michael582's forum posts

Avatar image for michael582
michael582

1064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By michael582
Member since 2003 • 1064 Posts
@rmpumper said:

If life begins at conception, like the nutters claim, that makes every male trans, because every fetus beings as a female and later, at week 6-7, transitions to male or stays female depending on chromosomes.

It's not entirely accurate to say that every fetus starts as a female, because while every fetus does start with a set of "XX" chromosomes, which is the genetic makeup of a female, the ultimate biological sex of the fetus is determined by a complex interplay of the father's genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors.

It's more accurate to say both males and females start out with the same basic body plan in utero. The default body plan can be considered sexually undifferentiated. This means that the structures that will later become male or female reproductive organs have not yet formed.

Around the seventh week of gestation, the fetus begins to develop male or female reproductive organs based on the presence or absence of certain hormones. If the fetus has a Y chromosome, it will develop testes, which produce testosterone and other hormones that lead to the development of male reproductive organs. If the fetus does not have a Y chromosome, it will develop ovaries, which produce estrogen and other hormones that lead to the development of female reproductive organs.

So, to summarize, every fetus starts with an "XX" chromosome makeup, but the ultimate biological sex of the fetus is determined by the sex chromosomes contributed by the sperm at the moment of conception.

Avatar image for michael582
michael582

1064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 michael582
Member since 2003 • 1064 Posts

End of an era

Avatar image for michael582
michael582

1064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 michael582
Member since 2003 • 1064 Posts

@hardwenzen:

@hardwenzen said:
@michael582 said:
@hardwenzen said:
@michael582 said:
@hardwenzen said:

Just like our local sheep and graphics, you pretend to dislike what you can't get. Nintendo has no idea what motion capture is. Imagine them trying to create a game with such incredible presentation, it rivals cinema.

Exactly the same thing applies to story. They have been regurgitating the same childish "save the princess" for 30 years, and have the audacity of talking shit about well written stories, something that immerse you into the cast? gtfo.

Are videogames just suppose to aspire to cinema?

In presentation? Why not? All that it does is show us what wasn't possible not too long ago. Its not like those insanely well presented titles such as TLOU2 don't have any gameplay. In fact, its gameplay is better than the majority of third person shooters.

Sure, it can. Video games and cinema share some similarities. But they are fundamentally different mediums of art and entertainment. Video games have their own unique qualities and strengths such as interactivity, player agency and immersion. And that's where Nintendo and a lot games gravitate towards. Sony is more cinematic which make sense as they make movies as well. I'm happy both exist.

Both exist, but not on a Nintendo system, and that's a problem. On Sony systems, you get both, the gameplay focused titles from the likes of Fromsoft, and your high presentation Sony exclusives. Same can't be said about what's on offer from Nintendo, be it third or first party titles.

You're right for exclusive games. But neither does Sony. Sony also makes a specific type of game which is why it's best to have both. I mean, it's best to have it all. Though Microsoft has slipped ever since they introduced Kinect.

Avatar image for michael582
michael582

1064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 michael582
Member since 2003 • 1064 Posts

@hardwenzen said:
@michael582 said:
@hardwenzen said:

Just like our local sheep and graphics, you pretend to dislike what you can't get. Nintendo has no idea what motion capture is. Imagine them trying to create a game with such incredible presentation, it rivals cinema.

Exactly the same thing applies to story. They have been regurgitating the same childish "save the princess" for 30 years, and have the audacity of talking shit about well written stories, something that immerse you into the cast? gtfo.

Are videogames just suppose to aspire to cinema?

In presentation? Why not? All that it does is show us what wasn't possible not too long ago. Its not like those insanely well presented titles such as TLOU2 don't have any gameplay. In fact, its gameplay is better than the majority of third person shooters.

Sure, it can. Video games and cinema share some similarities. But they are fundamentally different mediums of art and entertainment. Video games have their own unique qualities and strengths such as interactivity, player agency and immersion. And that's where Nintendo and a lot games gravitate towards. Sony is more cinematic which make sense as they make movies as well. I'm happy both exist.

Avatar image for michael582
michael582

1064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 michael582
Member since 2003 • 1064 Posts
@hardwenzen said:

Just like our local sheep and graphics, you pretend to dislike what you can't get. Nintendo has no idea what motion capture is. Imagine them trying to create a game with such incredible presentation, it rivals cinema.

Exactly the same thing applies to story. They have been regurgitating the same childish "save the princess" for 30 years, and have the audacity of talking shit about well written stories, something that immerse you into the cast? gtfo.

Are videogames just suppose to aspire to cinema?

Avatar image for michael582
michael582

1064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 michael582
Member since 2003 • 1064 Posts

It's on the same level as Batman Arkham series

Avatar image for michael582
michael582

1064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By michael582
Member since 2003 • 1064 Posts

@Diablo-B: 2nd update: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/m34Fxr

I do need wifi in the build, right now its not possible for me to spread out an ethernet cable to the computer from the modem. Also I can't find any cheaper monitors than the one I found? But overall i did lower the price, what you think?

Avatar image for michael582
michael582

1064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By michael582
Member since 2003 • 1064 Posts

@Diablo-B: Yea for sure, if I can save money while keeping the same level of performance, i'll gladly hear suggestions.

Avatar image for michael582
michael582

1064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By michael582
Member since 2003 • 1064 Posts

Thanks Diablo-B for the huge and extremely helpful response. And napo_sp as well, both have been great in making me realize whats out there.

Here's an update on my build: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/LkHYwP

I already have own 2TB external HDD and i think i'm going with the 2k monitor because it has ips, whereas most 4ks don't in that price range, unless it doesn't matter... Thoughts on the build? Thanks!