setsneedtofeed

Nick Rekieta, a minor YouTube e-celeb was gifted a Sonichu medallion and wore it. Currently his life is not going great.

I have an accessory item with a name on it, from the clothing of a person who was killed. I never met this person.

I found it while doing cleanup of the scene where they died. It had no investigative value, so was trash, but I didn't feel right throwing it away. I kept it, in hopes of giving it to someone close to them, but life kept moving and I ended up with it.

Hi Nick.

Probably because it makes a ton of money. The opinions of people who post online represent a small fraction of people who play games.

Then it isn't a filler. I never said I don't swear, but have greatly reduced it. One effect of reduced swearing is that when swears are used, they have more punch.

I'm not sure why you're so invested in debating that people who habitually swear won't insert swears into unrelated thoughts, but the only support I offer is to listen to someone who habitually swears speak. I don't want to sound like that, so I make the effort not to.

My choice on how I speak and type doesn't impose anything on you.

I don't recall saying every use of a swear is a filler word.

Delightful.

I have made a conscious effort to reduce swearing, which has brought my swearing down to near zero, both online and in real life conversation.

I have found that it streamlines the ability to make a point. A lot of swearing is simply thrown in out of habit, and if you remove it, all you do is make your point more clear without losing anything of substance.

I think for many people swearing is a "filler word" in the same way that "umm" can be. I have also worked hard to reduce my other filler word use. My goal with both of these is better articulation.

The next effect is that swearing is normally viewed as an extreme use of language for an extreme situation, and when you don't constantly swear the times that you do actually conveys how notable the situation is.

I'm legitimately having difficulty following the flow of this question. The formatting vacillates between question and statement, and I am sincerely having trouble fully discerning the connection between points.

I think this post comes from disappointment with Star Wars Outlaws, which by all reports largely follows the Ubisoft formula for open world games. For this, yes Ubisoft has struck upon a formula that is applied to seemingly all of their open world games, which is indeed overly predictable. For that, I do agree that the rote steps of a collectation heavy game where the player secures territory of the game in order to advance the story is overplayed.

Otherwise, I am stuck trying to tease out the rest of the post's intention.

Recently the 2 “highly praised” Star Wars “open world” games

I don't know what the other Star Wars game referred to is supposed to be. Is this referring to Jedi Survivor? That game did have a number of technical problems, but it wasn't ever intended or marketed as an open world game. Putting even that aside, why are two Star Wars games used as the pillars of western AAA games? What is the point or critique here?

A well written resume, a firm handshake, and a willingness to knock on doors is the key to success.

The Sword band, and their second album Gods Of The Earth.

It is burned into my brain. Epic viking rock opera created by a garage band in Texas.

My apparently encyclopedic knowledge of early internet culture and deep cut 80s-90s media. I knew I was well versed, but thought that what I knew was near baseline. Just recently I had to explain the connection between Solid Snake from Metal Gear Solid and the movie Escape From New York to someone astonished I was pulling out all kinds of details from an "obscure" old movie.