data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0bdef/0bdef9c2e1e6984b8d521da633285ebe98a20484" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f73d5/f73d52257eacfcae2104d15ce318f1b7d3100810" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bff37/bff37dc1feb98011b3dee57a42d1c3899f1ca51a" alt=""
Forum Posts | Following | Followers |
---|---|---|
256 | 0 | 0 |
Reading can be more entertaining.
No, reading can not be more entertaining, first of all it takes too much time, time i could spend with doing better things...like playing video games or watching another remake/reboot of a movie or a book.
More creative unique content.
You gotta be fu**ing kiddin me.
That creative content you´re talking about, is basically just the same over and over again.
Until to this point in time, everything here on planet earth has been done already multiple times, there just aint nothing new anymore and the same is meant for books.
It is always the same in just slightly different versions, no matter if it´s either about the good knight rescuing the helpless princess from the claws of an evil dragon or The Mandalorian rescuing that green yoda-clone from some evil sith-lord....
...it´s just all the same!
Last time i checked, i saw my hands optical in front of my physical body while also feeling them physical as well as feeling my physical body, so i guess i am still 100% physical.
I wonder how it feels to be 100% digital tho.
After all this time since its release, i finally made to watch AQUAMAN and it is one of the better DC-Movies if not one of the best, next to BATMAN V SUPERMAN.
JUSTICE LEAGUE in my opinion sucked a little and that stupid Snyder-Cut was even worse coz my most funny scenes have been ripped out...and don´t even remind me of its felt 600 minutes runningtime, i was watching that crap in several sessions like a dead-boring tv-series.
Another re-masterraced exclusive playstation-title for da pc to own the playstation once again!
Glorious times for us masters of the pc-masterrace!
Listen, i'm not really eager to talk to people who barely have a grasp of the things discussed.
Yet you´re still here again, spilling your guts....again.
You´re feeling victimized, so you´re just trying to piss on everything here, that explains why your "theories" look like being randomly pulled out of peoples asses along with you constantly coming back here while you´re explaining how you aren´t talking to me everytime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
You´re so cute when you run to google crying for help, while copying and pasting those articles which are in fact as well just being theory and nonetheless neither any better or worse than what i am saying here.
What´s your mission here to begin with? I already asked you this question but it seems you were escaping it through the emergency exit on your last visit here.
According to some journalist who wrote an interesting article about Boss Battles in video games, he is basically saying they are just an old relict from 80s arcade-machine-times.
Guess he is meaning that these days we don´t really need them boss battles in absolutely every game while of course they are the main essence of games like DARK SOULS and other similiar titles.
Thinking about this article, i often got the idea devs think, they under any circumstances absolutely must include boss battles, even when it´s all being made somehow "half-assed" so that you already get the feeling some boss-battle is only there because they obviously thought there absolutely must be one becaues it is a video-game and "video-games all have boss-battles!" after all.
As to the question of whether or not vide-games these days really need boss-battles, let´s start with the positives those boss battles can bring:
.) They can be a good challenge...if done right.
.) They can require certain tactics while even puzzle-fans might have their good share of fun while trying to figure out how to beat the fu**er
.) They can give this great feeling of revenge and redemption, causing a great overall feeling of satisfaction.
.) They can give gamers a reason to brag about, once they finally made it to kill Elden Ring´s Margit, Ninja Gaiden´s Nuclear Armadillo or Phantom in Devil May Cry, the latter one made me break numerous pads, several windows and once i was close to strangling my stupid neighbour because he dared to knock at my door while just being close to kill that motherfu**ing lava spider....
...so here i come to the negatives:
.) They can really break the flow of a game while being stuck for hours, days or even weeks at the same bastard, depending if you have other things to do in life besides killing stupid level-bosses in videogames.
.) They can be downright "dumb", meaning that there is neither any strategy nor "smart" way of killing one off. You in fact just have to shooting-button mash, jumping-button mash, dodging-button mash and hacking-button mash while to all that mashing you as well need some luck in order to drain that last fu**ing inch of his constantly self healing life bar...and when that unfriendly entity is probably changing its shape too, then you have even more than just one self healing life bar to drain....needing an additional portion of luck and probably more endurance in your mash-fingers.
.) Some of them can really make you stop playing a game and in some cases for once and for all.
.) It can happen devs are putting a little too much effort into making certain bosses "hard" while they aren´t really THAT hard while gamers just need to find the right strategy, tactic or weak spot, which at times could make the whole battle along with what-the-hell-is-actually-to-do? a rather troublesome experience full of trial and error, starting to be a real pain after a while.
.) From time to time i get the idea devs have made certain boss-battles rather unbalanced compared to the rest of the game or how come the entire game feels like a walk in the park, except a few minor boss-battles are actually taking more hours to win than the actual game itself.
My personal opinion would be boss-battles still being a must-be for certain titles but i don´t really need them everywhere...especially when devs obviously have no clue how to make them interesting.
The more space an object "occupies", the less time.
Now that´s a great fairy tale isn´t it?
You´re confusing "your" theory with "Gravity of an object being so strong that time moves slower there" but the size of an object just doesn´t tell something about its gravity, my dear friend. The more mass an object is having, the stronger is its gravitational-pull.
That means you can have a pile of shit as well as an empty bottle of crap being the size of a whole planet (occupying the same space as a planet) but it still not having any gravity since it doesn´t have enough mass, so that object is basically the same as you...it is just occupying space for no reason and without any gravity to have an effect on other objects, let alone having an effect on time.
Without time, no space, Singularity.
This time it seems you´re confusing "singularity" with that state before big-bang, where theories claim wasn´t time nor space.
Now Singularity describes a location in space-time with extra-ordinary gravity...like inside a black hole. So i am afraid without time and without space, there is also no singularity.
Should i bother reading the rest of your amazingly physic-laws-debunking article?
Log in to comment