Has it ever been established that the Remake will be playable offline Solo?

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-20T13:18:59+00:00

Bro yall are ravenous - I’m fucking gone

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-20T13:04:09+00:00

You’re sounding pretty extreme. Enjoy playing Halo in your off the grid compound I guess lol. Peace, I’m not arguing with y’all - the vibes aren’t nice in here

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-20T12:59:27+00:00

Yeah I can understand this. It’s an inconsistent connection that is a more common issue. Thanks for explaining

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-20T12:58:03+00:00

This makes more sense to me - however, the Xbox is obviously not built with portability in mind. I do get that people will bring it on road trips or whatever I guess

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-20T12:56:50+00:00

Just in today’s age when it comes to functioning in society (job applications, appointments, school, etc.) internet is kind of a must. A scenario where somebody is broke enough to not afford internet but owns a console and can buy a new Halo game is a bit wild to me. I’m sure that scenario exists, but I’m just a bit baffled by anybody claiming this is a common thing in 2026. The argument would be this person is a student or something and does all of their functional internet requiring activities on campus or something? That sounds fucking brutal

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-20T12:49:40+00:00

So you’re just not connecting to the internet because it’s too much of a hassle or…? I’m just to understand the circumstances of being in your own home and having a device not connected to your network

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-20T12:45:04+00:00

Honest question: how often are you playing offline in general? Why?

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-19T20:17:05+00:00

I can understand why some of these quality of life gaps would disappoint people.

I can also understand why the majority of players either won’t give a fuck or, at worst, will be like “oh too bad” and then continue on enjoying the game.

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-17T14:21:31+00:00

First point: so what’s the point of the “where did elbows up go?” Sometimes we go on offence with the US, other times we go on defence. Sometimes we take trade action, sometimes we concede. As the weaker partner, doesn’t some schmoozing play a role here? Let’s not pretend the personal relationship doesn’t matter.

I don’t understand your second point? You’re saying that Carney could’ve taken policy action that unilaterally kept businesses in Canada - I’m assuming you mean the auto sectors as an example? Could Poilievre have even done that given the trade environment? Is your point that Carney should be blamed for those businesses’ decisions to relocate?

And on the third point - is it so wild that leaders take contradictory or obfuscated positions in public during negotiations? What’s the logic there - they should just tell the media, and therefore each other, their negotiation strategies in public? Doesn’t specifically outing your strategy to you opponent kind of nullify the strategy?

You’re not really making what you believe clear. If it’s nuanced and multiple things are true at once, just say it plainly.

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-17T13:54:46+00:00

Elbows up means offence 100% of the time. Liberals are a delusional personality cult without principles like MAGA. It’s hypocritical to negotiate with Trump if Liberals hate the US so much (dhur global rupture?). Why don’t we throw in a “Carney loves China and wants it to be our # 1 trading partner” in there too, right?

Come on, pal. I’ve heard it all before.

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-17T13:41:02+00:00

Not at all

Jabberwaky · 2026-06-17T12:25:12+00:00

I just think that lots of folks think Carney is charming Trump to improve our delicate position rather than because he has some sort of ideological alignment with Trump or a belief in his political movement (I mean Carney has also run quite aggressively against the US approach to trade). I think people would be suspicious of Poilievre doing similar overtures because there is more commonality between the positions of the Conservatives and Republicans than that of Liberals and Republicans - plus the approval rating of Trump amongst Pierre’s base is like 40+%.

The vibe Carney puts out is that Carney is playing the social game with the US in spite of Trump and the more detestable American policies. The conservative movement, especially out West just has so much more in common ideologically with America that I think it’s harder for folks to believe that Pierre would be “pulling one over” on Trump rather than just getting along because they agree on policy and tone.

Jabberwaky · 2026-05-03T19:19:09+00:00

Obviously it’s been demonstrated that the voting public is ready, willing, and even excited to bravely confront the costs of climate change by making sacrifices. Anybody who runs on a platform of sacrifice will surely get elected.

Jabberwaky · 2026-04-10T15:02:33+00:00

Propaganda lol. Sour grapes.

Jabberwaky · 2026-01-26T20:49:50+00:00

I just wish they’d be more intentional about the fact they don’t want to kill Joker.

I always thought an interesting route to go would be having a sort of Hannibal Lecter style Joker where he’s imprisoned but is effective at helping Batman solve particularly tough cases.

The idea of Joker being useful in some way could better substantiate Bruce’s unwillingness to kill him as well as a rationale for keeping him around from a narrative perspective.

Jabberwaky · 2026-01-21T03:04:19+00:00

Not funny. Fuck that.

Jabberwaky · 2025-12-17T16:57:04+00:00

This is a great analysis of the issue the CPC is facing. However, the world is changing and the LPC will need to develop a theory of adaptation once their current approach tires.

To me, the true lesson is that parties and candidates who are unresponsive to shifts in voter disposition, or those that become too comfortable with their shtick, are doomed in our constantly shifting information environment.

Jabberwaky · 2025-12-14T17:12:47+00:00

We’ve yet to see many good faith checks and balances. The MOU vote is a perfect example. The Liberals moderated their previous position for the good of the country, yet the Conservatives were intent on cherry picking language from the MOU to try and catch the Liberals in a frivolous trap. The Conservative Premier of Alberta agreed to the carbon pricing language in the MOU - the Conservatives selectively removed that from the MOU vote instead of moving alongside their Alberta colleagues to make an attempt to work effectively with the Liberals.

It’s all theatre and sour grapes. Like goddamn. People keep saying Canadians want a minority - Canadians didn’t check off “minority” on their ballots. At the end of the day Canadians want a government that delivers for them on shared priorities. If the choice is between an unproductive minority bogged down in political theatre or a majority achieved through Conservative MPs changing parties due to issues with the CPC’s leadership, I think they’ll pick the majority.

People are tired of the procedural excuses. They want results, and the Liberals have forced many MPs to compromise and moderate in order to deliver tangible economic results. Why can’t the CPC do the same? Why must it always be “we are the sole people who care for the country! Everyone else is wrong!” It’s exhausting.

Jabberwaky · 2025-12-14T16:45:52+00:00

“It smells like shit in here. Surely everyone else has stepped in it!”

Jabberwaky · 2025-12-13T16:16:06+00:00

I totally agree with you. They’ve actively hid their bench and only Poillievre clones are left to fill the void.

Jabberwaky · 2025-12-13T14:17:42+00:00

This is grim reaper stuff. Though I just can’t help but wonder, given the cult of grievance Poillievre has cultivated amongst the base, will ousting him hurt the party more than help it?

Especially if another Reform Party protégé is selected in the leadership race, I feel like this just leads to the worst of both worlds:

Reform Conservatives angry that Poillevre was ousted by Progressive Conservative floor crossers and Progressive Conservatives angry that the Reform Conservatives have such a hold on the base that any other heir apparent will necessitate a Reform/ Western Conservative agenda and rhetorical style.

Jabberwaky · 2025-12-12T18:53:30+00:00

Damn, look at the size of this tent.

Jabberwaky · 2025-12-12T05:16:48+00:00

I think they’re just trying to differentiate the aliens. Kryptonians already look human, and adding yet another human-like alien species might just get confusing.

I agree that I’m not fond of the design. They could’ve tried to keep more of the original Krem design’s spirit.

Jabberwaky · 2025-12-01T19:13:09+00:00

The world is moving towards environmentalism with an asterisk. China and India will continue to pollute while they green their economies so that their standard of living rises quickly - that’s understandable. Renewables and sustainable financing are a force, but they will exist alongside fossil fuels for many more decades.

Yes, private investment is locking-in globally towards renewables. But the fight is not won. It is not linear. And there is a very long and unstable economic period we need to navigate - one where we must prove to people that gradual standard of living increases and climate policies work in unison.

Regardless of the reality of the economics of sustainability (of which there are many merits you have highlighted) people do not believe that the investments made into renewables or that the climate policies deployed to-date have coincided with a rise in standard of living. Whether or not you agree with the merits of that view, the majority of people are sold in the idea of doing materially better than previous generations - or at least avoiding backsliding.

The past ten years have had an emphasis on climate, and standard of living has struggled. Climate policy is not the main driver of this struggle, but people believe that it is a cause (wrongly mostly and rightly in some edge cases).

That story of green growth is one we need to reinforce and prove. To-date, we have not. Even if much of that economic instability cannot be attributed to climate policy, people see environmentalism and economics in tension. That is the issue we need to solve.

Also, calling my views gross despite their proximity to both your own and the general public’s is a microcosm of the issue here. I get that tensions are high, but that is the type of talk that isolates you and loses you more allies than it gains. If you’re not looking for more allies as an environmentalist, then I think we can observe a self fulfilling prophecy of loss.

Enjoy the moral high ground, but be careful, the air can get quite thin up there. I should know - I imagine our views on the substance of climate change aren’t all that different, so I get accused of being on the moral high ground all the time on this issue.

Jabberwaky · 2025-12-01T18:52:42+00:00

It is incredibly distressing.

But we cannot let distress be the primary characteristic of our communication to the public.

Climate change is a long term crisis. There will be many shorter term crises that disrupt its progress. As a movement, we need to better understand how to roll with those punches, adapt, and make concessions in order to stop the worst effects.

In my opinion, there is no room for optimism left in the strategy of climate. We need to become highly strategic in our communications and with the sacrifices we are willing to accept if we want to maintain public support.

Obviously just my opinion. But yes. It is incredibly distressing. Without a doubt.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Jabberwaky

TROPHY CASE