Mr. GOH!

Wait, people thought that there was a story and lore for Destiny beyond vaguely thematic names for enemies and places?

I beat Batman: the Telltale Series. I enjoyed it quite a bit; the changes to the Batman canon were interesting, but not so drastic it didn't feel like Batman. I think some of the villains need better voice actors, though, especially the more flamboyant guy-in-a-weird-costume villains. I hope it gets a second season, as this one really sets up a Batman near the beginning of his career (though it's not an origin story) quite well.

I have two eps to go this season. I have really enjoyed the show and I appreciate the changes from the book, for the most part. I like that Laura is a fully-developed character who is not really all that sympathetic. I like the addition of Vulcan, too. The pace of the overall story is dragging; I feel like Starz is stretching it to fill as many seasons as they can, maybe around five or so. This really should be a three-season show, at least if it sticks to the book. I am 100% they will do the vigil in the show (though maybe modified in the details of the location and what other characters are involved) or all the foreshadowing with the nooses hanging from old trees is kinda pointless.

Do people think Coulson will return from his exile to TV for Infinity War? I also recall that it's been confirmed that none of the Defenders will appear in IW. I'd be very surprised if the Inhumans show up, too. Edit: This trailer for the Inhumans dropped: Yup, looks like hot garbage, as expected. Black Bolt and Medusa look awful. Iwan Rheon is woefully miscast as Maximus, which is sad because Rheon is such a wonderful character actor. The production design is boring. The Inhumans are shitty and have always been shitty and this show was doomed to fail. I wonder if Disney will even attempt to pretend this shares a universe with the movies and other shows.

I know her from Farscape, it's true. I recognized her voice immediately in Dragon Age, but not in Mass Effect because of the Quarian vocoder filter thing. I'm looking forward to this game and the interplay between Chloe and Nadine.

I look forward to the UK economy tanking and the Tory government selling off your public assets for management by private equity companies from the EU and US, which will proceed to siphon the rest of your money. The irony, at least, will be delicious.

Claudia Black's voice is pretty darn distinctive.

What's your vision, Ethan? The vast majority of people can't really tell the difference between a 4k and 1080p 55 inch TV beyond seven feet. https://www.crutchfield.com/S-dGcLcvs1ICZ/learn/learningcenter/home/TV_placement.html But if you just wanna rock that placebo effect, I understand. Edit: Also, if 4k is coupled with HDR, the image will be noticeably better from further away... but primarily because of the HDR, or so I'm told.

Persona 5 on PC? I'll wait for that.

Hmm. I think there's a difference between voting for a policy you don't like in order to help your party or carry out what its constituents want and voting for a policy that you think is evil and wrong based on your religion. In the first instance, you;re just doing politics. Int he second, you're betraying your fundamental beliefs.

It seems weird and disingenuous to say that one's belief doesn't affect one's politics. Did he mean he would protect the rights of people to do things he religiously disapproves of?

I belong to couple of lawyer Facebook groups, newsletters, and forums, and even progressive attorneys seem pretty split on this issue. As someone who spent a lot of time in law school focusing on First Amendment law, I think the case has merit and that it is worth having the courts sort out.

4k is a scam unless your TV is 100 inches and you sit 3 feet away from it.

Any discrimination based solely on viewpoint is a constitutional issue. For example, if a designated public forum like a community school building that rents classrooms after-hours for a set fee decided to charge the local Republican party more than the local Democratic party to use a classroom, that would be a constitutional issue even if the fee was not much more for the Republicans. The government is almost never allowed to discriminate based on viewpoint. Courts consider the government playing favorites based on the viewpoint of the speaker to be one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment. There are some exceptions to content-based speech restrictions, as opposed to viewpoint-based (see: broadcast radio and television content restrictions (which I believe are largely unconstitutional, although SCOTUS has found a number of content restrictions to be constitutional, such as for swearing and violence)), but I don't believe the major exceptions would really apply to Twitter unless the tweets were harassing or threatening. The issue of whether getting a new account is so easy that it would cure the government's discrimination is interesting. The moment the President blocks an account with thousands of followers, the argument withers; it takes a lot of time and effort to build a follower base and by cutting off the original account, the government restricts its ability to engage with its followers regarding the government tweets. I believe this is most salient when an organization's Twitter account is blocked, which Trump has done: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-blocks-national-veteran-group-twitter-n771601 This sort of thing is bound to get the courts' attention more than Trump blocking someone with a dozen followers who just tweets poorly-spelled rants at Trump (you know, like the kind of rants Trump tweets). Edit: cleaning up typos, including unintentional elision of the difference between viewpoint and content discrimination, which Ethan outlines well below.

I am happy to be living in an era of good XCOM games

It's a very interesting First Amendment argument. It's novel, it's colorable, but, ultimately, it will come down to the court's understanding of what Twitter is and what it means to be blocked by somebody on Twitter. It's interesting that they're making a designated public forum argument, as an element of whether a forum is a designated public forum is that the forum is government-funded or -controlled. Twitter is neither of those. So I expect them to make an analogy from Marsh, in which a private company town was found to be violating the first amendment for enforcing a trespassing statute on its private sidewalks to prevent the distribution of religious materials (jehovah's witness pamphlets, natch door-to-door. But in Marsh, SCOTUS focused on the fact that the private town had all of the characteristics of a regular town and so therefore the private company had taken on a quasi-governmental role and was therefore subject to First Amendment restrictions. Twitter is not such an entity; it's a service for blasting your thought to all other Twitter users, which is not really analogous to a company town. But, it seems pretty clear that Trump, and other government actors, use Twitter to communicate with the public and that by blocking people, the government cuts off both the ability to receive messages from the government (or, importantly, tweets retweeting and commenting on the government messages) and the ability to use Twitter to speak to the government. I wonder why they didn't throw in a First amendment right to petition (the good old forgotten sixth First Amendment right) argument in their release, but it might make it into any eventual court filing (though I think it might be weaker than the forum arguments).

It amazes me that people can get worked up at bland Nintendo games any more. I mean, the rabbids + Mario game looks bizarrely delightful, but everything else is candy for kids. I only played about an hour of the first two Metroid Primes and I thought they were bullshit at the time, so I have zero nostalgia for it. Mario Odyssey looks cute, I guess. Nothing Nintendo has shown in the past decade has made me want to buy a Nintendo console and this presentation didn't buck the trend. It did, however, continue the long trend of getting the games media to slobber on Nintendo's knob, but since it also gave Bioware a full-throated BJ at the Anthem announcement, I didn't expect measured analysis at this E3, anyway.

You start off as Peter, then Peter becomes the villain (brainwashed by Negative Man) and you play as Miles trying to save Peter. Or maybe you switch off between Miles and Peter a la Assassin's Creed Unity. I am certain you will be playing Miles for a significant portion of the game.

Eh, I'm more than happy to go back to the BGE universe even if it is in an open-world prequel with swearing apes. I played the first relatively late (in 2007, I think), and I cannot recall much of the story aside from being super charmed by it. Fuck, I don't care about the MP, either, as long as it's optional.

Sounds like it would lead to interesting decisions and weighing risk versus reward.

Who'd have thought Ubi would have the best E3 showing so far? It's weird world we're living in these days.

In case you missed it, this is a Destiny clone.

"The game is built around a live service, and through our creative process, we've decided to add more to the disruptive new social designs for our players." - Bioware's Casey Hudson That's code for multiplayer. Or an episodic game a la Hitman, which could be okay, I suppose. I suspect multiplayer, though. Edit: the rumors are that it's somewhere between the Division and Destiny. Two games I have less than zero interest in ever playing.

Why is everyone talking Dragon Age and Mass Effect? This is going to be a multiplayer game along the lines of Destiny. Don't expect the story to be anything but window dressing.