Nope...It's going to be easier than Dark Souls. Hidetaka Miyazaki has already stated as much. I'll play it. I've been playing video games since 'Pong'. I'm not "over it" yet. The game looks gorgeous.

If you want something more innovative, look into 'No Man's Sky'

...and don't forget that publishers often don't make innovative games because consumers don't buy them. You have to sell quite a few copies these days to pay for the production of a game. If you make something truly unique or innovative you often fall into a niche and lose money as a result. This means that change often happens gradually. Maybe you should take a break from gaming if you don't enjoy it.

As a father of a young child and also a professional photographer, this is really close to my heart.

I really hate that people associate nudity with sexuality. Of course nudity can be sexual, but that's not the same as saying all nudity is sexual. Running around with nothing on is just something kids do. They aren't body aware and at that age they shouldn't be.

If we're going to make something illegal or think of it as wrong because some weirdo finds it sexual, well where the hell does that end? A lot of people have a foot fetish, so are we all to keep our socks on at all times? Really?

The photo of the little girl jumping on the bed is a great shot. It shows the carefree abandon of a little kid trying to amuse herself. To me it speaks to my inner child and makes me realise how much we've lost as adults. The nudity is important in this shot, but not for any sexual reason. When was the last time you just didn't care? When was the last time you thought it could be OK to jump on the bed naked? More to the point when was the last time that you didn't even have to think that and just did it, just because?

It makes the shot interesting that her naked body is not sexual. It's the opposite. It's innocent, there's nothing more to it. She's not at an age where all of these rules and restrictions should apply to her because they are meaningless to a toddler.

The problem comes when people take innocent shots like this and try to make out that they are sexual. That's when the damage happens. That's when the little girl is sexualised. Not by the photographer, but by the people who claim to be trying to protect the kids.

My point is that even with regulation, alcohol and cigarettes are causing plenty of harm to society. Check the statistics for drunk driving incidents and health issues caused by smoking. If alcohol and cigarettes were banned, they would be harder to obtain and therefore the harm they cause would be decreased.

Conversely, if you legalize hard drugs like cocaine and heroin (which are scientifically proven to be detrimental to your health and livelihood in general), the usage of said drugs and their destructive effects will only increase. Marijuana is irrelevant to this argument, as it isn't addictive and its effects aren't harmful. If you only want to legalize marijuana and not heroin, cocaine, PCP, meth, LSD, etc, I'm in full agreement.

Regulation will never be completely effective, as people will often ignore laws if they really want something (see the current drug situation). But by banning something, you at least make it slightly harder to obtain. It's a tricky situation with no perfect solution. By banning something, you are empowering the criminals who can supply it. But by making something legal and easily obtained, you are also promoting its use. Sure, the government makes a lot of money from liquor and cigarette taxes but those two products have ruined many lives in the process.

There are plenty of studies and tests done on alt med. What makes something alt med instead of medicine is not if it is efficacious (as you falsely believe) but if it is part of the prevailing medical tradition. This is the definition used by the FDA, the NHS, the WHO, and every other major health organization in the world. So if you don't like the definition of alt med, take it up with them.

We have plenty of studies on the efficacy of St. John's Wort. It is already 'approved'. End of story. Your 'simple answer' would require some company to pony up millions to billions of dollars to get it to pass FDA approval, when it is not patentable and so they would not be able to recover the extreme costs. Your 'simple answer' would mean simply removing all of these supplements from store shelves and forcing people into taking meds that are ten times as expensive with the same efficacy.

Silly. Could probably make something worthwhile out of the whole thing.
Anecdotally, I had a half-hound puppy for a while when I was in Jr.-High/H.School. My parents hated it, but I had more fun than I could describe when I would howl along with him.

no, they're supposed to shut the fuck up because it's not your body. It's not your decision, it's none of your business. Just like I don't care how many anonymous strangers you hook up with on grinder. Your body, your rules.

It's total hypocrisy to advocate limited government, but then to turn right around and try and legislate what someone can do with their own body. You can't wrap yourself in the flag of freedom while legislating that someone can't make the choice you don't approve of. Tough shit. It's the standard "Freedom for me, but not for you" BS we've come to expect from nutjobs on the right.

I actually don't get her decision to film her abortion. I don't get why anyone would want to make something so private so public. But my approval is not a requirement, she could care less what VoodooV thinks, and rightly so.

as for the "everyone is insane except for me" argument. Is that what you tell your psychotherapist? how many anti-psychotics do they have you on now?

I'm all in favor of Walmart paying their employees more than they are, which is horsecrap...

BUT...

This video is a crap argument.

The statistics are riddled with problems.

Just off the top of my head the problems with it...

*They picked Ohio, which isn't indicative of what a living wage would be across the US. It's 16th in cost of living by state rank. That's a crap state to select.

*They picked a 68 cent box of macaroni to show the increase in prices. I completely agree the amount they determined by percentage isn't much, but still, pick a reasonable item to show. Better yet, just say if your average grocery bill is $100, it'll go up X amount.

*As many as 15% of Ohio Walmart employees isn't 15%. Just because you make something that would qualify for food stamps doesn't mean YOU qualify for food stamps. If you're a dependent on someone else is makes a lot of money, you don't qualify as an example. Get the actual amount of people who do if you're going to project numbers about how much food stamps go to Walmart employees.

*I completely am in favor of everyone who works a full work week should get a living wage. 30 hours isn't a full work week! 40 is. Yes, EVERY Walmart employee who works 40 hours a week should earn a living wage. I saw that and wanted to throw things because it completely undermines a good policy idea with crap like that. Nobody considers 30 hours a full work week.

With all that said, bobknight33's argument is horsecrap. Food stamp measures in this case come into play as a reaction to underpay by the employer. Walmart is not paying its employees $8 because they know their employees can get food stamps to make up the difference. They pay their employees $8/hr because they don't have to pay more than that either because of market forces or because gov't regulations don't force them to pay more. If they could, they'd pay $4/hr, food stamps or not.

To argue it's because of any other reason is an exercise of complete naiveté towards the benevolent job creators who are only trying to do good by society.

And to think workers would just not work for such a low wage would only occur if they had other opportunities that paid better. They already don't have those options as is. This would magically change because you took away food stamps?!

Without food stamps to make an unlivable wage a living wage, here's what would happen - Walmart employees would have to work other jobs in addition to their Walmart job with similar low skill requirements. This would increase the labor pool (same number of workers who work more hours = higher supply of workers), and that would drive the cost of labor down, so Walmart and other low skill employers could pay EVEN LESS!

bobknight33... what a brilliant solution for low wages for jobs! You just exacerbated the problem.

YouTube comment, QFT:

"If there were idiots who believed in this before this video was posted, I assure you there will be idiots who believe in it afterwards. He'll probably make something up about how the alignment of the stars affected him or that an evil EFO master put a curse on him."

If nothing else, blizzard knows how to make something epic.

http://videosift.com/video/Blizzard-knows-their-epic

Or, more epic.

I'm afraid we are too far gone. USA citizens have showed that surveillance is not a problem for the majority in western society. Otherwise they would've mobbed NSA HQ and burned it down. The "i got nothing to hide" ideology trumps the idealistic "we are free" and this is ONLY because the majority does not understand what this whole things is all about.

We had a chance to unite the world and make something really wonderful but that chance is now gone and we are to blame.. Well, i dare to say, you are to blame, i fcking tried.

Ten years from now, we are gonna miss the haydays of 00 when speech was free. Twenty years from now our every single heartbeat is monitored and freedom exist only in our minds. And it's your fcking fault, don't come crying to me then.

This puts the finger on just what I've been thinking this last year.

Ideology is insanity. It was only good during the revolutions, to make something better of the way we were ruled and society. Now it's just like glasses making everyone see in distorted visions.

I thinked mainly of political ideology, but the same really goes for religious as well.

Just in case you want to make something even more dead.

Wow, I hate to even justify your ramblings with a response but I want to make something clear:

I am not advocating violence or trying to justify her action. I never said that lady was in the right for hitting the guy, only that it's not such a crazy reaction to expect. Nor would hitting her back be so crazy... if the guy didn't just run over her child. Sure he might be legally justified but he'd also be a dickhead.

I don't know what video you were watching but the kid's head clearly hit the ground in the one I saw. And I know you're probably not a doctor, but a head injury that doesn't bleed is exactly the kind you don't want.

As for your making the issue about race and sex, I'm not even sure where you're coming from. I'd be really interested to know how you determined this man's race from a grainy youtube video. And for that matter, as a white male, I'd be interested to know why you even think it's important at all.

I'd also be interested to know how you came up with the crazy idea that skateboarding into a toddler who's running around in a park is partly the toddler's fault. And again with the "unwatched toddler" bullshit. Lucky put it pretty eloquently above.

Oh, and while we're on the subject: you might be surprised to know that in many places in the US, if someone assaults you, even if they sucker-punch you, and you escalate the situation by bringing in a weapon, you can get in just as much, if not more trouble than your assailant. I know a lot of people like to believe otherwise but you'd probably be surprised at the amount of people who get in trouble for that.

That was stupid, and I laughed at the creativity.
Upvote for having the exact frequency to make something inside my laptop reverberate.

Well, I guess we disagree. To me, the supernatural and magic are for those without the experience or intelligence to comprehend that they don't exist, or those that wish to live in a fantasy. To me, that mindset is infantile.
I feel that adding magic to a great historical story is like putting sugar on broccoli, it's done to make something good palatable to non-adults, but it ruins it for adults and destroys what was good about it in the first place. This is an adult story with adult themes and adult actions, it didn't need magic, dragons, or 'The One', and the additions only degrade and confuse the amazing facts.
Would you have liked to see a Muslim dragon guarding Osama in Dark Thirty? (I know, not a historically accurate film, I'm just making a point). Wouldn't you have found it out of place in a movie about our (recent) 'history'? How about if Lincoln had to fight a confederate dragon in Lincoln (not Lincoln vampire hunter)? I feel like that would have infantilized those stories, as it does to any factual story.