X S

I tend to just avoid things I find toxic. The thing with Twitter and Facebook is that no one is forcing you to use it, and I actually get odd looks of contempt from people when I tell them I don't have a Facebook. As far as Twitter and Facebook, I don't think there's a chance that Facebook will really have any competition within the foreseeable future, but Twitter certainly has competition. If new social networks can piggy-back off crowd-funding and decentralized networks, there's a huge window of opportunity. From what I've heard, Gab is planning an Initial Coin Offering, which means it will be able to fund itself without the need of venture capitalist pouring millions into similar startups. The next few years should interesting. It's always wise to remember that any dominant industry player can blindsided by some new variant of technology.

I don't think bows were used during that time period. It's late 1800's, right? I think most Native Americans were using rifles and pistols by then. Not sure how I'd feel about using them, either. The novelty wore off after playing both Tomb Raiders and the more recent Horizon Zero Dawn. However, I would be open to tomahawk throwing!

Times like these, I'm glad I live in the US where people still fervently pride 'free speech', even though it's constantly under attack from some sort of puritanical group, left or right, depending on the generation. Today, it's the thought-police of establishment institutions who seek to police wrong-think. And it's not even crazy to think about how absurd some of these policies have become with the recent events that have unfolded in the tech industry and social media as a whole. I've read some of the laws in other countries, and I'm just shocked at how arbitrary they are. It really puts the 1st Amendment in perspective and just how important it is in the US.

I would only accept this premise if it was based on a fictional noir setting, much like Blade Runner. CyberPunk is a bit like this.

I've lately been training for a "military" PFT for the last 3 months, so that includes push-ups, sit-ups and 1.5 mile run. This mix of exercises alone has made me lose weight and build lean muscle mass. But ever since I bought a fitness watch, I realized I wasn't in very good shape with regards to my heart, so I've been trying to maintain peak levels of heart bpm during cardio. It's also helped motivate me to get up more often and be more physically active. It calculates all of those things and sends you notifications.

This is certainly a worry. From what I know, Take-Two has been pushing the Online model, and it's actually making a substantial amount of money from it. Who would've possibly thought people would buy fake money with real money?! I'm afraid to say that the days of Single-player Story DLC might be at an end.

I'm not sure why there's so much discussion in comparing the two. RDR is literally GTA: Wild West without the overly exaggerated and satirical social commentary. Also, the notion that Take Two and Rockstar are somehow adverse to internal competition doesn't make much sense. Sure, it makes sense in terms of market cannibalization, but given Rockstar's tendency to value quality over quantity, it's evident that internal competition improved their games over time. For example, things such as bullet-time, assisted aiming, weapon wheels, mini-map elements, button-mashing mechanics, etc. Each successive game is a chance for Rockstar to learn what worked so that they can incorporate those new elements into future games. Whether it's GTA, RDR, Max Payne, or LA Noire, they all have a little Rockstar DNA within them; it's noticeable.

GhostRyder, I think you make a point when it's just the media, but it's also social media. I consider it outrage culture, which tends to be comprised of moral crusaders, thought-police, and the like, which uses emotionally-driven issues to wedge people apart. These groups tend to be people who constantly act as victims of oppression, so their goals usually center around the subversion of what they consider oppressors or toxic cultures. It seems to be more of an antithesis of inclusion and diversity. And because it's inconsistent in its aims, it's often disingenuous and intellectually dishonest where "the ends justify the means." Personally, I'm very comfortable with my masculinity, and I still appreciate traditional roles for men and women if there's some reciprocity alongside. If other men become victim to this sort of shaming, however, it's on them to reassess themselves, be themselves, and stop worrying about what other people think of them and how they should act.

Speaking of film trailers that don't reveal the plot, this pile of garbage had the best teaser trailer of all time. I remember when I saw it at a showing for Men In Black. The entire theater erupted into applause and cheers. It's just a shame how bad the movie actually turned out.

No Country for Old Men is probably my favorite movie of all time. It's sort of a Western genre film, considering this is an RDR2 forum.

I hate it, too, but I think the justification for it is that while the cost to develop games has increased over the past 20 years, the relative sale price of them has not. So publishers have been looking for other ways to extract revenue.

Italian, I assume? Mine is short for my much longer Gamertag/PSN: Crossed Sabres. As for that name, it just comes from an old military tradition/insignia.

One of my favorite games of all time is Riven, a creepy story-driven puzzle game from the 90's. I owned the game on PS1, but I'll never for get the eerie soundtrack.

I have yet to try In-n-Out because I live in the Northeast US, so we don't have them. We do have Shake Shack, though. I wuv cheeze fries.

There could also be an element to the way they've structured development. IIRC, Apple commits all of the departments to separate NDA's so that no two departments ever know what the other is up to, which is supposed to prevent full-blown leaks, sort of like the water-tight compartments of the Titanic. Well, those didn't really work because 'reasons', but you I think you get my point.

Personally, I've never compared the GTA franchise to RDR. It's like apples and oranges. Also, we shouldn't really expect any less from Zelnick. This is the sort of drivel you usually hear from CEO's who have no experience with the products they actually sell. Zelnick has admitted to never playing video games. Without that frame of reference, making a comparison in terms of revenue is fallicious. The success of a game is not measured by how much revenue it's generated, otherwise Call of Duty would be considered the greatest game of all time. So, to call RDR2 anything less than a success because it simply can't match the cash-cow success of GTA V indicates a lacks of understanding for the purpose of gaming and the experiences as a whole.

Why do I feel like the one that is most plausible is the lie?

Contributannnnnn

I hate this. I specifically dislike Logitech products because every product I've purchased from them never lasted, and I only buy Astro headsets. So now I'm worried that quality of Astro might go down the toilet.

You can find just about any crackpot theory on the internet if you search long and hard enough. That's one of them.

Wait, this is a prequel? I was under the assumption that this was a sequel (RDR 2) with a completely new a character(s) and plot. Anywho, I did like GTA V's choice at the end. GTA has always involved free will and making choices. RDR had a bit of that, too, with their Honor system. I remember playing RDR and striving to achieve a more virtuous rank, but that was just a personal choice given Marston's past. In GTA V, I chose to kill Madrazo and keep Franklin, Trevor and Michael alive because things aren't so black and white in GTA. I ended up sympathizing with the protagonist criminals. So the concept of good and evil is easily questionable in both GTA and RDR, as it can be in real life. Having said that, I would enjoy a multiple choice ending to RDR2. There's always something to be learned from the decisions you make.

I see no point to this other than what console can do already: stream games to PC, so this is not exactly any sort of revelation. For example, I could buy RDR2 on XB1 and stream it to my PC in real-time, so does that make it a PC game? The same goes for game streaming services. This is just a silly premise all together. The whole point of a dedicated PC port is to gain greater graphical fidelity and modding potential, neither of which are available in any sort streaming service.

I think it may only get worse, considering how much more complex and demanding game production has become. But I'd rather receive a polished and high-quality product than a half-ass money grab on a shareholder's deadline. Speaking of which, I do hope R* picks up the LA Noire franchise for another. I know Team Bondi was developing 'The Whore of the Orient', but now that that's dead, it may be a good opportunity for R* to continue with it. Whore of the Orient was supposed to be the spiritual successor to Noire. I'm not sure who owns the rights to LA Noire, though. I believe R* still does.

Wait, isn't there a dual wield in on of the showcase pictures? If they showed this, and it wasn't in the game, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Online is neat and all, but I buy Rockstar games for the story.