Withywarlock

In what must have been a shocking revelation at the time, Overseer Jacoren in Fallout: A Post Nuclear Roleplaying Game refuses to give the Vault Dweller the recognition and respect they deserve. While I can understand the Overseer's complaints, his dismissive attitude tells me he was trying to save his own rear more than his fellows. Still, had it not been for Overseer Jacoren's choice, Fallout 2 would've looked very different.
Apologies for the vaguery, I'm unsure how to hide spoilers via formatting if such a thing is possible.

There is new update with the warframe for those who are playing. The event will unlock the lavos. This event is PC only as of now with focus on mech frame release during the event. 
You can check out the update.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y44648sV_8

The demos of Bioshock and F.E.A.R: First Encounter Assault Recon made me the most excited for a horror game I've ever been, and likely ever will be. Nothing has come close to the slow build of tension and spine-tingling fear than those two on the Xbox 360. That said, I'm currently enjoying Call of Cthulu (2018) and have to say I'm loving it!

I think what you say here and go on to say in your next paragraph is a fair assessment. I brought up the selfishness (again, survival if boiled down to its most raw substance) as an additional angle to the heroic/cowardly spectrum, like I typically do law and chaos to the debate of good and evil. Joel can be considered heroic for saving a life at the risk of his own, and that was likely the intent because it makes for a more dramatic story. Much as I disliked Joel's actions and wouldn't call him a hero, I can't call him a coward for the aforementioned risk of life and limb. Plus he's a human with limited time to act; logic doesn't fare well in such circumstances. To quote Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "love makes you do the wacky."
My apologies, I meant the latter. I feel as though fighting 'evil with evil', in the sense of Lawful Evil versus Chaotic evil, or Chaotic Good versus Lawful Evil is a much more interesting story than Lawful and Chaotic good fighting one another. But even while I use those terms liberally they're still only archetypes and still require competent writers to flesh those roles out, or add their own perceptions to them as you do. ^^

Imagine all the grease you would have to clean out of it just to get the damn thing to run without catching fire.

Overall, I do think this is a correct description of him. But I feel there was more to the ending than that, and it took me a second playthrough to be sure I felt that way (and a couple of playthroughs of Left Behind). The imagery at the start of the game and the imagery at the end of it are close mirrors, and it seems to me that protecting what is innocent was a motive alongside survival. The soldier who shot Sarah was doing something pragmatic and logical, but also unnecessary. I got the impression what the Fireflies wanted to do with Ellie was potentially likewise. Plus, Riley seemed a clear source of virtue, and her words at the end of Left Behind were also similar to Joel's at the end of TLOU. I kind of felt like they reached the same decision point in different ways. Selfishness may not be heroic, but a character being selfish doesn't necessarily make him un-heroic either.

Note: I haven't played TLOU II yet. For all I know, all of the above is wrong.
In terms of being effective against that leader strategically, or in terms of good storytelling? Honestly, lawful good leaders sometimes irk me, as they often tend to have a black and white view of the universe that just doesn't fit with real life. While trying not to dirty their hands, they end up causing more harm than good sometimes. They don't make good soldiers. They are more worried about protecting their egos than protecting others.

As I said in a couple of other posts, I'm not surprised this happened because Witcher 3 overheated my friend's GTX 1080 and caused it to stop functioning and at the time, it was one of the most powerful GPUs on the market. Their game optimization has always been on the poorer side and I've always pointed this out. To be fair, most of the DLC packs are going to be free (if I'm remembering correctly). 

Like with your example with Joel, I like the whole lawful/chaotic/good/evil spectrum to be blurred so we all get to decide for ourselves what is right, rather than a game telling us it is or not. I don't think Joel is either - he's just doing what it takes to survive which, taken to its most logical, pragmatic conclusion, is a very selfish goal. Selfishness is rarely - if ever - seen as heroic or the ends justifying the means, but he might see his actions in the final act that way. The writers might. I don't but I accept that a lot of his actions were necessary, just as cordyceps aren't evil when they spread spores to infect hosts solely for their survival.
Much as I like to lean toward anti-heroes, they're only as good as the ends which justify the means. An anti-hero isn't much good against a lawful-good leader; they have to be pitched against someone who also believes their way of survival and luxury is the right way. See the Punisher, who was made as a criticism of his world's judicial system which failed his wife and children, and a foil to Spiderman's own vigilante justice.
Is not the road to Hell paved with good intentions?

Like with your example with Joel, I like the whole lawful/chaotic/good/evil spectrum to be blurred so we all get to decide for ourselves what is right, rather than a game telling us it is or not. I don't think Joel is either - he's just doing what it takes to survive which, taken to its most logical, pragmatic conclusion, is a very selfish goal. Selfishness is rarely - if ever - seen as heroic or the ends justifying the means, but he might see his actions in the final act that way. The writers might. I don't but I accept that a lot of his actions were necessary, just as cordyceps aren't evil when they spread spores to infect hosts solely for their survival.
Much as I like to lean toward anti-heroes, they're only as good as the ends which justify the means. An anti-hero isn't much good against a lawful-good leader; they have to be pitched against someone who also believes their way of survival and luxury is the right way. See the Punisher, who was made as a criticism of his world's judicial system which failed his wife and children, and a foil to Spiderman's own vigilante justice.
Is not the road to Hell paved with good intentions?

I remember the keyboard. It was a limited release, and wasn't received well. It was kind of like the GameBoy camera and GameBoy printer. There were tons of other pointless and useless accessories, most that flopped selling less than 1000 units. Some that were proposed and never released. Such as the GameBoy sewing machine. Nintendo got ridiculous with that shit.

AC Odyssey- not playing around
Fallout 4- tired of playing around

You might be cool. But you'll never be Billy Idol in Fallout 4 walking away from a nuclear explosion cool...

Swordquest: Airworld never got released.😢 I remember playing Fireworld and Earthworld, and still playing them today. Waterworld is extremely rare, but Airworld, while it was planned, never got made.
There was something I mentioned in another thread, but I can’t remember what it was at the moment.

I assume it's going to only get worse for them, as I can't see them regaining any of that vieweship. A lot of the time, I feel these games are just fads, and the next fun game to come out, takes its place before another comes out. Rinse and repeat. It's tough to keep a game popular for long. 

The old systems kinda needed a mascot, just because that was the times. Mario and Sonic are iconic. Link too. But in today's gaming world, choosing a mascot is not a smart move. It takes away time from the developers that should be working on their games and systems, by instead having a consensus to choose a character to represent them. And there's no telling how long that would take, and how much money would be poured into such a pointless endeavor. Too much R&D for a mascot instead of R&D for a hot game series.

Reminde still that It says "Super Smash Bros Ultimate X Super Mario RPG" is because Nintendo no longer owns the rights. It's just as hard to add Geno than any other 3rd party character. I’m still holding hope for geno being a DLC fighter, so long as there’s empty slots in the fighter pass. Lets see, looks to be something crazy hype. 

Right now Epic is throwing a lot of Fortnite and Unreal Engine licensing money mucsle at the service in order to catch up to Steam.  The problem is money flows faster than progress.
 
Epic is still light years behind in terms of functionality and they know it.  No proper drive managment, no sharing, hell hey don't even have a friggin shopping cart and it's been well over a year since it launched.  It's smart that they are throwing their money around for giveaways and exclusives, but that is NOT going to keep them in competition forever.  The service and storefront needs big improvements.

I do think anti-heroes are more appealing. In my opinion, I love good written anti-heroes, but, it's not always good, most of them are just written like edgy rogues from a DnD campaign and you just want to kill them.

For frequency Intel tried the RAM-less HD solution recently but the frequency often is not the issue but more of the capacity considering the apps require capacity and not the speed. 

For sure, this game is very good. At first, I thought it would be weird, a farm game of slimes where you collect their poop? (POOP HYPE) I never thought it would be so funny and relaxing at the same time and even more funny watching others do it. Mate of mine has played more than 90 hours at Steam, I don't know why, but I really liked it and also he does to, maybe it's because it's the perfect game for who wants to play and listen a podcast while, or maybe because I keep waiting for each update to see what's the newest slime added, or maybe because this game is the best game indie in months.
It had a very nice feedback loop in its gameplay, of maybe 5-10 minutes of hunting out slimes and their food (among other things too), and then back to the ranch to store it all and keep everyone fed and happy, and then right back out to it. Very colorful and fun with a layer of strategy and planning that becomes more obvious after the first hour. I can see even me easily, putting 20+ hours in it, if I was to get it.

When I worked as a Software Test Engineer at a previous company, there were tons of game development testers that had lost their job due to the company not doing too well shortly after. The only plus is you see games before they are released. The cons are HUGE including;
Doing every level, multiple times in a row various different ways.
Crunching before the release of games and before patches go out to make sure they are correct.
Trying to play games in ways that they shouldn't be played or trying to bypass areas in open world games.

This may not be a popular opinion, but in answer to the question are video games art my answer is a definitive no.
 
Let me explain. Imagine you are laying out cards for a game of solitaire or setting up a chess board, is there any art in that? No, it's all about structure and rules to set up a challenge. That's what a game is. Games can't be art because they have a function. For something to be art, it has to have no purpose other than itself.
 
However, cards and chess pieces have a design, a style that has no bearing on their purpose and that IS art. Just because a game, video or otherwise, is not art doesn't mean art can't be found in its make up can't help define it. More specifically, video games as a purpose exist to challenge and/or provoke a reaction from the player, but they always have an indigenous design and style that sets them apart each time, just like how chess sets and playing cards can have a variety of designs.
 
So no, video games are not art, but art is an important it what video games what they are.

Yes it's art. It's no different than music or movies. It's a medium that people use to show their artistic side. Some do other things. My art is the written word. I've written 2 novels, several short stories, and a hell of a lot of unconventional poetry. Some prefer a brush. Some prefer a saw and hammer.
It's art from those that have the drive and knowledge to create it. There are games I personally just aren't into all the way to others that I despise. But my feeling on those games does not negate the fact that they are still art.

Yes it does defeat the purpose. I started leveling up too fast in Odyssey. But since they increased the skill level to 99 before I was even at 50 made it all ok. The enemy skill level usually stays around the same as mine. But for other games, a boost in XP could offset quest levels. 

Doesn't that defeat the purpose and remove the accomplishment factor in the game? Let's see, I can earn my XP and gain that level 50 status, or I can buy it for $5.