Spoony is in San Diego? I hope other Southern California Kotakuites made him feel welcome.
@Jon: That's not a comic.
Comics rely on the art to tell the story.
That's a hypothetical dialogue, superimposed over two random people walking.
If the art is completely superfluous to your comic, then you probably shouldn't be making a comic.
Comics rely on the art to tell the story.
That's a hypothetical dialogue, superimposed over two random people walking.
If the art is completely superfluous to your comic, then you probably shouldn't be making a comic.
Ugh. Normally, I like to do a breakdown of what makes each of these comics terrible.
But, today, I just don't feel up to it.
Just be assured that almost every comic here is terrible, and that quite a few of them demonstrate why most people think of games are immature man-children.
But, today, I just don't feel up to it.
Just be assured that almost every comic here is terrible, and that quite a few of them demonstrate why most people think of games are immature man-children.
@GoldVrod: The original post said "almost lifesized".
I guess Luke decided to remove those references.
I guess Luke decided to remove those references.
I can't see the full bust myself, so I can't judge for sure.
But, just looking at that picture, and the way it's set up, 32 inches guarantees nothing.
It could easily be 32 inches from base to tip.
A base that extends out downwards nearly as far as Fenix himself does.
Or, a tip that extends out as far as Fenix does.
So, we have a statue that's just over two and half feet tall.
A somewhat small human torso for what Fenix should be, but acceptable, I guess.
Now, let's subtract a solid two-thirds or so for the parts that aren't actually human, but just statue parts.
We're left with a statue around 10 inches tall, from his waist to the top of his head. Twelve inches, if you want to be generous and say the gun doesn't extend "that" far.
Which means you're left with a head that's still, at best, maybe three inches tall.
How is that life size, in any way whatsoever?
But, just looking at that picture, and the way it's set up, 32 inches guarantees nothing.
It could easily be 32 inches from base to tip.
A base that extends out downwards nearly as far as Fenix himself does.
Or, a tip that extends out as far as Fenix does.
So, we have a statue that's just over two and half feet tall.
A somewhat small human torso for what Fenix should be, but acceptable, I guess.
Now, let's subtract a solid two-thirds or so for the parts that aren't actually human, but just statue parts.
We're left with a statue around 10 inches tall, from his waist to the top of his head. Twelve inches, if you want to be generous and say the gun doesn't extend "that" far.
Which means you're left with a head that's still, at best, maybe three inches tall.
How is that life size, in any way whatsoever?
@Robotic-Richard-Simmons: It's not necessarily a vagina. Fleshlights come in a few different flavors. IE: the most obvious ones. You know. mouth, anus, and vagina.
I'm baffled by this comment thread.
Half the comments are:
"I can't believe Schafer wusses out on his words. Stand your ground!"
And, even more inexplicably, half the comments are:
"Schafer is a loser/asshole. I love Bobby Kotkick a lot more than him!"
Neither of these responses makes an ounce of sense.
Schafer is involved with comedy writing, but he's also a business professional. This is pretty much the only response he could have made- an apology, with a lighthearted, backhanded insult thrown in.
(I think my favorite comment here was definitely "Schafer has only made one good game". What rock are you living under, kid?)
Half the comments are:
"I can't believe Schafer wusses out on his words. Stand your ground!"
And, even more inexplicably, half the comments are:
"Schafer is a loser/asshole. I love Bobby Kotkick a lot more than him!"
Neither of these responses makes an ounce of sense.
Schafer is involved with comedy writing, but he's also a business professional. This is pretty much the only response he could have made- an apology, with a lighthearted, backhanded insult thrown in.
(I think my favorite comment here was definitely "Schafer has only made one good game". What rock are you living under, kid?)
"Your friends are already following Kotaku on Facebook. Why aren't you?"
Oooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this one: Because I'm already following Crecente, and he posts the same links as Kotaku.
Oooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this one: Because I'm already following Crecente, and he posts the same links as Kotaku.
@Pojodin: Mitchell is there too.
@Owen Good: Good point.
@edb87: Figured I might as well throw out this correction:
Wiebe held the world record for three years before Mitchell broke it. Three years, not discredited. The discredited one was a follow-up, to try and break his own record.
Essentially, the movie was bullshit on many counts.
Edit: Which is why I called it dumb in original comment.
Wiebe held the world record for three years before Mitchell broke it. Three years, not discredited. The discredited one was a follow-up, to try and break his own record.
Essentially, the movie was bullshit on many counts.
Edit: Which is why I called it dumb in original comment.
Notably missing from these ceremonies- the current first place holder Hank Chien. The same Hank Chien who is even mentioned in this article.
Why exactly is the 3rd place loser being honored over the 1st place winner?
Why exactly is Steve Wiebe being honored?
I understand the guy beat Mitchell's record in the first place. But, what exactly makes him better than any of the other hundreds of record holders out there, besides that dumb movie?
Why exactly is the 3rd place loser being honored over the 1st place winner?
Why exactly is Steve Wiebe being honored?
I understand the guy beat Mitchell's record in the first place. But, what exactly makes him better than any of the other hundreds of record holders out there, besides that dumb movie?
I'm finding a weird line of argument in the comments.
It goes something like this "Blizzard is abandoning RealID in the forums. Therefore, all trolls will be allowed to run rampant for all time."
Is it just me, or has the middleground gone completely missing? Why can't Blizzard implement a new solution to the problem that doesn't require real names? Why is this impossible?
Nobody seems to be touching on this.
It goes something like this "Blizzard is abandoning RealID in the forums. Therefore, all trolls will be allowed to run rampant for all time."
Is it just me, or has the middleground gone completely missing? Why can't Blizzard implement a new solution to the problem that doesn't require real names? Why is this impossible?
Nobody seems to be touching on this.
@Kellen Dunkelberger: Nope. I was disemvoweled. And, in retrospect, I can understand why.
I probably should have replied in a private message.
A mistake on my part. I apologize.
I probably should have replied in a private message.
A mistake on my part. I apologize.
@Klln Dnklbrgr:
Tk m smpl ggl srch t fnd tplss pctrs f y.
nd, th nm nd fcbk prfl f yr wf.
knw hw ld y r, nd wht twn y lv n.
knw vry schl y wnt t.
knw yr pstn n vccntns.
f ws wllng t dg rnd fr mr thn scnd, 'm sr cld fnd t bt yr kds.
ll frm n Myspc pg.
Kp n mnd, 'm nt crp (bynd dng ths). Ths tk m mnt, smply t prv pnt. 'm nt gng t sv ths nf, nd flly ntnd t prg ny mmry f t frm my hd. Bt, th nf's t thr. nd, r y sr y'r cmfrtbl wth tht?
knw wldn't b.
(ls, spnt lng tm dcdng whthr r nt shld pst ths rply. n th nd, dcdd t ws bttr t nfrm Klln f th rmfctns f ths srt f ctn. nybdy ls wh rds ths, pls d nt drdg p nfrmtn n hm. flly rcmmnd tht Klln dlt tht myspc prfl, nd th mntm, t wld b rspctfl t llw hm th prvcy h dsrvs. vn f h wvs t hmslf.)
Tk m smpl ggl srch t fnd tplss pctrs f y.
nd, th nm nd fcbk prfl f yr wf.
knw hw ld y r, nd wht twn y lv n.
knw vry schl y wnt t.
knw yr pstn n vccntns.
f ws wllng t dg rnd fr mr thn scnd, 'm sr cld fnd t bt yr kds.
ll frm n Myspc pg.
Kp n mnd, 'm nt crp (bynd dng ths). Ths tk m mnt, smply t prv pnt. 'm nt gng t sv ths nf, nd flly ntnd t prg ny mmry f t frm my hd. Bt, th nf's t thr. nd, r y sr y'r cmfrtbl wth tht?
knw wldn't b.
(ls, spnt lng tm dcdng whthr r nt shld pst ths rply. n th nd, dcdd t ws bttr t nfrm Klln f th rmfctns f ths srt f ctn. nybdy ls wh rds ths, pls d nt drdg p nfrmtn n hm. flly rcmmnd tht Klln dlt tht myspc prfl, nd th mntm, t wld b rspctfl t llw hm th prvcy h dsrvs. vn f h wvs t hmslf.)
@Luke Plunkett: Exactly true.
But, in real life, would somebody really be able to check through a list and say "Hey, back in 2004, when you were 14, you said 'Luke Plunkett is a troll' and were banned from Kotaku. You think there's a chance in hell I'll even consider talking to you?"?
(Of course, I never said anything of the sort. None of that statement applies to me or anybody I know.)
But, the point is that everybody says stupid stuff occasionally, and makes mistakes. The internet just removes any sane statues of limitations.
But, in real life, would somebody really be able to check through a list and say "Hey, back in 2004, when you were 14, you said 'Luke Plunkett is a troll' and were banned from Kotaku. You think there's a chance in hell I'll even consider talking to you?"?
(Of course, I never said anything of the sort. None of that statement applies to me or anybody I know.)
But, the point is that everybody says stupid stuff occasionally, and makes mistakes. The internet just removes any sane statues of limitations.
I do know that if real names were used, I probably wouldn't be on Kotaku anymore.
When real names are used, permabans are truly permanent.
It's one thing to troll and be an idiot consistently, and lose respect and access.
But, is it really fair to hold something over somebody's head for years? For something arguably stupid from when they were a teenager?
When real names are used, permabans are truly permanent.
It's one thing to troll and be an idiot consistently, and lose respect and access.
But, is it really fair to hold something over somebody's head for years? For something arguably stupid from when they were a teenager?
@ethic:
I actually did read parts of the study itself. It was boring, so I skimmed, flipping pas the middle technical stuff, but I got the general message.
However, the correlation still only proves the correlation. Once you begin to draw these conclusions, you've overstepped your boundaries. Regardless of whether you hold a PHD or any other such degrees.
When they actively begin saying "Parents should do x and x because of this correlation" (as they actually do in the study), they've gone beyond overstepping their boundaries, and are actively attempting to influence society without proof.
As for your final paragraph, it's absurd. Any study that shows correlation is instantly right in it's conclusions until proven otherwise? That's not how science works.
I actually did read parts of the study itself. It was boring, so I skimmed, flipping pas the middle technical stuff, but I got the general message.
However, the correlation still only proves the correlation. Once you begin to draw these conclusions, you've overstepped your boundaries. Regardless of whether you hold a PHD or any other such degrees.
When they actively begin saying "Parents should do x and x because of this correlation" (as they actually do in the study), they've gone beyond overstepping their boundaries, and are actively attempting to influence society without proof.
As for your final paragraph, it's absurd. Any study that shows correlation is instantly right in it's conclusions until proven otherwise? That's not how science works.
Once again- correlation does not prove causation.
I hate any study that attempts to draw a conclusion out of correlation.
I hate any study that attempts to draw a conclusion out of correlation.
