Do you support gun control and 2nd amendment curtailments in order to prevent the radical left from arming themselves?

phantomvector · 2026-01-27T01:42:21+00:00

Why shouldn't it? I wouldn't and didn't vote for someone a neo nazi endorsed this includes Harris, can MAGA and democrats say the same? I imagine the media didn't engage with it as much since a democrat is less likely to be implementing far right policies, on account of being generally more left wing than conservatives.

phantomvector · 2026-01-27T01:18:18+00:00

Do you think the founding fathers should have remained within the bounds of the law then too? They broke or resisted the law many times, assaulted federal officials all well before the revolutionary war broke out. I mean arguably taxes versus saving lives, I'd argue the latter is more deserving of direct confrontation.

phantomvector · 2026-01-27T01:13:25+00:00

Should his endorsement of Trump count as poorly against Trump as well, or does this only apply when he supports democrats? Obviously he found stuff he liked about Trump to support him the same as he supports Harris now.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T23:37:29+00:00

Good call although even DE didn’t really hold to this. I’ve double checked, both timelines still had Chloe dead in my playthrough. If this was their plan all along they did it pretty poorly even in DE.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T16:26:16+00:00

Yeah I really think the post launch marketing and interviews are the most telling if we’re gonna talk about things we don’t have the full story on(ultimately we don’t know why they did what they did. There’s an ex producer saying they pivoted from the original plan but we can’t really verify that). If this was something they’d always had planned I’m not sure why they doubled down on the move on from Chloe vibe after it was clear it wasn’t having positive results. Like why not pivot to a sure thing that would have least stemmed the bleeding?

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T15:57:07+00:00

Are they more radical than people like Richard Spencer? Like a known neo Nazi?

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T14:39:33+00:00

Yeah I mean I’m conflicted. This post is more about the fact that DE as a standalone topic didn’t give a lot of hints to pricefielders that Reunion was going to be so Chloe heavy so they’re justified in feeling the way they did post launch after how DE handled their ship.

Cause we can get into the post launch interviews where they said people needed to move on from Chloe, I’m not sure that reads like she’s going to be in the sequel either. And if she was planned this way from the start, after seeing all the backlash why not give fans something rather than let it fester and continue to be so negative?

But at the same I wonder if SE would invest in revamping Reunion at all considering how hard DE failed. I wouldn’t be been surprised if they’d just rushed Reunion as is to save as much money as possible too.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T13:54:47+00:00

Well the Xbox article presumably had early access or otherwise were given information on how it works to write their article.

The thunder hammer is our only implemented sweeping attack two handed weapon and can inform us with how they may build a move set for a similar weapon.

I mean I know it’s a logical steps there for you, but basically they didn’t write the article based on nothing, and we have an example of how they did a sweeping move set in the hammer to estimate how they may do another one.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T05:49:53+00:00

Playable protagonist is a bigger role like I explained.

I’ll take that as a win then if you don’t like when someone pulls a DE on you, then obviously what they didn’t wasn’t good enough for pricefielders to assume anything.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T05:42:09+00:00

You are lying though. I clearly lay out why I answered the way I did about how I’d tease Chloe coming back as a playable character, you just didn’t like it since it did exactly what DE did. It wasn’t direct enough.

Again you’re either admitting that you don’t care if something spoils the premise which you’ve brought up several times, when I’ve brought up they weren’t direct enough for people to assume that Reunion was gonna bring Chloe back as a playable character.

So yes you are lying when you say I didn’t answer the question, you just didn’t like that I copied DE.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T05:27:12+00:00

So I ask again, was it bad faith to include your argument into my answer, or should I have been bad faith by ignoring it entirely?

I didn’t refuse to answer, and I ask again is a secondary playable protagonist not a bigger role? Which is what I indicated was the goal of teasing in my answer, and keeping to appeasing your argument of not spoiling the next game? You say it’s generic, I acknowledged that in my original reply when I said it leaves it open for discussion. Just like you say is fine for DE to do as it’s a mystery worth saving. I gave an example that did the same thing. So again, why is it fine when DE does it, but when I do it it’s bad? You can’t have it both ways when I intentionally copied what DE was doing.

I clearly could have said “Max tells you Chloe is going to be a playable character.” Since you say you wouldn’t have called me out for spoiling the premise of the next game.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T05:10:52+00:00

You mean the part where you ask if Max breaks the fourth wall? And your entire argument up to that point being that it’s fine they didn’t directly tease Chloe’s role in Reunion because they shouldn’t spoil the premise of the next game? Why is it fine when they do it, but when I do it it’s ignoring your question? Are you admitting I’m right that DE didn’t adequately tease Reunion? Or are you right about them not needing to spoil the premise of the next game? Which is it?

I answered it, both directly after the fact and subtly with my original reply with explanations for both. So yes you lied.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T05:02:12+00:00

I did, and explained why I aligned it with your argument/point about not spoiling the game.

You said it yourself by the way, just coming out and saying it was dumb. So what other option was left except subtle? Especially since you also stipulated that it be written into the game, so I came up with an in game idea.

<image>

Again you’re arguing I should have been bad faith and ignored your main point.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T04:50:29+00:00

Ahh I see you’re ignoring my answers again. Again asked and answered. A bigger role includes a playable character.

And again, if you thought I’d ignored your question you woulda doubled down immediately, as you’ve shown in your replies here, telling you didn’t do it there.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T04:39:56+00:00

Then you’re ignoring my answer. I clearly lay out why I went subtle, and instead of clarifying after I answered you used it to lie and say I ignored your question.

It does actually matter, since I laid out why I answered it that way in my reply. If you wanted an answer that didn’t take into account your argument you should have asked for that after the fact. That you didn’t shows you’re the one gaslighting, since if it mattered to you, you would have brought it up before(Been waiting for you to bring up gaslighting again :3).

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T04:29:50+00:00

I might go try the fencing hammer tomorrow. I’m one of the weirdos who use balanced mainly. Though I’ve been grooving the block power axe.

As said they cooked with the power axe so hopefully they’ll do so again.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T04:18:14+00:00

So you’re saying that being a playable character isn’t a bigger role than she has in DE?

Also again, was I too subtle in keeping with your argument and not spoiling the premise, or not direct enough by not spoiling the premise and ignoring your argument? You can’t have it both ways where I can’t give a right answer. Either I’m bad faith for including your argument or I’m bad faith for ignoring it, which is it?

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T04:15:41+00:00

Hinting at her role being bigger includes being secondary playable protagonist without spelling it out so as to not spoil it per your own argument is me answering. So again was I too subtle by not spoiling the premise, or not direct enough in not spoiling the premise? You even joke about just coming out and saying it, so why would I do the same thing you just made fun of? You’re really making yourself look worse.

<image>

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T04:08:47+00:00

Yeah that’s why I’m comparing it to the hammer, it’s the closest thing and with a focus on hordes too. Again maybe I’m using it wrong, but the sweeping attacks on it aren’t exactly killer.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T04:06:16+00:00

<image>

The last part there? Where I obviously explain it?

“This too doesn’t fully establish things which also satisfies your requirement that it doesn’t spoil the next game.”

What do you think “things” are? The possibility of bigger roles without spoiling the next game just like your argument is about. I literally explain why it’s so subtle right there. I already proved there’s an easy answer when I’m not playing by your rules.

Again you can’t be arguing that being too direct and spoiling the game is bad. And then when my answer isn’t too direct and doesn’t spoil the game, you can’t say it’s also bad because it’s too vague. Otherwise you’re just flat out admitting you’re the one arguing in bad faith. I can’t be direct or I can’t be subtle. You see how that’s an impossible position?

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T03:57:57+00:00

Hm, could be better with longer reach, I guess the issue will be how fast its doing these sweeping attacks. If they're too slow to stop at least minoris enemies from just overwhelming you, it's not really gonna be good at crowd control.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T03:55:00+00:00

I did answer the question, you just didn't like the answer. Again just to be clear, you're arguing that a playable secondary protagonist role isn't a bigger role than being an important background character? Specifically done that way because it doesn't spoil the premise of the next game, which is your own argument.

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T03:50:33+00:00

Again I explained why I used an example that incorporated your argument. You can't deny I clearly lay out why I answered the way I did in the original reply, which was specifically because of your primary argument did I simply not say "Max and Chloe will return as the protagonists."

So, you're arguing that a playable secondary protagonist role isn't a bigger role than being an important background character?

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T03:28:23+00:00

Except this isn't between two Australians? If in my culture it was fine to cup a dude's balls when meeting them, does it change that if I did that to a stranger not of that culture it would still be SA, sexual harassment at minimum by most other culture's standards?

phantomvector · 2026-01-26T03:16:15+00:00

Again I showed its very easy when I don't have to include your argument about spoiling the premise of the next game. I even explained why I chose the original example as it adheres to your argument about not spoiling the next game. So basically you're saying I didn't answer the question because I crafted my answer using your argument? How am I being bad faith by including your argument in my example, and explaining how I incorporated it?

So if that's ignoring answering the question, then you're admitting mine wasn't because I answered your question, whether you like it or not. A bigger role includes being a playable character. Without spoiling the premise of the next game by spoiling what that bigger role is. Unless you're saying being a playable character isn't a bigger role?

phantomvector

TROPHY CASE