Does it have to make sense? This is kind of Japan's MO for advertising, even if the characters/animation/video game doesn't really fit the advertisement.

Toy Story 4 serves the purpose of playing out the final chapter of Woody's story. It doesn't negate Woody's desire, it just changes it. Woody had a purpose and served that purpose, at first to make children happen, then to be a leader to the other toys. When it becomes apparent that he is no longer the most important toy in the room, his purpose changes. He no longer HAS to bring children joy as he's done for decades. He can bring other toys joy, like Gabby Gabby and Bo Peep. He can go explore the world. He can be something else other than a plaything for a child. It's very emotional for a final chapter. I don't think it's hollow at all, it's just different.

I love the Metroidvania sub genre and Bloodstained is exactly what I wanted it to be. I've already gone through it, but I know it's a game I'll return to from time to time when I get that itch for SotN style game.

@n9302347078: That's false. Plenty of people live privileged lives. People are born into families of various wealth and influence. People are given opportunity and denied opportunity all the time based on things as superfluous as the color of their skin, their gender, and their sexual preference. To believe that we're all somehow equal is to be naive. The idea that all someone has to do is work hard to get ahead is also naive. Luck is half of life, and some people are luckier than others. Some are lucky to be able to get the education they receive, to have the money to go to a good school that gives them that education and ability to apply their skills practically, to have the money and resources to receive health care that allows them to be fully healthy enough to get out and fulfill their greatest capabilities, to be lucky enough to be granted an opportunity to work a great job and make good pay. Part of what makes people privileged is that they are lucky enough to get through life with the pieces in the right place, even if those pieces are ones that allow them to get a good education and work hard at a job that promises a bright future.

All of these things that you are so dead set against happening work well in other countries, and they work well because the people in those nations believe in the benefit of all society, something America could really care less about. North Carolina couldn't care what happens to California and vice versa. When we get over our pessimistic, antagonistic attitudes towards each other, and particularly the poor, we could successfully implement a lot of these programs. But Americans need to stop being so afraid, self-centered, and hateful to make it happen. And it needs to happen, or we're going to watch this country go the way of other empires.

Whatever you might think of Sanders, he's smart about reaching his voter base.

@spartanx169x: Maybe instead of thinking of it as "One paying for all", it's "All pay for all". All societies that practice things like socialized medicine have this standard. And a society that pays for itself flourishes. People who don't have to worry about things like health care and education can go get that education and are healthy enough to find work. They can then earn money to afford better health care. A society divided by it's richest and poorest citizens cannot thrive. We will inevitably have to take care of the poor anyway because a society like the one we have isn't simply going to let them go and die. But if there are less poor to take care of, and more people working, earning money, and buying stuff, can also have a little bit to pitch back into the society that helped them out. The focus of the burden isn't on the few rich, but on everyone in society that is capable of pitching in. This idea that there will just be a ton of lazy people not doing anything and sitting around all day, earning unemployment seems to do a disservice to people's desire to do something.