u/JustSomeDude477

Bro shut the fuck up

This doesn't look any closer to real than the original teaser in my opinion. Who know how much of an actual game existed

It is far more exhausting to be around people who can't laugh at anything and think everything is corny

https://giphy.com/gifs/yyvSeRGVj4C64

Propaganda bot post with propaganda bot comment driven to the top by bot likes.

Welcome to the internet

Look the internet does suck but this some r/im14andthisisdeep shit

https://giphy.com/gifs/6yijXV1uY4l0c

The literal first sentence in the caption of this post is "Whenever a weakling character has a clse encounter with literally the most dangerous character in the story."

There is a power difference but there is absolutely no truth to calling Castle a weakling. Now if Ned or MJ somehow found themselves head to head with the Hulk, thay would fit the trope.

Frank Castle is as far away from a "coughing baby" as a character can get. Just because he is physically weaker than the hulk it does not make it fit the trope, that's not what it is

Does not fit the trope at all

I feel like D3, if it happens, shouldn't even be a traditional live service like D2. I'm not sure what the best structure would be, but probably something more focused on permanent/longer progression and content that never goes away. Maybe slightly more like an MMO-lite

You cannot be this stupid

7 years and 11 months

I appreciate the sympathy, it's really heartwarming. But I'll remind you that you're still flapping your proverbial mouth too. You're arguing with a stranger just as much as I am. At least I'm admitting I'm getting some fun out of it. You're just doing it because you can't admit you have no argument

I mean if you made baseless accusations of bias and dig your heels in without any backup, you're gonna get called out and you're gonna look dumb. If you're ok with that then sure, keep talking. I do this because I get entertainment out of it, it's fun to challenge arguments you know have no weight and then watch them fall apart.

Because you're the one who immediately shat on it to begin with? It's not like someone came at you from nothing. You didn't just give an opinion, you made an accusation of persistent bias then provided absolutely no reasoning or evidence to back it up. You could have just said nothing which you probablu should have

How about we amend our terminology to what is actually happening then. Looking is one thing. ASSUMING is another. The other idiot in this thread was ASSUMING a bias and was confused he couldn't find one. If you read an article like this and somehow think it's a puff piece for Rockstar, you do not know what a puff piece is, and you definitely do not know how Jason Schrier writes.

I mean, absolutely incredible argument. No reasoning, no evidence, not even any argument against being biased against him. Just "he's dogshit and so are you." 10/10

Hold on a second. Are you actually telling me that reading something while LOOKING for a bias is better media literacy? Like you're kidding right? That's literally as opposite to the definition as you can get. Slapping a phrase you're don't understand onto a cringe comment does not make you look smart

I read almost everything he puts out. And not just the first 5 words before making up my mind, the entire thing. Assuming you can actually read, I would try to read his articles without LOOKING for a bias and you might find that most of what he does is literally just reporting facts.

Ok so then which direction is he being partial in? Positive or negative? Isn't that the entire idea of bias? If you can't figure out which one it is, it sounds there is none added you're just desperately looking for one without success

Average redditor discovering impartial journalism

I could see that being the motivation; problem is I'm only seeing it used to do the griefing rather than prevent it

We're all just rats in Embark's maze

To me this kind of use makes a lot more sense, as a little combat ability to even the scales in a gunfight