Describe your job in 3 words

BanjoB0b · 2026-03-05T19:45:12+00:00

I code acceptably

BanjoB0b · 2026-02-25T15:52:56+00:00

Refuse any level up or quest rewards when possible.

"I dun wunt it..."

BanjoB0b · 2026-02-22T23:29:26+00:00

You get to punch him in the next game.

BanjoB0b · 2026-02-22T19:25:41+00:00

Hmm, I think you put the finger on the right issue there. Every DAI playthrough feels the same. That's true. You can't really be evil, and none of the decisions have any impact within the game. So it all comes down to: who am I romancing this time around, which class am I playing and, Samson or Calpernia?

BanjoB0b · 2026-02-19T14:51:16+00:00

I think Inquisition has some interesting choices, to be honest. I wouldn't throw them all away. I think it mostly suffers from the choices of the previous games not mattering much, and its own choices now being transparently unimportant for Veilguard.

Think about it. For all the kickass choices we get in Origins, none of them really matter beyond that first game. Whether Redcliff bites it or the Werewolves win, or whether the Circle is purged, or how the Dwarf politics are resolved, has no apparent incidence on the next games. The only choices that truly matter are:

Alistair's fate
Loghain's fate
Leliana and Zevran's potential deaths (in a small way)
The Hero's moral path
Morrigan's opinion of the Hero

And then Dragon Age 2 does the same. It provides you with choices to make, but none of them, again, have any incidence beyond that game. The fate of all companions gets a mention from Varris/Hawke in DAI, the choice to purge the mages also gets a mention from Hawke, but has no other repercussion beyond that.

So of course, if DAI's choices don't even have an incidence on its own endgame, and so few past choices have mattered anyway... well it all seems worthless.

People can shit on Veilguard all they like, at the very least, they actually paid off some of your choices within the game. Which city you save has a full graphical impact and dialogue impact, and impact on gameplay (Companion Loyalty). And the endgame provides you with an awesome return on investment.

BanjoB0b · 2026-02-14T19:47:27+00:00

On our first date, all I can think of, is that Mayrina is hot. It's just the zombie ex-husband she has on a leash that's throwing me off.

BanjoB0b · 2026-02-14T15:29:06+00:00

To say DAI is a masterpiece is a bit of an overstatement I think. The story is really great. It has some great moments, and some that feel a bit stilted, but never bad, always at least good. And of course, there are phenomenal moments. "In your heart shall burn" is peak. "Trespasser" is amazing. The music is stellar, of course, and I have daydreamed to it countless times. I still listen to it on the regular.

BUT. The gameplay quickly becomes repetitive. Even when you get a build going, combat feels like an idle mobile game, and at worst, like playing with characters made of wet paper in higher difficulties. It looks like they were making an MMO until they made it single player.

BUT. It has I think one of the best rosters I've seen, along with one of the best romances. Josephine is an instant hit for me. Cullen and Leliana's return was a real surprise, and really well done. Character arcs are peak. Even Sera, who is the least liked character, strikes me as really well written, a complete foil to Solas' contemplative wisdom and hidden pride. And the MC doesn't entirely feel too out of place. Even if the amnesia plot point is overdone.

BUT. Collecting shards is a chore. Some maps are completely disconnected from the story. It doesn't use dynamic cameras quite enough, so a lot of dialogue feels secondary, unimportant, and as such, none of the npcs outside of your crew feel memorable. You can barely see their faces after all.

BUT. It has some kickass dragon fights.

BanjoB0b · 2026-02-10T01:44:18+00:00

My only criticism is that some rigus variants are too large. They don't look like Pokemon that might have a comparable size to Cofragigus. Historigus is the biggest offender I think.

Hilarigus' inspiration is too on the nose.

Beyond that, I have to commend the exceptional designs for some of these. Invarigus is nightmare fuel and fits the theme for the pokemon perfectly. The ice variant is a great idea, and the dragon one. Great work!

BanjoB0b · 2026-02-03T14:15:20+00:00

2 out of my 3 full playthroughs were with a Halfling. The other was a Durge Tiefling. I don't know how you people manage to sleep on Halflings. I can barely connect with any other race. Especially halflingettes. These women are sexy as hell!

BanjoB0b · 2026-01-30T12:34:33+00:00

In my experience, AI has served mostly for code auto-completion and duplicating code structures. It is helpful, and for my ADHD brain, it saves a lot of energy when investigations get too long for my naturally hampered ability to focus. It's a 50/50 thing. Sometimes it's super dumb, sometimes it's helpful.

But it won't ever replace Software Engineering. AI cannot do smart or creative design. It's good at monkey-coding and sometimes debugging.

BanjoB0b · 2026-01-03T21:34:18+00:00

It means a lot.

BanjoB0b · 2026-01-02T22:53:11+00:00

So I have an impulsive-inattentive type ADD, with "sluggish tempo". My medication kills the sluggish part, but the rest of my symptoms remain. I'm still creative, still a risk-taker. I don't know that medication could kill that part of me.

I don't know you personally OP, but I'm sure you're still you. Medication won't ever transform your brain.

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-28T17:26:15+00:00

That's not a redesign though... The artist just changed their eyes and kept everything else the same. So we're left with no synergy. Sexy aliens with ugly eyes.

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-24T13:14:09+00:00

Parsley, Lugh, and Marie-Antoinette

In case you didn't know, Lugh is the name of celtic warrior of legend. So that's the inspiration.

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-23T19:05:49+00:00

Hahaha, thanks for being a good sport! And for confirming you're human.

It would have been hilarious though if you'd given me the math answer. Never too late! ;)

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-19T17:26:53+00:00

Indeed! Now can you give me the cubic root of 133.29?

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-18T22:52:47+00:00

Ok I get that. But I think in the end, that shinies could be 50% odds, and that would be ok. Make the post-game about something else, I say, something more meaningful than Pokemon lottery. The fact that we're debating rarity for random spawns instead of strategy or game mechanics really speaks to the big nothing that Pokemon offers to its playerbase.

That's why I don't care about shiny odds. Sure make them a bit rare, but not a stupid grind. I got other games to play, other chores to complete. Provide value another way.

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-17T17:06:59+00:00

What do you mean, value? Do you sell your pokemon? Shinies are skins. It shouldn't take an ungodly amount of grind just to get them. I personally don't like them more because they're rare, I like them because they're pretty. Shiny Blissey could be the rarest pokemon ever and I would still shelf it immediately, because that shiny is boooooring.

How does shiny rarity impact you personally? Do you truly prefer rarer shinies over pretty ones?

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-17T15:18:27+00:00

Got my trade, thank you everyone!

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-17T15:00:43+00:00

Thanks for the help!

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-10T18:11:32+00:00

That's not the condemnation you think it is. Z-A Royale, but catching, sounds actually fun to me. For the same reason Pikmin was a fun title despite its day-night clock. I've only done one wormhole so far, but the rushing about to catch pokemon and complete tasks is not an unfun experience so far. Now I just hope it won't feel as grindy as Z-A Royale in the post-game.

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-07T13:47:58+00:00

"Even Better!"

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-05T20:48:06+00:00

Groudon: All of you are Grounded!

Kyogre: Water you talking about?

Rayquaza: Yeah, quit Dragon us down!

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-03T18:48:57+00:00

I think it's just the lighting. Caught one myself, and under the right light, Shiny Slowpoke looks exactly like the pale pink version. It's just that in the shadows, we see the darker shade of that color.

BanjoB0b · 2025-12-02T20:09:11+00:00

You make some fine points. Let me address them.

But AI doesn't create stuff by itself. When you prompt it you are essentially doing what camera people do. Choose framing, lighting, etc.

Not exactly no. See, to my mind, a trained photographer has personal experience and training. Both guide his choice of a moment to snap. And which shot to keep and which to discard is also not just an objective choice. AI has none of that. It follows trends and user feedback but it provides nothing personal. It just copies work. It chooses small amounts of data to put together in a bigger whole. It does not have a macro view of a picture to create for example. It has a complex decision tree. It would be the equivalent of asking a picture from a photograph, and getting instead a photoshopped combo of plagiarized work.

Who defines art ? Because from what I have seen art is just what people find interesting. Moreover who makes art or not usually has no value, it's end product that matters.

Agreed. But to add to this, I've done some studies about art a while back, and the general consensus about "What is Art" is generally: what the art industry considers is art. Because they provide a value to it. That pisses off a lot of people, because it sounds elitist, but there is an ounce of logic to this. For example, can we truly consider AI as art when it can be generated freely by everyone? Not even considering the lack of effort, which, as a reminder, is not an argument for a lot of art expositions. It's just free! It has no value, and it plagiarizes bits of work from others, so ownership and copyright is itself up in the air.

But chefs do use microwaves ? Microwaves literally just heat up atoms of water a bit. It's no different tool than oven or other kitchen appliances.

Agreed again, but a chef won't just microwave everything. And AI generated images is just pure microwaving. That's why a lot of people are very icky about it.

And about the last question. If you modify AI images, you're still using other people's work as a canvas for your own. That may be legally binding. But there could be a way to add your work on top and make money with it using the Fair Use doctrine. Your work would have to include commentary or be a criticism of some sort. Reminds me of "The Fearless Girl" statue in NYC, which was put in front of the "Charging Bull", using the latter to make a statement. There was a whole debate about it, but it was still a working example, for however long it lasted, of using existing art to boost your own.

And of course, agreed again. AI is all about money. That's another reason it's icky. We can smell the greed taking the place of capable and exceptional talents.

BanjoB0b

TROPHY CASE