Pupil
Pupil

Pupil

Attached
Attached

Attached

Attachment
Attachment

Attachment

The
The

The

Dont Know
Dont Know

Dont Know

Oro
Oro

Oro

you don't know
 you don't know

you don't know

meaningless
 meaningless

meaningless

attempts
 attempts

attempts

thanking
 thanking

thanking

🔥 | Latest

general: oifaaa: Have I mentioned I adore short hair Zuko and just Sokka in general 
general: oifaaa:

Have I mentioned I adore short hair Zuko and just Sokka in general 

oifaaa: Have I mentioned I adore short hair Zuko and just Sokka in general 

general: inquisitorhotpants: burntcopper: futureevilscientist: optimysticals: uovoc: konec0: sleepyferret: shitfacedanon: dat-soldier: sonnetscrewdriver: dat-soldier: did-you-kno: Source back the fuck up There’s another story that I like about a Chinese general who had to defend a city with only a handful of soldiers from a huge enemy horde that was in all likelihood going to steamroll the place flat within hours of showing up. So when said horde did arrive, they saw the general sitting outside the city’s open gates, drinking tea. The horde sent a couple of emissaries over to see what was what, and the general greeted them cheerfully and invited them all to come and take tea with him. The horde decided that this was a scenario that had “MASSIVE FUCKING TRAP” written all over it in beautiful calligraphy and promptly fucked off. Whoever that general was, he was clearly the Ancient Chinese equivalent of Sam Vimes. did he just invite us over for tea nah man i’m out This just keeps getting better I fucking love history. ok but tbh that story misses a lot of the subtlety of the situation like ok so this story is the Romance of Three Kingdoms, and essentially takes place between Zhuge Liang, resident tactician extraordinaire, and Sima Yi… OTHER resident tactician extraordinaire. The two were both regarded as tactical geniuses and recognized the other as their rival. Zhuge Liang had a reputation for ambushing the SHIT out of his opponents and using the environment to his advantage, thus destroying large armies with a small number of men. Sima Yi (who kind of entered the picture later) was a cautious person whose speciality was unravelling his opponent’s plans before they began. So it was natural that the two would butt heads; however, since Sima Yi tended to have more men and resources, he started winning battles against the former. Which, y’know, kinda sucked. On to the actual story: Zhuge Liang is all like “shit i gotta defend this city with like 10 men.” Literally if he fights ANY kind of battle here, he WILL lose; his only option for survival is not to fight. And that’s looking more and more impossible until he hears that his rival is leading the opposing army. And then he gets this brilliant idea. He basically opens all the gates, sends his men out in civilian clothes to sweep the streets, and sits on top of the gate drinking tea and chilling out and basically makes the whole thing out to be a trap When Sima Yi comes he’s all like “yo come on in bro” and Sima Yi is like “yeah he’s never been that obvious about his traps before. this is definitely a bluff” and he’s about to head in when he realizes wait. he knows that i think he’s bluffing. and so he gets it in his head that maybe, just MAYBE, Zhuge Liang has this cunning plan that will wipe out his army - recall that he has a pretty good handle on what his rival is capable of. And after a long period of deliberation (which is just like “he know that I know that he knows that etc.”), being the cautious man he is, SIma Yi eventually decides to turn his entire army around and leave. Zhuge Liang later points out that the plan was based specifically on the fact that he was facing his rival; if it had been anyone else, there’s no way it would have worked. A dumber or less cautious person would have simply charged in and won without breaking a sweat.  and that’s the real genius here: it was a plan formed entirely just to deceive one man, and it worked. Zhuge Liang is the most brilliant, sneaky-ass bastard in history. One time his side’s army was out of arrows, which pretty much meant they were screwed. So Zhuge Liang goes and does the logical thing, which is build a fuck ton of scarecrows and put them all on boats. Then he makes the men hide in the boats and sail them out on the river. Well, that day was super foggy (which Zhuge Liang had predicted. Did I mention he was also a freakishly accurate meteorologist?). So the enemy across the river sees a fleet of boats armed to the teeth with what appears to be half an army of men. They panic! and start firing arrows like crazy.  Zhuge Liang lets this play out for a while, then he’s like, ”Ok guys that’s enough.” They calmly turn the boats around and go back to base, where they dismantle the scarecrows and pull out all the enemy’s arrows. Zhuge Liang is legend. I love this post. It just keeps getting better. Like seriously, I would have adored learning about this in World History. If you want to see this in cinematic glory, watch Red Cliff. Especially since it makes Zhuge Liang look like this: Red Cliff is 50% bloody battles and 50% eye candy and about half of that eye-candy is due to Zhuge Liang I fully support watching Red Cliff; it’s gloriously silly entertainment during the battle scenes. Guess what just got moved to the top of my watch list?? :D
general: inquisitorhotpants:

burntcopper:

futureevilscientist:

optimysticals:

uovoc:

konec0:

sleepyferret:

shitfacedanon:

dat-soldier:

sonnetscrewdriver:

dat-soldier:

did-you-kno:

Source


back the fuck up


There’s another story that I like about a Chinese general who had to defend a city with only a handful of soldiers from a huge enemy horde that was in all likelihood going to steamroll the place flat within hours of showing up.
So when said horde did arrive, they saw the general sitting outside the city’s open gates, drinking tea. The horde sent a couple of emissaries over to see what was what, and the general greeted them cheerfully and invited them all to come and take tea with him.
The horde decided that this was a scenario that had “MASSIVE FUCKING TRAP” written all over it in beautiful calligraphy and promptly fucked off.
Whoever that general was, he was clearly the Ancient Chinese equivalent of Sam Vimes.


did he just invite us over for tea nah man i’m out


This just keeps getting better

I fucking love history.

ok but tbh that story misses a lot of the subtlety of the situation like ok
so this story is the Romance of Three Kingdoms, and essentially takes place between Zhuge Liang, resident tactician extraordinaire, and Sima Yi… OTHER resident tactician extraordinaire.
The two were both regarded as tactical geniuses and recognized the other as their rival. Zhuge Liang had a reputation for ambushing the SHIT out of his opponents and using the environment to his advantage, thus destroying large armies with a small number of men. Sima Yi (who kind of entered the picture later) was a cautious person whose speciality was unravelling his opponent’s plans before they began. So it was natural that the two would butt heads; however, since Sima Yi tended to have more men and resources, he started winning battles against the former. Which, y’know, kinda sucked.
On to the actual story: Zhuge Liang is all like “shit i gotta defend this city with like 10 men.” Literally if he fights ANY kind of battle here, he WILL lose; his only option for survival is not to fight. And that’s looking more and more impossible until he hears that his rival is leading the opposing army. And then he gets this brilliant idea. He basically opens all the gates, sends his men out in civilian clothes to sweep the streets, and sits on top of the gate drinking tea and chilling out and basically makes the whole thing out to be a trap
When Sima Yi comes he’s all like “yo come on in bro”
and Sima Yi is like “yeah he’s never been that obvious about his traps before. this is definitely a bluff” and he’s about to head in when he realizes
wait. he knows that i think he’s bluffing.
and so he gets it in his head that maybe, just MAYBE, Zhuge Liang has this cunning plan that will wipe out his army - recall that he has a pretty good handle on what his rival is capable of. And after a long period of deliberation (which is just like “he know that I know that he knows that etc.”), being the cautious man he is, SIma Yi eventually decides to turn his entire army around and leave.
Zhuge Liang later points out that the plan was based specifically on the fact that he was facing his rival; if it had been anyone else, there’s no way it would have worked. A dumber or less cautious person would have simply charged in and won without breaking a sweat. 
and that’s the real genius here: it was a plan formed entirely just to deceive one man, and it worked.

Zhuge Liang is the most brilliant, sneaky-ass bastard in history. One time his side’s army was out of arrows, which pretty much meant they were screwed. So Zhuge Liang goes and does the logical thing, which is build a fuck ton of scarecrows and put them all on boats. Then he makes the men hide in the boats and sail them out on the river.
Well, that day was super foggy (which Zhuge Liang had predicted. Did I mention he was also a freakishly accurate meteorologist?). So the enemy across the river sees a fleet of boats armed to the teeth with what appears to be half an army of men. They panic! and start firing arrows like crazy. 
Zhuge Liang lets this play out for a while, then he’s like, ”Ok guys that’s enough.” They calmly turn the boats around and go back to base, where they dismantle the scarecrows and pull out all the enemy’s arrows.
Zhuge Liang is legend.

I love this post. It just keeps getting better. Like seriously, I would have adored learning about this in World History.

If you want to see this in cinematic glory, watch Red Cliff.
Especially since it makes Zhuge Liang look like this:
Red Cliff is 50% bloody battles and 50% eye candy and about half of that eye-candy is due to Zhuge Liang

I fully support watching Red Cliff; it’s gloriously silly entertainment during the battle scenes.

Guess what just got moved to the top of my watch list?? :D

inquisitorhotpants: burntcopper: futureevilscientist: optimysticals: uovoc: konec0: sleepyferret: shitfacedanon: dat-soldier: so...

general: General kenobi
general: General kenobi

General kenobi

general: lyrica-in-nerdvana: daysofstorm: pilgrim-soulinyou: jeremyyyallan: fagraklett: Chinese emperor Ai of Han, fell in love with a minor official, a man named Dong Xian, and bestowed upon him great political power and a magnificent palace. Legend has it that one day while the two men were sleeping in the same bed, the emperor was roused from his sleep by pressing business. Dong Xian had fallen asleep across the emperor’s robe, but rather than awaken his peaceful lover, the Emperor cut his robe free at the sleeve. Thus “the passion of the cut sleeve” became a euphemism for same-sex love in China. — R.G.L. get you a dude who will fuck up his own clothing for you NO OKAY THIS IS REALLY COOL SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN KIDS. Ancient China was super chill about homosexuality okay. Like we have gay emperors and feudal lords, lesbian princesses who were girlfriends with their serving maids, gay ass poets who wrote lots of poems about that one courtesan who played the guzheng so well.In fact homosexuality was so okay that in Shiji, which is basically the Bible of Ancient Chinese history, there is an entire section dedicated to the gay lovers of emperors. What’s the best part? All the laws and criticism about homosexuality in Ancient China were all about shit like prostitution and rape. These laws were  outlawing homosexual stuff were all very specific. For example, there were laws banning male prostitution, but no laws against homosexuality. These laws were passed to stop the spread of prostitution and laws targeting prostitution in general were pretty common in Chinese history. There were also really strict laws about male rape. Rape was punishable by death, regardless of the gender of the victim. Rape a girl, you die. Rape a guy, you die. Have sex with a minor, you die regardless of whether it was consensual. The lightest sentence you could get was slavery where you were bound to the army.Also scholars wrote essays criticising the boyfriends of emperors, saying that they distracted the emperor from work blah blah blah but THEY ALSO DID THE SAME FOR THE CONCUBINES. That’s right - the issue wasn’t homosexuality but rather the hormones of the emperor. They didn’t care about the gender of the emperor’s favourite lover but rather the fact that the emperor was too horny to get shit done.“But WAIT, Modern China is a hardass about homosexuality!!!! How do you explain that!”Yes. That. That’s because of the late Qing years where Western influences entered the country and brought their gross ass homophobic attitudes with them. And the Qing government was so anxious to seem modern and be seen as equals to their Western counterparts. So they adopted Western ways and discarded their previous attitudes about homosexuality. Hence you have Modern China.So the next time someone tries to tell you that being LGBT is wrong because it goes against traditional Chinese values, tell them to go fuck themselves with 3000 years of Chinese queerness.  Here are all the illustrations of historical gay couples by Ryan Grant https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/artist-spotlight/2012/08/11/ryan-grant-longs-history-gay-love#slide-0 This is one of the best things I have ever read.
general: lyrica-in-nerdvana:
daysofstorm:

pilgrim-soulinyou:

jeremyyyallan:

fagraklett:

Chinese emperor Ai of Han, fell in love with a minor official, a man named Dong Xian, and bestowed upon him great political power and a magnificent palace. Legend has it that one day while the two men were sleeping in the same bed, the emperor was roused from his sleep by pressing business. Dong Xian had fallen asleep across the emperor’s robe, but rather than awaken his peaceful lover, the Emperor cut his robe free at the sleeve. Thus “the passion of the cut sleeve” became a euphemism for same-sex love in China. — R.G.L.


get you a dude who will fuck up his own clothing for you

NO OKAY THIS IS REALLY COOL SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN KIDS. Ancient China was super chill about homosexuality okay. Like we have gay emperors and feudal lords, lesbian princesses who were girlfriends with their serving maids, gay ass poets who wrote lots of poems about that one courtesan who played the guzheng so well.In fact homosexuality was so okay that in Shiji, which is basically the Bible of Ancient Chinese history, there is an entire section dedicated to the gay lovers of emperors. What’s the best part? All the laws and criticism about homosexuality in Ancient China were all about shit like prostitution and rape. These laws were  outlawing homosexual stuff were all very specific. For example, there were laws banning male prostitution, but no laws against homosexuality. These laws were passed to stop the spread of prostitution and laws targeting prostitution in general were pretty common in Chinese history. There were also really strict laws about male rape. Rape was punishable by death, regardless of the gender of the victim. Rape a girl, you die. Rape a guy, you die. Have sex with a minor, you die regardless of whether it was consensual. The lightest sentence you could get was slavery where you were bound to the army.Also scholars wrote essays criticising the boyfriends of emperors, saying that they distracted the emperor from work blah blah blah but THEY ALSO DID THE SAME FOR THE CONCUBINES. That’s right - the issue wasn’t homosexuality but rather the hormones of the emperor. They didn’t care about the gender of the emperor’s favourite lover but rather the fact that the emperor was too horny to get shit done.“But WAIT, Modern China is a hardass about homosexuality!!!! How do you explain that!”Yes. That. That’s because of the late Qing years where Western influences entered the country and brought their gross ass homophobic attitudes with them. And the Qing government was so anxious to seem modern and be seen as equals to their Western counterparts. So they adopted Western ways and discarded their previous attitudes about homosexuality. Hence you have Modern China.So the next time someone tries to tell you that being LGBT is wrong because it goes against traditional Chinese values, tell them to go fuck themselves with 3000 years of Chinese queerness. 

Here are all the illustrations of historical gay couples by Ryan Grant https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/artist-spotlight/2012/08/11/ryan-grant-longs-history-gay-love#slide-0


This is one of the best things I have ever read.

lyrica-in-nerdvana: daysofstorm: pilgrim-soulinyou: jeremyyyallan: fagraklett: Chinese emperor Ai of Han, fell in love with a minor o...

general: elfwreck: cappucino-commie: peteseeger: I feel like this is pretty important to realize: the cops are becoming exhausted, and there’s a limited supply of them. NYPD has every cop on duty working full days every day. We have an unlimited capacity to rotate in fresh fighters that they simply do not have. We can take shifts. They can’t.   This is also why we’re starting to see bare minimum concessions now. The powers that be have realized they’ve made a grave miscalculation. A week into it, and ideas that seemed utterly impossible even a month ago are on the table- LA is talking about a hundred and fifty million dollar budget cut for the LAPD, every cop directly involved in George Floyd’s murder has been arrested and Chauvin’s charge has been raised to second degree murder, parts of the Minneapolis city council is pushing to permanently disband the Minneapolis police department.    What could we win with two weeks? Three? An organized general strike that brings the entire economy to a crashing halt? It is difficult to feel hopeful in such brutal times, but there is profound hope to be had in the realization that a week of getting our asses kicked has advanced the mainstream narrative around police so much further than electoralism would’ve dared to dream in 100 years. Police departments expect protests to happen on a single day, or at most, over a weekend - they call in extra officers from nearby cities or counties, they put people on extra-long shifts, and they let the paperwork slide for a couple of days. They don’t have officers to keep that up for a week, much less for a month. Judges will let it slide if they wait an extra day or two for arraignment hearings, but civil rights lawyers will have a good case to throw out everything if they delay much longer than that.  If arrested: DO NOT waive your right to a speedy trial. If you can at all afford the wait, DO NOT agree to plea bargain. More than 90% of cases are plea bargained out. Fewer than 5% of cases go to trial. (The difference: If they can’t get a plea, sometimes they drop the case. They may know they don’t have evidence that will hold up in court.) Courts do not have the capacity to put hundreds of protesters on trial in the space of a few weeks. (Especially now. Courts are operating at limited capacity.) Keep pushing. The cities that want peace are starting to make offers. The mayors and city councils who want to be re-elected, are starting to realize that this isn’t going to vanish with next week’s news cycle.  And in about another week, we’ll see the waves of COVID hit the police departments. (It’ll hit the protesters, too, and harder. But you don’t need two years of training and a hiring interview to join the protesters; police numbers are limited to what’s on hand today.)  They have limited resources. And they’re stretched thin already.
general: elfwreck:

cappucino-commie:

peteseeger:
I feel like this is pretty important to realize: the cops are becoming exhausted, and there’s a limited supply of them. NYPD has every cop on duty working full days every day. We have an unlimited capacity to rotate in fresh fighters that they simply do not have. We can take shifts. They can’t. 
  This is also why we’re starting to see bare minimum concessions now. The powers that be have realized they’ve made a grave miscalculation. A week into it, and ideas that seemed utterly impossible even a month ago are on the table- LA is talking about a hundred and fifty million dollar budget cut for the LAPD, every cop directly involved in George Floyd’s murder has been arrested and Chauvin’s charge has been raised to second degree murder, parts of the Minneapolis city council is pushing to permanently disband the Minneapolis police department.
   What could we win with two weeks? Three? An organized general strike that brings the entire economy to a crashing halt? It is difficult to feel hopeful in such brutal times, but there is profound hope to be had in the realization that a week of getting our asses kicked has advanced the mainstream narrative around police so much further than electoralism would’ve dared to dream in 100 years. 

Police departments expect protests to happen on a single day, or at most, over a weekend - they call in extra officers from nearby cities or counties, they put people on extra-long shifts, and they let the paperwork slide for a couple of days.
They don’t have officers to keep that up for a week, much less for a month. Judges will let it slide if they wait an extra day or two for arraignment hearings, but civil rights lawyers will have a good case to throw out everything if they delay much longer than that. 
If arrested: DO NOT waive your right to a speedy trial. If you can at all afford the wait, DO NOT agree to plea bargain. More than 90% of cases are plea bargained out. Fewer than 5% of cases go to trial. (The difference: If they can’t get a plea, sometimes they drop the case. They may know they don’t have evidence that will hold up in court.)
Courts do not have the capacity to put hundreds of protesters on trial in the space of a few weeks. (Especially now. Courts are operating at limited capacity.)
Keep pushing. The cities that want peace are starting to make offers. The mayors and city councils who want to be re-elected, are starting to realize that this isn’t going to vanish with next week’s news cycle. 
And in about another week, we’ll see the waves of COVID hit the police departments. (It’ll hit the protesters, too, and harder. But you don’t need two years of training and a hiring interview to join the protesters; police numbers are limited to what’s on hand today.) 
They have limited resources. And they’re stretched thin already.

elfwreck: cappucino-commie: peteseeger: I feel like this is pretty important to realize: the cops are becoming exhausted, and there’s a...

general: Noticias de interés general en Galicia https://ift.tt/2zQ289H
general: Noticias de interés general en Galicia https://ift.tt/2zQ289H

Noticias de interés general en Galicia https://ift.tt/2zQ289H

general: General lols
general: General lols

General lols

general: major-general-blue: c-dragon-art: This took me two years please look at it aftg animations set to random audio clips are like crack cocaine to me
general: major-general-blue:
c-dragon-art:
This took me two years please look at it
aftg animations set to random audio clips are like crack cocaine to me

major-general-blue: c-dragon-art: This took me two years please look at it aftg animations set to random audio clips are like crack cocai...

general: He ruined rap and music in general by GrubbyNelson MORE MEMES
general: He ruined rap and music in general by GrubbyNelson
MORE MEMES

He ruined rap and music in general by GrubbyNelson MORE MEMES

general: He ruined rap and music in general
general: He ruined rap and music in general

He ruined rap and music in general

general: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? The different between watching and playing is Watching you’re seeing someone’s experience Playing you’re experiencing it I watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it I have to go 50/50 on that one because I tend to avoid fights in AC: Syndicate Isn’t the whole point of AC to avoid fighting? Or did that change since Brotherhood? Syndicate is based on victorian era & there’s gangsI literally had to hide because I keep walking to area higher than my current level because of main story line Goddammit AC. You had one job
general: solaredarisen:

randomnightlord:

solaredarisen:

randomnightlord:
solaredarisen:


randomnightlord:

mordinette:

rocketmermaid:

atelierabintra:

pmseymourva:

dreamwalkertara:

enigmaticagentalice:

theheroheart:

glitterpill:

dropkicks:

lesbianmooncolony:

sinbadism:

maxofs2d:

guitarbeard:

alexxdz:

GO WATCH A MOVIE 

Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball. 

well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to.
optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea.

what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like??
as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode

i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat

honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc  not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless  i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether

Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE. 
Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then.

Mass Effect 3 has this:
[Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.]
‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.)
The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible.
Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here.

Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this.
Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like!
I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans.
Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish??

I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option. 

Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight.



Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many.



Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many.



I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game.



Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? 

The different between watching and playing is
Watching you’re seeing someone’s experience
Playing you’re experiencing it
I watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it



Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it

I have to go 50/50 on that one because I tend to avoid fights in AC: 
Syndicate




Isn’t the whole point of AC to avoid fighting? Or did that change since Brotherhood? 


Syndicate is based on victorian era & there’s gangsI literally had to hide because I keep walking to area higher than my current level because of main story line


Goddammit AC. You had one job

solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelie...

general: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? The different between watching and playing is Watching you’re seeing someone’s experience Playing you’re experiencing it I watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it I have to go 50/50 on that one because I tend to avoid fights in AC: Syndicate Isn’t the whole point of AC to avoid fighting? Or did that change since Brotherhood?
general: solaredarisen:

randomnightlord:
solaredarisen:


randomnightlord:

mordinette:

rocketmermaid:

atelierabintra:

pmseymourva:

dreamwalkertara:

enigmaticagentalice:

theheroheart:

glitterpill:

dropkicks:

lesbianmooncolony:

sinbadism:

maxofs2d:

guitarbeard:

alexxdz:

GO WATCH A MOVIE 

Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball. 

well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to.
optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea.

what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like??
as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode

i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat

honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc  not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless  i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether

Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE. 
Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then.

Mass Effect 3 has this:
[Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.]
‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.)
The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible.
Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here.

Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this.
Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like!
I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans.
Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish??

I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option. 

Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight.



Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many.



Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many.



I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game.



Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? 

The different between watching and playing is
Watching you’re seeing someone’s experience
Playing you’re experiencing it
I watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it



Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it

I have to go 50/50 on that one because I tend to avoid fights in AC: 
Syndicate




Isn’t the whole point of AC to avoid fighting? Or did that change since Brotherhood?

solaredarisen: randomnightlord: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalk...

general: solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? The different between watching and playing isWatching you’re seeing someone’s experiencePlaying you’re experiencing itI watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it
general: solaredarisen:

randomnightlord:
mordinette:

rocketmermaid:

atelierabintra:

pmseymourva:

dreamwalkertara:

enigmaticagentalice:

theheroheart:

glitterpill:

dropkicks:

lesbianmooncolony:

sinbadism:

maxofs2d:

guitarbeard:

alexxdz:

GO WATCH A MOVIE 

Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball. 

well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to.
optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea.

what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like??
as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode

i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat

honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc  not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless  i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether

Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE. 
Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then.

Mass Effect 3 has this:
[Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.]
‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.)
The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible.
Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here.

Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this.
Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like!
I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans.
Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish??

I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option. 

Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight.



Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many.



Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many.



I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game.



Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience? 

The different between watching and playing isWatching you’re seeing someone’s experiencePlaying you’re experiencing itI watched a lot of gameplay and playing some of the games myself have a very different feels to it


Understandable but why waste money on a 70 bucks game if you cut out like 30 or 40 percent? That’s not worth it

solaredarisen: randomnightlord: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theh...

general: mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkicks: lesbianmooncolony: sinbadism: maxofs2d: guitarbeard: alexxdz: GO WATCH A MOVIE Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball.  well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to. optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea. what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like?? as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE.  Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then. Mass Effect 3 has this: [Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.] ‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.) The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible. Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here. Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this. Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like! I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans. Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish?? I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option.  Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight. Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many. I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game. Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience?
general: mordinette:

rocketmermaid:

atelierabintra:

pmseymourva:

dreamwalkertara:

enigmaticagentalice:

theheroheart:

glitterpill:

dropkicks:

lesbianmooncolony:

sinbadism:

maxofs2d:

guitarbeard:

alexxdz:

GO WATCH A MOVIE 

Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball. 

well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to.
optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea.

what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like??
as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode

i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat

honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc  not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless  i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether

Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE. 
Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then.

Mass Effect 3 has this:
[Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.]
‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.)
The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible.
Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here.

Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this.
Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like!
I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans.
Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish??

I am *horrifically* bad at gaming, but it’s a genre that I’m intensely interested in and very desperately want to be more immersed in. I would HAPPILY buy so many more games if combat was a skippable option. 

Not to mention one of the best indie games out right now is pretty much telling you if you want the best ending, don’t fight.



Yeah, I hate the elitist mentality that only those ~*~*hardcore*~*~ enough should be allowed to enjoy video games. I mean, gaming should be an experience to be had and not just an obstacle to clear, right?Then again, my poor mental health situation and chronic pain+mobility issues on my right hand means that my gaming options are severely limited nowadays. So I’m all about making gaming accessible for everyone in the first place.Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many.



Anyone who thinks gaming will be ruined by making it more accessible need to realize that they have already ruined gaming for many.



I’ve had to stop playing certain games because all the button mashing aggravated my carpal tunnel pain, and I rage quit some because they had a super frustrating part that I could never get past. Games should be fun, not a test of endurance. At least, they should let you skip the difficult parts you are unable to do. They can still have a hardcore mode for people who enjoy a challenge. They would still get to brag about their accomplishments without preventing others from enjoying an otherwise fun game.



Unpopular opinion but just watch the game on youtube then? Why spend money when you don’t get the full experience?

mordinette: rocketmermaid: atelierabintra: pmseymourva: dreamwalkertara: enigmaticagentalice: theheroheart: glitterpill: dropkick...

general: everythingfox: General William Featherside, 33rd Armored Corps
general: everythingfox:

General William Featherside, 33rd Armored Corps

everythingfox: General William Featherside, 33rd Armored Corps

general: [Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something
general: [Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something

[Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something

general: lauraantoniou: lastxleviathan: robotmango: tsunderepup: randomslasher: pastel-selkie: lesbianshepard: stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life.  But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”   The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical.  But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right? People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you.  P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon.  also, there is an extreme difference between what things or principles *i* personally am willing to die for, and what i would hazard others to die for. and this is a distinction i don’t think the conservative hard-right likes to face. an example: so, as the nazis began war against france, the staff of the louvre began crating up and shipping out the artworks. it was vital to them (for many reasons) that the nazis not get their hands on the collections, and hitler’s desire for them was known, so they dispersed the objects to the four winds; one of the curators personally traveled with la gioconda, mona lisa herself, in an unmarked crate, moving at least five times from location to location to avoid detection. they even removed and hid the nike of samothrace, “winged victory,” which is both delicate, having been pieced back together from fragments, and incredibly heavy, weighing over three metric tons. the curators who hid these artworks risked death to ensure that they wouldn’t fall into nazi hands. and yes, they are just paintings, just statues. but when i think about the idea of hitler capturing and standing smugly beside the nike of samothrace, a statue widely beloved as a symbol of liberty, i completely understand why someone would risk their life to prevent that. if my life was all that stood between a fascist dictator and a masterpiece that inspired millions, i would be willing to risk it. my belief in the power and necessity of art would demand i do so. if, however, a nazi held a gun to some kid’s head (any kid!) and asked me which crate the mona lisa was in, they could have it in a heartbeat. no problem! i wouldn’t even have to think about it. being willing to risk my own life on principle doesn’t mean i’m willing to see others endangered for those same principles. and that is exactly where the conservative hard-right falls right the fuck down. they are, typically, entirely willing to watch others suffer for their own principles. they are perfectly okay with seeing children in cages because of their supposed belief in law and order. they are perfectly willing to let women die from pregnancy complications because of their anti-abortion beliefs. they are alright with poverty and disease on general principle because they hold the free-market sacrosanct. and i guess from their own example they would save the statue of liberty and let human beings burn instead. but speaking as a leftist (i’m more comfortable with socialist tbh), my principles are not abstract things that i hold aside from life, apart or above my place as a human being in a society. my beliefs arise from being a person amidst people. i don’t love art for art’s sake alone, actually! i don’t love objects because they are objects: i love them because they are artifacts of our humanity, because they communicate and connect us, because they embody love and curiosity and fear and feeling. i love art because i love people. i want universal health care because i want to see people universally cared for. i want universal basic income because people’s safety and dignity should not be determined by their economic productivity to an employer. i am anti-war and pro-choice for the same reason: i value people’s lives but also their autonomy and right to self-determination. my beliefs are not abstractions. i could never value a type of economic system that i saw hurting people, no matter how much “growth” it produced. i could never love “law and order” more than i love a child, any child, i saw trapped in a cage. would i be willing to risk death, trying to save the statue of liberty? probably, yes. but there is no culture without people, and therefore i also believe there are no cultural treasures worth more than other people’s lives. and as far as i’m concerned the same goes for laws, or markets, or borders. Well said! This is an excellent ethical discussion.
general: lauraantoniou:
lastxleviathan:

robotmango:

tsunderepup:

randomslasher:

pastel-selkie:

lesbianshepard:
stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life

Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life

Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life. 
But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”  
The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical. 
But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right?
People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you. 
P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon. 



also, there is an extreme difference between what things or principles *i* personally am willing to die for, and what i would hazard others to die for. and this is a distinction i don’t think the conservative hard-right likes to face.
an example: so, as the nazis began war against france, the staff of the louvre began crating up and shipping out the artworks. it was vital to them (for many reasons) that the nazis not get their hands on the collections, and hitler’s desire for them was known, so they dispersed the objects to the four winds; one of the curators personally traveled with la gioconda, mona lisa herself, in an unmarked crate, moving at least five times from location to location to avoid detection. 
they even removed and hid the nike of samothrace, “winged victory,” which is both delicate, having been pieced back together from fragments, and incredibly heavy, weighing over three metric tons.
the curators who hid these artworks risked death to ensure that they wouldn’t fall into nazi hands. and yes, they are just paintings, just statues. but when i think about the idea of hitler capturing and standing smugly beside the nike of samothrace, a statue widely beloved as a symbol of liberty, i completely understand why someone would risk their life to prevent that. if my life was all that stood between a fascist dictator and a masterpiece that inspired millions, i would be willing to risk it. my belief in the power and necessity of art would demand i do so.
if, however, a nazi held a gun to some kid’s head (any kid!) and asked me which crate the mona lisa was in, they could have it in a heartbeat. no problem! i wouldn’t even have to think about it. being willing to risk my own life on principle doesn’t mean i’m willing to see others endangered for those same principles. 
and that is exactly where the conservative hard-right falls right the fuck down. they are, typically, entirely willing to watch others suffer for their own principles. they are perfectly okay with seeing children in cages because of their supposed belief in law and order. they are perfectly willing to let women die from pregnancy complications because of their anti-abortion beliefs. they are alright with poverty and disease on general principle because they hold the free-market sacrosanct. and i guess from their own example they would save the statue of liberty and let human beings burn instead. 
but speaking as a leftist (i’m more comfortable with socialist tbh), my principles are not abstract things that i hold aside from life, apart or above my place as a human being in a society. my beliefs arise from being a person amidst people. i don’t love art for art’s sake alone, actually! i don’t love objects because they are objects: i love them because they are artifacts of our humanity, because they communicate and connect us, because they embody love and curiosity and fear and feeling. i love art because i love people. i want universal health care because i want to see people universally cared for. i want universal basic income because people’s safety and dignity should not be determined by their economic productivity to an employer. i am anti-war and pro-choice for the same reason: i value people’s lives but also their autonomy and right to self-determination. my beliefs are not abstractions. i could never value a type of economic system that i saw hurting people, no matter how much “growth” it produced. i could never love “law and order” more than i love a child, any child, i saw trapped in a cage.
would i be willing to risk death, trying to save the statue of liberty? probably, yes. but there is no culture without people, and therefore i also believe there are no cultural treasures worth more than other people’s lives. and as far as i’m concerned the same goes for laws, or markets, or borders. 


Well said!

This is an excellent ethical discussion.

lauraantoniou: lastxleviathan: robotmango: tsunderepup: randomslasher: pastel-selkie: lesbianshepard: stupid leftists and their beli...

general: [Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something (via /r/BlackPeopleTwitter)
general: [Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something (via /r/BlackPeopleTwitter)

[Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something (via /r/BlackPeopleTwitter)

general: [Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something by coldwhipzx MORE MEMES
general: [Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something by coldwhipzx
MORE MEMES

[Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something by coldwhipzx MORE MEMES

general: [Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something
general: [Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something

[Lighthearted post] can see this being a star wars character like general Grievous henchman or something

general: Every day General Grievous adds a unique lightsaber to his collection. Day 77: Darth Bane’s Lightsaber
general: Every day General Grievous adds a unique lightsaber to his collection. Day 77: Darth Bane’s Lightsaber

Every day General Grievous adds a unique lightsaber to his collection. Day 77: Darth Bane’s Lightsaber

general: Yousa Bombad General
general: Yousa Bombad General

Yousa Bombad General

general: General Kenobi
general: General Kenobi

General Kenobi

general: General Kenobi
general: General Kenobi

General Kenobi

general: General Kenobi
general: General Kenobi

General Kenobi

general: This and morgz in general
general: This and morgz in general

This and morgz in general

general: ChipSa in general
general: ChipSa in general

ChipSa in general

general: General Kenobi
general: General Kenobi

General Kenobi

general: Adding One Word To The Word General Kenobi: Day 1
general: Adding One Word To The Word General Kenobi: Day 1

Adding One Word To The Word General Kenobi: Day 1

general: President Harry S. Truman promotes General Omar Bradley to five-star rank, 22 September 1950
general: President Harry S. Truman promotes General Omar Bradley to five-star rank, 22 September 1950

President Harry S. Truman promotes General Omar Bradley to five-star rank, 22 September 1950

general: American History known by the general public starter pack
general: American History known by the general public starter pack

American History known by the general public starter pack

general: General Kenobi
general: General Kenobi

General Kenobi

general: General Grievous does not want guns.
general: General Grievous does not want guns.

General Grievous does not want guns.

general: NPC: try the general shop. Party: no
general: NPC: try the general shop. Party: no

NPC: try the general shop. Party: no

general: Ah General formate you are an old one
general: Ah General formate you are an old one

Ah General formate you are an old one