TheMightyEthan

Yeah, if they had a content-neutral policy, like "no shirts with words on them", then they can apply that to bible shirts, but they can't ban the bible shirts specifically, generally speaking. They might be able to argue that because of this specific situation the bible shirts would create disruptions to the learning environment, but I feel like banning them would create even more disruption.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/12/muldrow-ten-commandments_n_3262518.html High School has Ten Commandments posted, gets a letter saying "you can't do that, if you don't take them down we'll have to take you to court." From the article: That's going too far the other way. The school can't promote religion, but students who want to express their own religious beliefs are certainly free to do so. The school, in trying to correct its violation of the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."), has now put itself arguably in violation of the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.").

I moved Cowboy's Agents of SHIELD trailer to the trailer thread so people who don't normally come in this one can see it too.

Oh, also, I want the MythBusters to test the part where

Iron Man 3. I really liked it. Not sure if it's the best of the series, but it was definitely better than Iron Man 2.

Normally requires ini editing and such though, and you can't do that on console.

The ability to skip the splash logos that appear before the main menu. Playing DXHR, that ability is SO nice.

This is definitely true. And I'm not saying I like hate the Uncharted games now or anything. I guess what it is is that I played Uncharted for the exploring and stuff, and the adventure of uncovering an ancient mystery, and Tomb Raider did the exploring better and the combat was infinitely better, so that's why I compare them and why I say I like Tomb Raider better (the overall ancient mystery wasn't as interesting, but the other stuff was enough better to make up for it). It scratches those itches better than Uncharted did, and those itches were the reasons I liked Uncharted in the first place. Regardless, I'll probably still be buying the next Uncharted game for PS4. @WaS: Generally I agree that story trumps gameplay, but for me, even on easier difficulties, Uncharted's combat was this close to being unbearable. It improved significantly between 1 and 2, but it still was definitely something I had to put up with to get to the good parts rather than something I enjoyed doing. I know it's made by a different studio and so isn't really a fair comparison, but I actually thought the combat in Golden Abyss was the best of the Uncharted series (though that game was lacking in the story department). I'm really looking forward to The Last of Us because it looks like it will have a much greater emphasis on stealth over combat, or at least allow you to play that way if you want, and that was one of the things I really really liked about Tomb Raider over Uncharted.

You never have to fight enemies in Mirror's Edge. @HH: I didn't think the story was any worse in TR than Uncharted, and while the characters weren't as well-developed I chalked that up to there just being more of them.

The combat is 3rd-person cover shooter, that's definitely comparable. Like Tenshi said, bullet sponges fucking ruin games, and Tomb Raider had a billion times fewer than Uncharted. In Uncharted I dreaded the combat sections and they felt like just a barrier between me and the exploration (which was good enough for me to slog through the combat). In Tomb Raider, while the combat wasn't the best part, I didn't feel put-off by it like I did in Uncharted. Just because the games aren't identical down to every last mechanic doesn't make them not comparable. They're both third person cover shooters with a lot of free-climbing and exploration, particularly of ancient ruins. I disagree that it's like comparing God of War to the Arkham games, I think it's more like comparing Bioshock Infinite to Halo. Yes, there are some major design differences, but it doesn't make the comparison without warrant either. And yes, you can compare Tomb Raider to the Arkham games too, just like you could with justification compare Infinite to Dishonored, but the one parallel doesn't invalidate the other. To a lot of people, myself included, Tomb Raider just feels like Uncharted in a lot of ways, so of course we're going to make the comparison. And with the combat system, climbing/exploration, and set-piece events it really confuses me why a bunch of other people act like it's not a justifiable comparison.

*Edit* -

You guys are mean.

If you're talking about the Outsider, he's supposed to be like some kind of god.

"We’ve all gotten used to those ubiquitous pump-topping TV screens" I have never seen one of those and did not know such a thing existed.

Best atmosphere/setting: Bioshock 1, easy. Though the temple when you first enter Columbia was pretty awesome. Best gameplay: Infinite (I did like the designs of the weapons and plasmids in BS1 better, but I didn't hate fighting the enemies in Infinite) Best narrative/characters: Infinite Best overall game: Infinite

Yeah, come back when you 100% Skyrim in one sitting, you nub. 6 hours is actually what I consider about "average" for play in one sitting.

Started playing Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Haven't gotten far enough to have any thoughts yet (had to save and quit mid tutorial), other than the abruptness of the switch from 3rd person to 1st person when leaving cover is very disorienting. A zoom effect would have been much better.

How the fuck did I never notice that Riker always steps over the chair like that? I have watched every episode of that show approximately 3.5 billion times.

Dishonored is my 2012 GOTY. Easily.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/jodi-arias-death-is-the-ultimate-freedom_n_3241432.html

I'm not talking legally, I'm talking culturally. Granted I used some examples of changing laws, but in the context of a democratic society where you need to change the culture to get the laws changed. Whatever you're trying to change, be it the laws or attitudes or whatever, you're not going to be able to get people to care if you try to do it all at once, so you need to prioritize.

I wish I were good at something.

It's not that I don't care about the littler things, it's that I only have so much energy to invest in it and I think it's better to focus on the bigger problems first. Take racism against black people in US. First you fight against slavery, then once that's illegal you fight against voting discrimination, then once that's illegal you fight against economic discrimination, etc. If you try to say "okay, we're going to outlaw slavery and also let them vote and you also you can't refuse to hire them and also you have to let them use the same bathrooms as white people and also you shouldn't make mildly racist comments" all at once people are going to go "fuck you, you're crazy" and you won't accomplish anything. Messages about what should and should not be done should be addressed not to the people who already agree with you, but to those whose opinions you're trying to change, and if you spend too much time focusing on things that are going to seem innocuous to those people then you're going to desensitize them to the entire problem, which is the opposite of what you want to happen. *Edit* - I haven't read the Blood Dragon article and have no idea where it falls in all this, I'm just talking about the idea of people needing to pick their battles in general.