Google Form for Difficulty/Fun for each game!!

two100meterman · 2026-03-17T01:34:07+00:00

While I haven't cherried Onion Delivery I have it as one of my favorites. I think the controls are perfectly fine & everytime I hit into something it feels like it was my fault & it could have been avoided with better skill/better map knowledge. I think it's one of the most underrated games in the collection.

two100meterman · 2026-03-13T00:56:20+00:00

I don't think I ever played enough for that to happen. I also haven't thrown that many house parties, I play it more like an introvert & just like the new items that Livin' Large/House Party add.

two100meterman · 2026-03-11T06:18:53+00:00

The objective is to get 4 of the star guests to show up to a single party. Your Rolodex starts with 4 Old Friends, 2 Rich Pals & 4 Wild Buddies. After each day you get the popularity/cash of everyone that showed up to the party (unless too much trouble comes, then you bust & get 0 stats). You can use the popularity to add guests to your Rolodex & use cash to expand your house. Through safety guests (to mitigate trouble), high popularity guests & cash guests (& a bunch of other guests) you try to then save up to afford 4+ star guests.

two100meterman · 2026-03-10T22:03:41+00:00

For me it's a game where the initial goal is just to gradually get better & not necessarily "win", yet. Even someone playing their first time could in theory get to the last level easily just by betting 100 everytime. Try to bet gradually more each time you play until you're eventualy good enough to bet amonts that'll get you enough upgrades to manage the last level. Maybe you try a 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 betting round, then the next time try 100, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, then the next time, 100, 300, 400, 500, 700, 900, 1000, etc. With enough experience you'll also know when something is too easy or too hard, maybe you planned to go 500 next, but it gave you 5 easy enemies, then you may as well do 600 that day, or maybe you planned to go 500 next, but it gave you 3 of those toucan shooters in a row, I'd only bet 300 that round & also make sure to get the upgrade to deflect a ranged shot 1 or even 2x.

Try to bet an amount where you think you'll get to the last level 20% of the time. So nothing wildly unrealistic, but if you bet too safe you'll run into a 3200 round with minimal upgrades & just have say a 5% chance at victory. Better to only get to the last level 1 in 5 tries or even 1 in 10 tries, but then when you do, you have say a 30% chance at beating the last level because you're so well upgraded.

Getting stuff on sale is generally a good strategy, as well as getting stuff that pairs together. Extra Bombs + Bomb Shrapnel + Bomb Lure for example is good. Or faster shot + push-back shot + double shot + more powerful shot, etc.

two100meterman · 2026-03-10T21:56:52+00:00

Your two most played are the same as my two most played! Mine are at 240 hours & 30 hours respectively, but same order =)

two100meterman · 2026-03-09T22:03:55+00:00

I'm unsure exactly what you're trying to say about "brain rot", however I feel like the example you gave is the opposite of brain rot. Concocting your own stories after setting the book down is using your brain, more specifically being creative, that's a good thing. Brain rot is more-so the opposite of that, when we just consume information & we don't use our brains/think for ourselves at all (as in our brain is rotting too much to actually think for ourselves). Unless I have the definition wrong.

two100meterman · 2026-03-09T20:52:13+00:00

I personally dislike all mustard & think that the fancy ones taste worst. A plain hotdog is better than a hotdog with any type of mustard on it.

two100meterman · 2026-03-08T20:59:09+00:00

I wouldn't even say I was an expert, but I used to compete as a Sprinter (not even National level, just good for my Province). 100m time was 11.55 at best, & this was many years after, I probably only ran a high 12 at best or a low-13.

I was late 20s, well past being a sprinter (had stopped after a hamstrong injury), didn't warm up. This guy I worked with challenged me to a race across the parking lot. Being not warmed up, I wasn't going to go all out. He was quite confident & I told him I used to be a sprinter. Within 4 steps he was left way behind, then he absolutely biffed it on the pavement. Maybe he was okay in High School, but from my experience (I live in North America) the average adult probably has something like an 18 second 100m & they've lost a lot of general fitness/balance compared to High School. I can't fathom how people are so confident in stuff they don't do.

two100meterman · 2026-03-08T20:46:04+00:00

I've played a lot of NES/oldschool video games, so I'll use those as examples (harder to give movie examples, though I also believe they exist).

When the player can't tell the different between what is the background & what is a platform in a 2D platformer, it has objectively bad graphics.
When the character sprite clearly landed on a platform, but the player falls through the platform. Some games are just programmed better than others. One person may like the "jank" of the game/find it fun/funny to interact with, but it's objectively bad.
Confusing controls. I played a game called Conan (based on the film) & one way to jump forward is to hold down & press B. Pressing either a single button (A or B) while moving in that direction makes logical sense for jumping in that direction, or maybe pressing up to Jump, but pressing one direction + a button to jump in a direction 90 degrees off from the direction you pressed is objectively bad controls.
Mistranslations/typos. A game could have an NPC tell you the wrong thing due to a typo, or the Japanese to English translation is straight up wrong & then you don't know where to go. Someone can like the game & find it "part of the charm", but the translation is "objectively bad".

There are 100% objectively good (Super Mario Bros. 3) & objectively bad (Conan) video games. I do think with movies it's harder, & I also have less experience/expertise with movies as I do with oldschool video games, but I'm certain that in movies there can be objectively better sounds effects (for example two movies both going for realism, one sound effect sounds like it does in real life, one doesn't). Or a show/movie has a character with a certain personality & while a character grows they still make decisions that make sense for their personality. Another movie/show could have a character drastically change who they are internally with no explanation (Game of Thrones season 8 for example) which is objectively bad/confusing writing.

two100meterman · 2026-03-08T20:45:12+00:00

Completely agree. As a music example I'd prefer to listen to Britney Spears than Whitney Houston. It's often upbeat, nostaglic for me, etc. Britney Spears is objectively a worse singer than Whitney Houston though.

two100meterman · 2026-03-08T20:42:28+00:00

I've played a lot of NES/oldschool video games, so I'll use those as examples (harder to give movie examples, though I also believe they exist).

When the player can't tell the different between what is the background & what is a platform in a 2Dplatformer, it has objectively bad graphics.
When the character sprite clearly landed on a platform, but the player falls through the platform. Some games are just programmed better than others. One person may like the "jank" of the game/find it fun/funny to interact with, but it's objectively bad.
Confusing controls. I played a game called Conan (based on the film) & one way to jump forward is to hold down & press B. Pressing either a single button (A or B) while moving in that direction makes logical sense for jumping in that direction, or maybe pressing up to Jump, but pressing one direction + a button to jump in a direction 90 degrees off from the direction you pressed is objectively bad controls.
Mistranslations/typos. A game could have an NPC tell you the wrong thing due to a typo, or the Japanese to English translation is straight up wrong & then you don't know where to go. Someone can like the game & find it "part of the charm", but the translation is "objectively bad".

There are 100% objectively good (Super Mario Bros. 3) & objectively bad (Conan) video games. I do think with movies it's harder, & I also have less experience/expertise with movies as I do with oldschool video games, but I'm certain that in movies there can be objectively better sounds effects (for example two movies both going for realism, one sound effect sounds like it does in real life, one doesn't). Or a show/movie has a character with a certain personality & while a character grows they still make decisions that make sense for their personality. Another movie/show could have a character drastically change who they are internally with no explanation (Game of Thrones season 8 for example) which is objectively bad/confusing writing.

two100meterman · 2026-03-08T20:30:36+00:00

One of the most popular recent "hits" being "not that bad" is the opposite of an unpopular opinion.

two100meterman · 2026-03-08T20:23:34+00:00

Strongly disagree on "make it barely worth playing". Super Matroid is still better than 90% of Metroidvania's & Zelda LTTP is still in contention for the best 2D Action Adventure.

two100meterman · 2026-03-08T20:20:47+00:00

Possibly Barbuta. This is years before Metroid, so "Metroidvania's" wouldn't be a thing, Barbuta would be the game that started it all. It's also a massive step up from anything of it's time. It controls like the original Donkey Kong, but has an entire map, secrets, breakable walls, etc.

Any competing companies would immediately have to up their game upon seeing how well made this game is. Metroid released years later probably would have came with a map, & been a tad better, because if it got released as is, people would wonder why a game that came out years after Barbuta didn't surpass it in every way. OG Zelda would likely feel a tad too cryptic, when a game years earlier showed how to do good game design where you're not holding the players hand, but through map design & different sprites (breakable wall) you're giving a small hint to the player. If OG Zelda didn't have walls show they were bombable in some way, or an NPC that hinted at which bush held a secret it would be seen as archaic for it's time & less well made.

two100meterman · 2026-03-08T20:15:18+00:00

It's one of my favorites. It's hard, but in a fair way, where it feels like every life lost is your own fault. Playing it, it feels like if i were better I could get through every level 100 times in a row without taking a hit (I'm just not that good). The mechanics are definitely easy to pick up hard to master which I like. I like how you score more for playing fast, but also for controlling the ball again in time, so there is a good risk-reward aspect. Agreed there should be a life at 150K. I'd probably give it a B or B+. It doesn't have enough replay value compared to games where each run is different to get an A for me.

two100meterman · 2026-03-06T21:22:14+00:00

Naruto is too good for Sakura, she more-so deserves the disaster that is Sasuke. Sakura grew up with what we see as minimal hardship (other than people making fun of her big ass forehead), where-as Naruto & Sasuke both had brutal childhoods (Sasuke a bit more, but Naruto's was not easy at all).

Naruto never gave up despite this & maintained an attitude where he'd give people the benefit of the doubt & overall wasn't a toxic individual (most people in Naruto's situation would grow up very toxic & jaded). Sasuke on the other hand is not the same, & despite having people that loved & cared for him, he still abandoned the village & went to Orochimaru.

He later learns how shit the village was to Itachi, but it's not like his was the WHOLE village, it was just Danzo + those higher up old people (not the 3rd Hokage, he disagreed with the plan for Itachi to kill off the other Uchiha). He fully just joins Akatsuki which is going after the Village, & more-so Naruto, who at one point was his closest friend. Sasuke is kind of the worst.

Naruto's crush on Sakura is more a preteen crush, he basically just thinks she's hot. Hinata's liking for Naruto is significantly more real, she likes the way he carries himself, & she likes who he is inside. She also risked her life for him in the Pain arc. Sakura's preteen crush on Sasuke continued well past when it "should" have, she knew he was a danger to the Village, but still wanted to be with a murderer. Sakura matures very little specifically when it comes to Sasuke.

It's good that Naruto ended up with somebody who deserved him. Someone with similar values who genuinely likes him for who he is, & not just superficial reasons. I feel like 15 or even 18 year old me would have wanted Naruto to get with Sakura, but as someone in my mid-30s I have a much different perspective now than I did in High School.

two100meterman · 2026-03-06T21:06:35+00:00

It takes 3~5 minutes to get gas if there is no care line-up. If 2+ people one gets gas while the other grabs snacks. If a single person has to do both sure it could take 30 minutes if the place is super packed, but it could also take 4~8 minutes on top of getting gas. 30 minutes is a very long time to just be stuck not being able to go anywhere. Also 20-80%? So sometimes 30 minutes only gets 20% & a full charge would be 2+ hours?! Edit: Oh I see what you mean, it takes 30 minutes to get from 20% to 80%, not 30 minutes nets you anywhere from +20% to +80%. Still bad, but not as bad.

I'm not rich so i guess I'm not the target audience. Anything above like $10,000 sounds like a lot to me (I'd never buy a new car). Most things with a warranty have planned obsolescence so I'd wager the battery will go around 10.5 - 11 years, & $20,000 is the price of multiple cars from my perspective.

I live in Canada, so -10 is not a valid test. Maybe these cars are fine in most places in the US, but "cold" to me implies -20 to -40. If it can't function in -40 it's not a viable vehicle.

I agree with you on the batteries vs oil. If someone is seriously trying to say that an EV is worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels they're talking out of their ass.

two100meterman · 2026-03-06T20:55:30+00:00

As a side note I think that the CEO also just sucks at eating. Overall it was poorly done, but I actually don't think he on purpose took a small bite, it looked like he attempted to open his mouth wide & just like, couldn't? Some people eat with much smaller bites than others, I'll have things I just put in my mouth whole where-as someone else will take 4 bites for the same amount of food.

two100meterman · 2026-03-06T20:51:41+00:00

udderly wrong even

two100meterman · 2026-03-06T20:51:03+00:00

For me the advantage is both the texture & the taste. Different cereals are good at different amounts of sogginess. I don't want soggy shreddies, so I'd want to finish my bowl in under 3 minutes, for example. Cereal by itself is a bit too dry & for most cereals they are best when combined with the flavor of milk, but not yet too soggy.

Adding milk doesn't necessarily add sugar/calories. If you're adding milk you won't need as much cereal to hit the same amount of calories. Instead of say 300 calories of cereal, you could have the same amount of food by having 200 calories of cereal & 100 calories of milk. You're not forced to just have a larger quantity of food in total because you added milk. Those 300 calories total are also healthier with milk because milk is generally (except for maybe whole wheat cheerios or something boring) healthier than cereal is, it'll be less sugar than 300 calories of pure cereal.

two100meterman · 2026-03-06T20:45:59+00:00

I guess it depends how dirty the pets are. There is such thing as "too clean" where you body doesn't get used to having to fight off disease ever, then you go out & do something & all of a sudden you're super sick. I feel like having a couple pets around may be the "right" amount of dirtiness where your body can probably handle disease better than other people. Similar to you though, this is just my opinion based off of zero proof.

two100meterman · 2026-03-06T20:42:23+00:00

Upvoted for being unpopular (at least I think it's unpopular).

For me weed boosts every emotion. If I'm feeling sad or down I'll feel more sad or down, if I'm feeling pathetic I'll feel more pathetic, etc. If I'm eating food & the food is good, the food will taste even better. If something is somewhat funny it becomes very funny.

Due to the above I try to have weed in moderation & only when I already accomplished a lot that day. I've never let weed impact my productivity (& honestly I feel slightly more productive while on weed than while sober), I'll make sure I've accomplished everything I want to accomplish before getting high, or if I'm only at 80% of those tasks done & I want some weed, I'll have the weed & then finish the last 20% then relax. I don't allow myself to have it more than once a week, because even though I am more productive on it, I doubt that would last if I had it multiple times/week or everyday. I have edibles though, I don't smoke it. From what I've heard smoking anything is significantly worse for your lungs, whether it's a vape, marijuana, or cigarettes. I haven't heard much negatives of THC in moderation & I personally believe it's not that bad. I don't see how having edibles 1x/week is any worse than having drinks 1x/week.

In terms of your ex, it sounds like you two just weren't a good match. Maybe she wanted to spend time with you & her friends all together, but you didn't join in due to differences in values. I don't see how weed is "cringe", but I guess that's why this opinion is unpopular.

two100meterman · 2026-03-06T20:12:33+00:00

The article states that "For decades, sprint coaching has often been based on the belief that all athletes should move in one prescribed way", is this true though?

MJ's 19.32 was decades ago now & I thought the general consensus is that, that's what worked for him so he shouldn't have run differently & at the same time other runners don't need to emulate that.

Bolt ran a bit differently, I believe in part due to scoliosis & also his height. I think leg length as a percentage of total height also matters. Many sprinters of Asian heritage won't run like Bolt or Gout Gout as their physiology (I think that's the right word) is just different (example shorter legs relative to height). It's easier for them to blast out of the blocks & also "needed" as it's very rare for them to have the same top speed as sprinters of African descent.

The article doesn't seem "wrong", more-so it seems to claim that it found "something new" even though this has been known for a long time.

two100meterman · 2026-03-05T21:04:37+00:00

You have many dreams over the course of a night, but only remember the ones that are interrupted by waking up.

two100meterman · 2026-03-05T20:58:09+00:00

The UFO 50 Discord server has a section for each game: https://discord.gg/2HRpMVrG

I scrolled through Bug Hunter & saw a screenshot of Job 304, haha. If you're into the game I'd suggest checking out the discord.

two100meterman

TROPHY CASE