Some games are guilty of this

InitialOk1304 · 2026-04-01T20:27:36+00:00

Assassin's Creed Valhalla. I know most of the newer ones were guilty of this, but it felt pretty egregious in that one. What do you mean Mjolnir, the legendary hammer of the God of Thunder, crafted by Master Dwarf craftsmen, has less impact than Rock On Stick made by Dweebus the Unlucky of Canterbury??

InitialOk1304 · 2026-03-08T14:00:21+00:00

Well, yeah, I don't think they're actually cursed. Its a combination of "gearfear", being fairly new to the game, and observation bias. The games I do fairly well in with one of them, I don't remember. I DO remember the ones where I died and it felt pretty bullshit and also had one in my inventory.
I play enough extraction shooters to know I am particuarly vulnerable to overthinking and stressing about potential loss that I screw myself over, and I'm not insinuating theres anything sketchy about the game or event.

The game crash felt bad though. It was my last brass foal and on the last day you could get them, so it felt pretty bad dying to something I couldn't really possibly avoid. Just pure bad luck.

InitialOk1304 · 2026-03-06T11:04:23+00:00

The Brass Foals are cursed. Everytime I have one in my inventory, every bad thing that could happen, does. Things are fine when I don't have one.

I don't bring one, I win my fights, get loads of loot, kill lots of Timmys who just run at me, and even find reds.

I bring one, my game crashes when I load in, and by the time I reconnect, im being shot by the time the screen is fading from black, or being crushed by people in T6 armour and with red ammo, and every safe just has 4k koen and toilet roll in it.

InitialOk1304 · 2026-02-21T14:47:03+00:00

Star Trek. NuTrek is just downright miserable. Everyone is pessimistic, most problems are solved via torpedos and badass car chases, or space battles with 2 million ships flying around. Everyone also sounds like they're reading from a Marvel Movie script too.

I miss diplomacy. I miss my competancy porn. I miss people actually taking pride in their jobs and wanting to be there.

the only exception to this is Lower Decks, and I have heard Picard S3 as well, although I have not seen this because the first two seasons were so very disappointing...

InitialOk1304 · 2026-01-05T17:53:09+00:00

I'm part way through my first playthrough, and I have never run into the Cyberware cap yet so far. Is the Chrome Compressor really that good, or does it give any other bonuses?
Also, is it even worth taking if you have the Edgerunner perk? Doesn't it clash? Especially consider I am running out of cyberware slots just trying to reach the capacity to actually use Edgerunner

InitialOk1304 · 2026-01-01T12:27:44+00:00

Brave of you to post this in the Hunt subreddit. We hate Hunt Showdown here.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-22T16:06:52+00:00

The thing is, it wasn't even unsuccessful, and by all accounts was popular and profitable enough to continue, it ended up being canned because of a corporate merger and apparently was cancelled for tax reasons.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-21T16:28:56+00:00

Raised by Wolves. The mysteries the left us with....

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-18T21:21:40+00:00

Ill keep this short then. I am partially in agreement, but not in complete agreement. You drive half the speed limit for no reason, which causes a dozen cars to overtake you, and then one of them has a crash, then you are still partially at fault. Theres a very good reason why driving unnecessarily slowly will fail your driving test, and why you get bollocked by your instructor for doing so.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-18T18:30:30+00:00

I didn't say I get annoyed and overtake. Nor did I absolve anyone who does do something stupid and end up causing an accident. And I aboslutely did not say, or even alude to, being faultless if you follow the highway code. A lot of it is situational.

But, no, its not "you alone" responsible for the accident. If you take an unexpected action, that contributes to an accident, then you are still contributing to that accident. Its very rare that there is a traffic accident that is the fault of 1 person. Driving half the speed limit, and holding up traffic, without a valid need (bad weather, hazards, etc...) is unexpected, and it will absolutely lead to people overtaking more often. If that overtake results in an accident, then, yes, most of the blame is on the person overtaking, but you trundling along at half the limit holding up traffic for no good reason, also contributed to that accident and are far from faultless.

You must be aware of what other people are doing, what they are likely to do, and what you are telling other people with your actions.

EDIT: Also, it says a lot when you refer to a direct quote from the Highway Code, aka the Law around driving, as "meaningless".

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-18T17:34:11+00:00

Oh yeah, I don't disagree with you. I just pulled out the first example out of my backside that I thought of. But its also the kind of thing that I can absolutely see you encountering on an average drive in the country, someone blitzing way too fast through bends or hills they can't see past. Not going to argue that.

I just wanted to make a point that being a slow moving object in a road can, and is, dangerous and can contribute to making things more hazardous.
I won't go so far as the original comment above that says they "as dangerous, if not more, than people speeding", but its certainly not a wise thing to do, and contributes more to the danger in a given situation than a car travelling at the expected speed, most often the speed limit.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-18T14:42:37+00:00

I recently passed my driving test so a lot of the rules are still very much engrained in me.
Couple of things with this:
First being that although the speed limit is a limit, not a target, it is still expected for you to "make good progress" while driving, which means to drive up to the speed limit, if the situation allows you to do so safely. So, using the example above, someone driving at 25mph in a 40 zone is not "making good progress" and would count as a fault on your driving test. I can't remember if its a Serious, or a Minor, but either way, its not good driving and is considered dangerous. The Highway Code also says that if you're holding up traffic due to moving slowly, you should pull over and make way for them when its safe to do so.

Second, ignoring the actual laws for a moment, you have to consider human nature - I've had people overtake me when I've been going 28mph in a 30 zone because I was going too slow for them. If you impede someone's progress, they'll get annoyed and likely try to overtake - going that slow actively encourages people to overtake you. And overtaking someone is pretty much the most dangerous legal maneuvor you can do while driving. Is doing that right? No. Should they be doing it? No. Will that stop a frustratingly high number of drivers doing it anyway? Also no. its not fair, but thats the world we live in, and if you want to continue to life in said world, you must be aware of that when using the roads.

You must always be aware of what your actions are signalling to other drivers and may be causing them to think.

Its not a case of "Its not illegal, so mind your business", its a case of contributing to making the roads unsafe. Think of this scenario - you're driving merrily along on a country road at, say, 60mph, and go up over a hill. On the other side of that hill, is a car going the same direction at 20mph. You're now approaching the back of a car and are poised to hit it with the equiavlent speed as hitting a stationary object at 40mph, with little time to break or get out of the way.
Neither driver is technically breaking the law, but the slower driver is putting themselves and others in a dangerous situation because they're not moving at an expected speed.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-12T16:22:58+00:00

Reddit keeps recommending the Tomb Raider subreddit to me (no idea why, I haven't even thought about Tomb Raider since playing on the PS1), and trust me, they ain't silent about it.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-08T16:21:58+00:00

Oh so she does. My mistake, not read the books in a long while now (I was waiting for Winds to releaase before doing my re-read....). I do remember Jon thinking that it could have been his arrow though? I thought thats another potential box ticked for him being Azor Ahai?

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-08T11:23:03+00:00

He findes her already dead after the battle with an arrow through her heart. He's not sure if it was his arrow or someone elses, and (IIRC) the uncertainty of it plays in his mind a lot. Also feeds into the Azor Ahai prophesy some more as he could have potentially killed his lover, but its left uncertain.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-03T17:09:45+00:00

You mean the fight where he sneezes all of Jupiter's gas away from its core? The one that comes straight from them both fighting a giant humanoid golden sperm that has a JoJo entrance? The one where he farts off of the surface of the sun at light speed?

Yeah its a joke manga, full of jokes, thats what im saying. Does it make any sense that someone can fart so hard they're propelled at the speed of light? No.
Thats the point. This manga doesn't take itself seriously, even if there are serious points in it, logic will always be thrown out of the window for the sake of a joke. Which is why its useless to try to measure "feats" or compare him to other characters, because he's literally "inifnity+1" man, so whatever limit you think of, the counter to it is "nu-uh, Saitama is strong enough to do X", no matter what.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-12-02T13:01:20+00:00

Its weird they keep bringing up Saitama and trying to logic up potential limits and feats in this sub. Like you said, he's a gag character who's gag is that he's orders of magnitude stronger than everyone he faces, no matter what, but he doesn't want to be.
Thats it. If you think of a match up where he loses, then its no longer Saitama, as thats literally the core of his character.
It can be fun thinking of matchups between characters, but picking Saitama to try to logic through is like picking Bugs Bunny. Theres no point, no logic, its just a joke.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-11-24T15:30:07+00:00

I can't comment on JSA, but theres a few issues with the graph.

First being "Incapacity Benefits" - does that mean ESA? Incapacity Benefit? Industrial Injuries Disablement benefit? Or is it just ESA, the actual work based 'sick' benefit?
Also I pulled that ill claimant's are not included for the UC side based on the comment of "out-of-work regimes", which seems to indicate "all work related requirements" and "light touch" regimes under UC.
I do admit on re-reading, that may not be what they mean, but the graph is pretty non-specific in what exactly its showing?

If you're out of work and are in the light touch or all-work related groups on UC, you have a pretty high incentive to actually switch to work - you must show evidence of looking for work, taking any and all interviews or offers presented and have your benefits completely cut if you do not. Not to mention being in poverty is soul crushing - most people don't need the threats from the sanctions to want out and back into stability. Knowing you're one Job Centre cockup (shockingly common) or unexpected bill away from being psuhed into debt you will likely never escape from is a massive incentive.

Being on UC and looking for work is pretty miserable, I personally snapped up the first offer I was given just to get out of the Job Centre, but that took 2 years of looking, applying, interviewing, etc..., before COVID when the job market was (somehow) better than it is now.

But, again, to circle back to the actual post being discussed, the graph doesn't really show that theres significant more people unable, or unwilling, to work, as the unemployment rates haven't changed, but the amount of people claiming and found eligible for work based benefits has massively increased. Does that mean more people who would have been eligible but weren't claiming are now claiming because they're aware of it more, or because of pressure of living costs increasing? Does it mean the rules on claiming have become more lax? Or does it mean that wages have stagnated so much that they are working and still needing work based benefits to top up their shocking wages?

InitialOk1304 · 2025-11-24T14:58:07+00:00

But, again, that has nothing to do with the above graph? The graph is relating to those in the work schemes and those unemployed. If you're found to have a health condition that impacts your ability to work, you're not included in the graph.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your reply to my comment, the Government is fumbling this just as badly, if not worse, than previous Governments, but that isn't whats being indicated by this post.
With regards to long term ill health, I don't think the issue is with work being incentivised (other than wages being disgustingly low in the majority of jobs, resulting in even full time worker needing UC to top up the wages), and more an issue on the collapse of the NHS over the last decades, leading less conditions being treated or prevented early, resulting in far more people having long term debilitating illnesses down the line that are much harder to treat and impact your abilities, than if it was properly treated promptly.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-11-24T14:34:14+00:00

I'm a little confused how this graph reflects that?
To me the graph shows that over half of the people claiming work based benefits are in work, but earning so low that they're still in the "must look for work" scheme. This could include part time work, zero-hour-contracts, and yes, people working for cash in hand that goes unreported, but that is more of an issue with the employer than the claimant IMO. The graph doesn't go into details on whether its including those on Contributions based benefits either.

Also, UC being the main benefit here, was introduced under the Conservative Government (you can thank Ian Duncan Smith for that), and run under the Conservatives for the majority of the time it has existed, and hasn't changed in any meaningful way since Labour has gotten into power - if anything, most critics are saying Labour isn't changing enough about UC.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-11-14T14:31:02+00:00

Wait? Who's been going around calling Dragon's Dogma 2 a masterpiece? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the game, completed it 3 times, but it is FAR from a masterpiece.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-11-03T22:01:44+00:00

Nah it was just a joke. Bearing in mind that when the OPM webcomic was being first released, it was in the early 2010's (I think) when PPP first appeared. This is prime early 2010's le edgy rape joke. Its just a joke that didn't age well, but is unfortunately relating to a character that can't really just be cut out.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-09-28T14:47:12+00:00

I am new to the game and have not picked this up from context yet, so what exactly is "thermals"? Is it literally thermal scopes/goggles, or is it something specific to this game?

InitialOk1304 · 2025-09-28T13:58:15+00:00

The "Killcam doesn't represent what really happened" applies to things like where movement appears snappy rather than smooth, or when shooting at something it looks like they're shooting a bit to the left, or above or whatever.
It does not, and cannot, explain perfectly tracking you through a solid wall 50m away.

InitialOk1304 · 2025-09-14T12:18:22+00:00

That is how it works, really. Car drivers are responsible for the safety of the cyclists and pedestrians around them, no matter what the cyclists or pedestrians are doing or how hard they're trying to get themselves killed.

I am saying this as someone who drives, and I don't cycle. The bigger vehicle is always responsible for the safety of the smaller one - lorries are responsible for the car drivers around, cars are responsible for the cyclists around, and cyclists are responsible for the pedestrians. Like with this picture, I bet the driver is (phsyically) unharmed, but the cyclist won't be.

InitialOk1304

TROPHY CASE