• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Geck0

  • Rank
    Street Fighter

Recent Profile Visitors

349 profile views
  1. Ability List can be found on the main page here. Talent list can be found on reddit here.
  2. So, I can't praise this game enough so where do I begin? The setup: The main character has psychosis so hears voices in her head and has hallucinations. She is diving into the Norse underworld to reclaim the lost soul of her lover. A person who accepted her when all others shunned her. So she battles literal and figurative demons. The game: The game starts by telling you about Psychosis and how to find out more information on the condition. Also tells you to play it with headphones ideally with surround sound. Combined with it's stunning beauty the audio is vivid it can make your skin crawl in the most horrific moments. The game has a mechanic where if you fail (die in combat or environmental death) enough times you lose all progress and start over and it doesn't give you a completely accurate idea of how the progress of that mechanic is going. This makes every scene, every fight, every sword swing tense. You can try to mentally distance yourself but all of the puzzles in the game are visually innocuous so it demands you thoroughly immerse yourself in the surroundings. Making you all the more vulnerable to scares in the process. The combat is solid but nothing ground breaking. But honestly it's been a long time since a game could fully grip me in the way this one did. Definitely worth the 30 on Steam.
  3. EDIT: Added additional link Given that most of the links Google provides are very clearly slanted hit pieces on the story I had to seek out the opposite in order to link something that wasn't blatant BS. (Which is sad really). I just wanted to throw this out here as well as the interview done by Jordan Peterson with the author. See what your thoughts are on the situation.
  4. Garrosh, the other red meat.

    Update: Thirst for battle at lvl 4 and Bloodcraze at 13 synergize very well. So my stance on these talent brackets have some what changed. Indomitable at 4 is now a talent I recommend IF the enemy team has a lot of lock down/blow up.
  5. Interestingly enough here's a relevant topic that's more or less along the same lines.
  6. The Meta

    This never happened as far as im aware. Unless they snuck it somewhere.
  7. The Meta

    He actually used to only get 5 per hero, needed 125 and now needs 200.
  8. So I posted up a couple reddit threads about my family life as well as an idea I had to for a channel. These were done on the heroes of the storm reddit and the links are below: First thread Second thread So I made the channel and put up a basic vlog video. I am still playing with the format and where I would like to take the channel. I am heavily leaning on a more conversational approach where me and another person can discuss the topic at hand. BUt it is still up in the air. I'm posting my first one here for feedback mostly. Thanks in advance.
  9. Garrosh, the other red meat.

    Yeah his damage is a bit higher than I realized. But I think he can definitely be solo warrior with the right healer though. The taunt is definitely strong in the situations it was built for.
  10. Garrosh, the other red meat.

    The ability reminds me of Hercules from Smite. Though the cast was instant it had travel time, was thinner and actually mad you land behind him. He also had a charge tho...
  11. Garrosh, the other red meat.

    There actually is a little bit of delay on the Q. It can be dodged but in many cases the person either runs and get's caught, or comes closer and runs the risk of getting thrown.
  12. So it appears that everyone so far has a "live and let live" outlook on this. Which is in my opinion is great regardless where it comes from and so far no one has really thrown a moral judgement on said individuals. I would like to step back the position of not concerned with laws. Though the letter of the law as it is may not be important it can certainly be relevant to what we think a position should be. So my outlook is a bit of a mix. I'll start with this "Everyone want's to be a gangsta til its time to do gangsta shit". I adapt this in my own life and social circles (I live in CA and work in San Francisco so that gives you an idea) to illustrate a point. "Everyone wants to be a liberal until it's time to do liberal shit". Which I have to remind leftists on how illiberal they are when they claim otherwise (note: I don't think the two are the same). Defending rights is easy when its for people you like and agree with. The real test is doing it for the opposite. In my view, the most important group to defend is the unpopular one. "every time you violate or propose to violate the free speech of someone else, in potencia, you’re making a rod for own back." - Christopher Hitchens. Because if only comfortable or popular views/speech is allowed whats the point of the first amendment? How long before you become the minority voice and are subject to the same treatment? The protection of religious rights should be done from the perspective of protecting the rights of the individual first rather than the group. In addition to this you also have to take into account the basic societal laws and customs. Lets take an extreme example for clarity. In the case of honor killings for Islam: The group in the U.S. may decide within their religion that killing a girl is acceptable. But if we apply the previous perspective that A the individual has their own rights, and B: the custom of the land is that murder is bad we come to the conclusion: that even under religious reasoning their right to practice religion doesn't supersede the girls individual rights. Now applying it to the main example: a religious business owner (Because every single Abrahamic religion has text that prohibits homosexuality not just Christians) that decides they do not want to contribute to a gay wedding. The gay couple in this case, is soliciting the business owner for a service. In this case the business owner is not preempting a religious act that effects the couple in any way, it is the couple that is asking that the owner conduct an act. Because of this the owner can site religious grounds to refuse said service because it doesn't infringe on the couples rights nor does it violate any local laws (most of the time) and customs. This would immediately change if the owner was for example an ER surgeon and was refusing to give life saving medical care. Simply because the custom (and likely the law) dictates that if you are in said position you can't refuse. Now does this apply to all services? Lets say a customer is just looking for a cake and just happens to be gay? Could he refuse in this case? Currently under the law no because of anti-discrimination laws. But isn't this logically inconsistent? Is that ok? and if yes where's the line? On that one I would need to think it over a little more.
  13. Very good read. Thanks for sharing.
  14. What we think it should be. I'm not a lawyer and I prefer debating principles in either case.
  15. This issue is in regards to a religious baker, florist, photographer, etc. refusing to render services to a gay wedding. Before I outline my current view on it I would like others to post as I do not want to poison the well so to speak.