a need at all I would think they would be more pressed because they write. They may need to be tested if their writings are all screwball if you know what I mean. Don't see how esports would need it unless there is some sort of contract for the team if they depended on each other. That would only make sense if there was actual rewards to be won. If I were to join a team to win $100,000 then damn right show me proof you are in it body mind and soul. No rewards? Pass it to the left. Or right. But I don't know how esports work.

That's exactly what I was thinking. An actual police simulator will have to deal with a lot of boring tasks. Most cops never even had to use their guns. But if they really want realism in a police simulator, they should throw in drunks they take off the street covered in puke. Take them down to the dirty jail and strip them down naked, and give them a shower. Throw in some ill equipped psychological training to deal with domestic disturbances you have no idea how to handle. Then practice hiding zones to catch drivers not wearing a seatbelt as they make a u-turn under the highway. I would say for the most part, there isn't action. But if your character was in the city area, you really wouldn't like driving back and forth to the city jail and deal with all the things. Then when you become desensitized to it all, and listen to your peers make fun of their arrests, you just might be the next to lose it and hurt someone.

chocolate tuna apple sauce spaghetti salsa and cheerios mushroom tarts ice cream burritos oyster nachos milk vegetable soup garlic cloves in yogurt shit noodles pee mint tea

I hope they do make a movie out of this. I'm on book 3 now. I know I know, seems like I'm slow. But these books are like 700-800 pages each. Over 900 pages in book 3 and the others.

Sardine and peanut butter sandwich Mayonnaise ice cream Chocolate and mustard hot dog Melted cheese and Raisin Bran Ketchup salad Tuna and refried bean taco Pickle and blueberry muffin Banana and cheese sandwich Mashed potatoes with molasses

Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me either when I read it. Since when would the individual himself have the copyright? It would go to the publisher of the comic I would assume. I wonder if Booker T was still wrestling when he was in the comic. Cause Vince would have had those nuts in a jar or something. Sgt Slaughter chose to leave WWE when he did GI Joe cause Vince wouldn't let him do both.

I think Booker T has a case because he has copyright on GI Bro and was in comics. As a fan of GI Joe, I've never heard of that. Also, back in the day when the wrestler Robert Rudolph Remus also known as Sgt Slaughter had a GI Joe character in his name, Hasbro had all copyrights. You couldn't have any look alike anywhere as far as I know and he always had the same unique outfit. The model and gear for Mara does look similar, but if the photographer has no copyright to the military outfit, then no case. Even if he did have copyright, it will only win in court if the military outfit was exactly the same. The gear looks to be universal, not at all individualistic. Would be interesting to follow up on this.

In 2023 the super bowl will take place in Tampa Bay Fl. again? WTF Someone is forking over a lot of money to make this happen. That tells me Tampa Bay has the dominoes already stacked for them to win. In cookoo town, money wins over the game.