I'm not usually one to complain about refs or (un)called fouls, but this game is ridiculous.
Ronaldo gets his shirt obviously yanked and held for several second in penalty area? Yellow for Ronaldo, because he complained. No VAR.
Holding in the middle of the field against Georgia? Yellow for Portugal.
Light foot touch against Georgia in Portugal's penalty box? VAR; pen for Georgia.
At the end of the day it's a just game and it's meant to be fun, but this just takes away all the fun from the game.
Yes, you are a liar. You said "ruined" but still have not provided an example of something they have ruined. And after being called out on it, you proceed to use personal insults. Not only are you a liar, you are also incredibly immature.
Well, he does imply he has a guilty conscience; he's just also saying he can live with it.
I think they mean if you're a woman (trans or cis), it can be terrifying to meet with people. At least that's how I interpreted it.
Edit: Perhaps they are also talking about non-binary people, which is why they chose the words "not male presenting".
The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.
It's an older game, but I would say Dragon Age: Origins (the DLCs/complete edition make it even better).
There are fewer companions and most of them are human IIRC, but overall I think they are better fleshed out and more interesting. I liked them all more than most BG3 companions, perhaps in part because they aren't all nymphomaniac bisexuals who try to jump in your pants as soon as you look them in the eye and say "hello".
The story is perhaps a bit more grounded than in BG3, but I overall liked it more and though the overall world and cast of characters were more interesting. You even get a unique starting area depending on your race/class! And even though BG3 is perhaps larger in terms of actual map area, but in DA:O you explore so much more of the world and go through so many different areas with different societies/kingdoms that it ends up feeling bigger and richer in lore, IMO.
Other than that, I would maybe also add Planescape: Torment(*), Fallout: New Vegas, Disco Elysium.
Yes, I am aware I am a basic bitch.
(*) Disclaimer for Planescape: Torment; the last third or so of the game was made by a different team, and you can definitely tell, but it's worth getting through to the ending.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention this, but it might be important to some people: regarding combat, in DA:O it's just ok, in P:T and FNV it's just there to get you through the story, and Disco Elysium doesn't even really have combat. BG3 has by far the best combat, so if that's something that is important to you, then it's worth to keep that in mind.
🤦♂️ Off course, after all that this is how we score.
Watching Portugal play is always so frustrating. It doesn't matter how good you are if you can't score; all the other teams need is one good chance and we are immediately in hot water.
Damn, that sucks. One of the Turkish players fell on his face though, which was funny.
I was just thinking to myself "why would you shoot from there with so many teammates around", and then it just went in.
You know, trying to mock me isn't gonna convince me of anything. Especially since I never said I disagreed with you. I said it has the same problem that you claim my strategy has: it needs numbers.
Let me ask you, have you burned any SUVs lately? Specifically, have you burned "every suv in 300 miles"? Have you disrupted the supply chain? If not, is it because you are waiting until you have enough numbers? Because, again, once you have enough numbers, I think it's better to take the peaceful route. Probably easier to recruit people for it, too.
And btw, making "The Right Purchases" is often about not making purchases; I find the people who disagree with that and talk about "moralizing your fellow shoppers" are often just trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Right I get that, my point is I don't think it works long term. Eventually you'd be caught and either imprisoned or killed. The amount of people who are ok with that are pretty small, which means the movement would be crushed before any significant impact is really made. For it to work, you'd need to get a lot more people on your side; and if you get that many people on your side, you can probably go with an option other than (essentially) starting a civil war.
I hear what you're saying, but the problem with that mode of thinking is that (ironically) it is not sustainable, at least not on a large enough scale, because unless you can convince people to make a change then the vast majority will stand against you when you try to force that change; they'd label you a terrorist and be okay with your imprisonment and perhaps even murder.
Consider this:
People will choose to take a car instead of a train (even when presented with the option), because they prefer their personal space. People say they are pro carbon tax, but they will protest when gas prices (or anything prices) go up, even though that is the obvious conclusion of a carbon tax and the reason it works (companies won't just absorb the cost, and people will be forced to consume less). When protesters block roads, a lot of people start talking about using violence against them. Even here on Lemmy, people will go out of their way to go into a vegan community when a post gets a decent level of traction just to talk about how much they love meat.
Why would the society I just described - our society - be ok with any of that, and just stand by as it happens? If they won't make a change when given the option to, why would they be okay with it being forced on them?
EDIT: spelling
Not sure what point you're trying to make, exactly. What would your suggestion for a solution be then, after you eliminated all options? And the amount of people that need to follow the example is the same no matter what solution you come up with - unless your solution is to kill everyone on the planet. If 2/3 of the planet lived in trees and caves, and the other third kept doing all the same things we do now, we might not accelerate so fast but the problem would not go away.
the solution has nothing to do with what we decide to buy or who we vote for and everything to do with what options are present when we are making our choices.
Yes... options like voting for a green party that actually has the environment as a focus instead of one that does the bare minimum (if anything) and pats themselves on the back like they've done so much, or even one whose leader says "there is no climate emergency, that's sensationalism"; like eating in a sustainable way instead of eating so much beef and pork; like taking public transport when available instead of buying a gas car with high consumption when for that price you could have just bought an electrical.
I genuinely don't understand your point.
Perhaps not very patient gamer, but I think I'll give Another Crab's Treasure a go.
It's very hard for me to feel motivated to play new games nowadays, but that one did spike my interest - seems more fun than Elden Ring tbh, which kinda feels like a generic souls-like - and it's got great reviews and isn't too expensive, so I think I'll try it out.
Yeah, I'm kinda in the same spot, and part of the reason is that 90% of the people I know who care - if you ask them whether there's a climate emergency they say yes, if you ask whether we should do something they say yes - but 90% don't bother doing anything other than that: say they care when asked. Don't vote with a focus on climate (if they vote at all), consume a lot of red meat, burn gas they don't need to burn, some don't recycle.
If even people who claim to be aware of the issue and care about it don't act like it, what hope is there? I try to nudge them, but there isn't much more I can do.
You managed to say a lot without really saying anything. And when did I argue semantics or put words in someone's mouth?
I'm not gonna go through this entire conversation again, so I'll just link you my last comment which should sum up my thoughts relatively well.
Okay, this comment was the best so far and actually seemed to care to make a point/converse, so I'll make just one final reply.
Your first sentence might be true for older men, or men who are already "allies" to put it simply, but it's simply not true for younger men, and again it's also just unhelpful and pushes people away. Overall, it makes you sound like you care more about being angry and being right, than actually helping to make society better. Not that I don't understand that feeling by the way, I'm just saying it's unhelpful and not constructive.
And yeah, off course there will always be some men who will feel threatened anyway when people raise the issue, but the question is how many feel threatened and "othered" in one situation versus in the other situation. I mean, I'd hate to fall from a ladder, but I'd rather fall from a short ladder than a tall one; does that make sense? I'd rather you go with the option that will push less young men into the arms of people like Andrew Tate, rather than the one that will push the most just because you're angry and want to make your point in the most brutish way possible.
And they will feel ‘othered’ because the patriarchy has raised them to believe they are the superior humans because of their gender and any suggestion that some men may do the wrong thing where women are concerned is an explicit threat to them personally.
They feel "othered" because the meme is inherently sexist, and if they complain they get called sexist. Again, imagine if instead of "men" this is talking about a marginalized group and the problem becomes explicit. Just because men are not a marginalized group in society, does not mean that the same feelings are not evoked in them when confronted with such rhetoric.