bassomitron

I don't think Pokemon is first-party since that IP and the dev studios fall under The Pokemon Company, whereas games like Mario and Zelda are developed by studios within Nintendo itself. I could be wrong.

Edit: I just looked it up, and yep, Nintendo only owns 33% of The Pokemon Company.

Yeah, games like Mario Odyssey, Mario Kart, Luigi's Mansion, etc. are fun as hell and very polished. I can't think of a single first-party Nintendo game that's released riddled with bugs in recent memory, whereas the rest of the industry can't say the same, excepting Sony's first-party games.

He'd dismiss the sarcasm and make it genuine, "Yes, Timmy, we really are very impressed. Good job, Billy!"

Agreed. HZD always felt like a game that was built around a story premise first and foremost, which sort of makes sense as that studio had never done a game like that before.

I remember an interview where they were struggling to shift gears from Killzone and looking for new ideas from among their staff when one of their devs pitched HZD's premise. As a result, they approached making an open world action adventure game as complete noobs. This doesn't excuse any of the poor design decisions. I was hoping they'd learn from their mistakes in FW, but they instead made the open world part somewhat better and then forgot to keep the focus on the main quest and characters in the process.

That's pretty funny, and it'd probably work the first few times, if not more lol. I agree with the last part for most of them. But, in a real civil war, it'd include people that aren't completely idiotic. Like I said, there hasn't been a quick, clean civil war ever fought in history. Those lessons are useful to take heed of.

They don't have to be fighters for it to be a headache. During a civil war you have to deal with feeding, securing, housing, etc. all of those people when areas inevitably collapse or are taken over for military operations and people evacuate (i.e. refugees).

Then there are people who do support whichever side and do small acts of sabotage, espionage, etc.

To play devil's advocate, the US is enormous with over 330 million people. The current military strength is roughly a few million, including civilians and contractors. Additionally, there are roughly about 4,000 main battle tanks in service. There's maybe a couple thousand fighter jets and bombers combined. Keep in mind, a lot of the US military is abroad, especially our combat ready equipment.

Now, try to spread all of that out over roughly 4 million square miles. Hell, LA itself is around 470 square miles with almost 10 million people. The military would be idiotic to just blindly carpet bomb everything, since y'know, soldiers have families living all over the US, too. Not great for morale. Not to mention, the economy is pretty essential to keeping the machines of war going. Also food. And fuel. And infrastructure for logistics. And medicine. Etc, etc.

A civil war would not be cut and dry, regardless of how well armed and trained the formal military is. It's why China tries to keep an iron tight grip on its mass surveillance program to squash uprisings before/as soon as they start (and they periodically have them, think there's been one or two in the last decade). That's what the US is also trying to do. They call it antiterrorism precautions and other bullshit, but it's to keep all of us underfoot so no one is able to start an effective movement against the State.

Ukraine isn't fighting the bulk of their war with drones, so it isn't really an appropriate comparison. One of the main reasons they're still in the fight is the plethora of highly advanced munitions that have been provided to them by NATO members. Lastly, drone warfare has become less and less effective over the last year against Russia. There are lots of countermeasures that can be implemented to take out drones. Hell, if you jam radio signals (which is easy to do), remote controlled drones become virtually useless outside of preprogrammed kamikaze tactics.

Just to clarify, I don't say that to discredit them being a viable and deadly weapon in guerilla warfare. They're very effective in certain situations and quite dangerous. Just pointing out they're not the end-all-be-all of modern warfare.

Everything is possessive. My wife, my husband, my girlfriend, my boyfriend, my significant other, etc. "Someone to call my own" isn't really strange; it's not super common, but definitely not that uncommon, either.

Agreed, wider and thicker with maybe a wavy/ ridge texture on the bottom half of the mustache and slight rounding/flaring on the sides that narrows to the top.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1262480275/ron-swanson-250fp011911_400x400.jpg

Feels like that's a good reference pic for OP.

Edit:

But I do prefer #2 more. Like others have said, it's simpler and easier to tell the expression.

Same. I logged about 20 hours on it before my desire to play just kind of slowly faded away. The game was too large and long to warrant such basic gameplay mechanics. You could be fully upgraded within 5-10 hours and then you've essentially seen all the gameplay there is. There's maybe 6-12 random "quests" you'll see while traveling (those dynamic events, e.g. a wagon being robbed), so even that part of it becomes repetitive pretty fast.

I'll get downvoted, but RDR2 is a really overrated game, in my opinion. The game was well made, no doubt about it. Its graphics and environmental design are still gorgeous even to this day, despite being 8 years old. The voice acting, writing, direction, cinematography, etc. are all very well executed. However, at the end of the day, I just found it kind of boring to play.

Right? For a game to be a collector's item, it needs to still be able to function in its intended capacity. Additionally, they need to be considered good. Most games that become a collectable do so when they transition into the "classic" category, usually 20+ years after they released. In 2050, no one's going to think, "Oh man, Concord was hailed as a masterpiece in its day, I need to own that piece of history!"