Bay 12 Games Forum

Checking a few vids... actually kinda' turned off by the art style, which makes the praise for it kinda' odd t'me. Mostly because I'm mildly fed up with the style itself, I think -- it's been around a lot over the last few years*, and it's always felt just kinda'... messy, to me. Distracting, hard to notice things, etc., etc. Could mostly handle risk of rain, but that was honestly because most of the scenery wasn't destructible. Not a dealbreaker, but I'd definitely prefer something more Secret of Mana instead of galaga bukkake or whatever they're calling this stuff.

Gameplay itself also looks kinda' floaty, and the melee emphasis seems... unpleasant. I wouldn't say it's bad without trying it, but the LPs and whatnot have definitely turned me away from wanting to get the game.

S'almost unfortunate, as I can definitely see why people would like it, too. Just not for me, heh.

*Hell, longer than that -- I think the earliest I can recall that was meaningfully well known was probably Flashback, back in '92. Somewhat different in regards to scenery, but how it handled characters and movement were damn close, imo. Lot of the even older stuff -- atari and whatnot -- seems to be pretty obvious influences, too. It just wasn't used quite as often back then as it seems to be now. I guess things have come full circle -- what was once a system limitation is now a stylistic affectation...

sucks to be them?

Cat's possibly just hypoallergenic. There's a few breeds of housecat that are -- we actually had a pair of korats for a while, despite one of the folks in the house being allergic to cats. Never had a problem. Is good stuff!

... weird to say that's a trend when just about everything I've personally seen shows pretty much the exact opposite. I hear (and see) a lot more these days about parents giving a shit about their kids than I do from talking to older generations, where beating the shit out of your kid and/or kicking them out of the house at 18 (or younger) with no fucking support was common enough most folks in my area, at the very least, didn't look at it much in askance. Also plenty of lovely tales of kids barely seeing or interacting their parents, because one was away from the house almost always and the other was swamped trying to take care of 4+ children. And so on, and so forth.

Frankly, the concept is kinda' bullshit on the face of it. It's far from a perfect metric, but spending on kids has been skyrocketing over the years, not going down, or being allocated more towards parents' amusements. That trend of "neglect" is a trend of massively increased material investment, and even bloody better is that a lot of the newer generations are specifically looking for jobs and whatnot they can work around to take care of kids and family. Trend you're talkin' about ain't happenin' to any degree worth noting, daily mail is again bullshit of the highest degree.

Vestals should actually be pretty good vs. Caelum, by dint of generally fairly average attack, I'd think. At best 12 (and that on cap-only critters with shorter weapons) vs base 16 (significantly more if you go water bless, which is damn sexy on vestals) + shield is... not the best odds. Not the worst, but still. Add to that that the vestals are undead and that makes darkness a go-to for turning the fight from advantageous for sceleria to a complete stomp, well...

Honestly, MA Caelum's best bet vs. vestals may be the blizzard warriors. The high precision may actually do better than the melee fighters. Try to bury them in light infantry, perhaps...

I wouldn't even remotely want to try to take caelum into a straight up fight with sceleria, though, unless it was very early. Lightning evo could do a lot vs. undead hoards, but storm+darkness is kinda' painless for sceleria and kicks caelum right in the teeth. Though getting storm for 'em without pretender intervention would be a little rough. Not exactly impossible -- they've got the potential for A2 and astral rings -- but relatively improbable. Still, it'd probably be a pretty nasty match up for caelum, imo, especially if they didn't manage to get an early handle on sceleria's reanimator production. I'd probably be considering investment into seeking arrow spam...

I do agree that keeping a nuclear family intact in spite of abuse, etc. is a terrible approach, but breaking it up to pre-empt that is also foolish.

Didn't say anything about preemptively breaking anything up, heh. Basically just noting that the important part isn't the kids growing up with parents, it's them growing up well _{with a side of fuck the parents if they get in the way of that, which is incredibly goddamn common in everything I've seen in life. Not a majority, perhaps, but far too damned often.}

And to an extent OSG. It is good if the love is good and what they're being asked to obey is as well, and the both of them aren't getting in the way of various other important things. Just seems that in practice christian culture et al is pretty damn bad at actually inculcating that, y'know?

And honestly, I'd say the whole "Ya gotta be married" thing was largely intended to prevent rampant population growth/unplanned pregnancy with no legally bound backup, more than it was about sexual morality.

S'far as I'm aware it was more just to enforce existing social structures, maintain family lines and whatnot. Was mostly about property and inheritance, basically. Folks that wrote the books didn't really give a shit about overpopulation (frankly, too many kids died for it to be a meaningful issue), and there were rules in place for unplanned pregnancies.

And @OW's shitpost: Or at least acknowledge how often it is that's pretty close to the worst possible outcome. We've still got plenty of christians (among others, of course) killing (among all sorts of other things) their children and being basically let get away with it because that (and especially growing up with the biological parents) is seen as some kind of ideal state.

Christian counseling and whatnot also causes a frankly horrendous amount of fuckup in a number of countries regarding marriage counseling, child rearing, etc., etc. Bible wasn't particularly good regarding child rearing and family structures.

Now, now, that's not quite accurate. It misses, "Unless testing costs less than the estimated number of lawsuits caused by product failure."

I don't think I'll ever forget that a couple weeks worth of an intro accounting tech course I was in focused on how to work Excel to identify what amounted to the optimal testing to dead people cost ratio.

Didn't they all swear an oath to support the nominee?

Not legally binding est

Most oaths aren't, really. So they matter roughly as much as the integrity of the oathmaker and the extent other people care about the lack thereof. For current state of both, please consider the progression 2016 republican primaries.