u/Biggy_DX

I sometimes wonder if Socialism & Democratic Socialism get conflated with the "Norway Model", even though said Scandinavian countries are still operating within a Capitalist framework (private ownership, capital, etc).

For further clarity, I'm referring to games where you may play as a specific Class of character, or Role, within an ensemble of varying classes/roles. Sometimes you might see this represented in games with distinct characters, for example:

• Granblue Fantasy: Relink Characters
• Mortal Shell 2 Harbinger Shells
• Destiny Guardian Classes
• Overwatch Heroes

Edit: My own personal pick is Battleborn. It wasnt popular by any means, but every character played differently on a fundamental level.

Conservatives have commonly stated that the media has been mostly controlled by Liberal talking points, media officials, and editorialization.

What I want to know from Conservatives is:

- At what point in American history do you believe this control was ultimately solidified?

- Do you believe there was any Conservative pushback at the time it was believed that Liberals were commanding too much of media discourse?

- When it comes to Legacy media, did it not matter that Fox News garnered more viewership for several years, even if Conservative legacy outlets weren't as ubiquitous as their Liberal peers?

- Could the distinction be made that media network officials lean socially liberal, but on fiscal matters lean conservative? For example: Do you believe CNN Money as still airing towards a Liberal slant?

- Did you like their visual aesthetics and/or level design?

- Were the Crucible rewards unique in your mind? If so, should the unlockable skills tied to these weapons persist in the next game?

- Were any of the Crucibles a bummer in your mind? Or did you just dislike them in general?

We've had the game for some months now, so I figured now would be a good time to ask.

Should I assume Kreigers are rocking Trench Knives?

"Pleasantly surprised," can refer to a number of examples. For example:

- Someone left leaning agreeing with you on something you believed those who are left-leaning (at least online) wouldn't acquiesce to.

- Someone left-leaning providing a fairly reasonable take, possibly even being fairly convincing (if it's argument-based)

- Someone left-leaning providing a reputable degree of insight on a topic not often treaded by said group.

Arjun is the titular character of Saros, and is an Enforcer for a megacorporation called Soltari. He's outfitted in protective armor with a passive degree of shielding, but also an onboard virtual intelligence capable of information reconnaissance, managing Arjuns suit capabilities, and data requisition.

We first start off with Arjun being given his starting Smart Rifle, and none of the Carcosa powers or weaponry. He does have access to the baseline parry and dash, however. Arjun cannot revive.

R1: A 5-man squad of ODST's

R2: 1 Spartan. Arjun now has access to alternative Soltari weaponry for this and subsequent rounds (ex. Shotguns, Alternative Rifles, and Handcannons)

R3: 1 Zealot Elite

R4: Four-member Spartan Squad. Arjun now has access to Carcosa weaponry for this and subsequent rounds (including all bow types and Chakram launchers)

R5: Covenant Elite squad complimented with 2 Hunters

R6: Flood horde comparable in size to those that invaded the downed Pillar of Autumn in Halo 1. Arjun now has access to Carcosa powers (including Prominence, Disruption, etc)

R7: Master Chief

If you need an example of what I'm getting at, lets take Heavy Armor smithing. As of Skyrim, the order of smithing quality goes from:

Iron -> Steel -> Dwarven -> Orcish -> Ebony -> Deadric/Dragonplate

If you want the "Best" armor in the game, there's only one way to go but up. What I'm asking is, should lower tiers of armor confer their own unique benefits such that there's still a use for said armor/materials/ore?

For example, could Iron-tier armor provide an additional enchantment slot, but the enchantment only operates at 50% strength? Could Elven armor have a higher chance for glancing blows (i.e. passive effect that causes some attacks to miss)?

I just feel that, if there isn't some sort of Transmog system, people will ultimately drift towards the armor that gives them the best stats. Now, of course, you can level up and break the game so easily with enchantments (as of now) that you could get away with wearing no armor - honestly. But if Bethesda is seeking to better balance progression as it relates to gear and crafting, then I would hate the feeling of needing to only use the higher-tier armor.

One thought I had was, if the gear crafted won't intrinsically have any unique modifiers or effects, then maybe you could unlock them in their respective trees (such as Smithing, Heavy Armor, Light Armor, One-Handed, Two-Handed).

Just looking for your thoughts.

Since there's a limited number of characters allowed in the title, I'm hoping I can inject some nuance here.

1. What is a traditional Conservative in your mind, and what key points distinguishes it from MAGA ideology?

2. If you subscribe to the idea that MAGA Republicans are not traditionally Conservative, if you were to state this to them do you believe they'd accept your premise?

Many here subscribe to the notion that MAGA, as an ideology, does not align with traditional Conservatism, and I'm wondering where this distinction fundamentally lies. With the sheer number of unique, right-leaning flairs here, there's bound to be some degree of variation in the answer of what makes someone traditionally Conservative, so best to just post that as a question as well.

I'm sure some will admit to not being traditional Conservative, but within the same Conservative orbit, but that's kind of why I'm asking the question. How far can you actually stray from traditional Conservativism before you're thought of as something wholly distinct?

Edit: made some grammar edits for clarity.

There's been a continuous downsizing of many well known studios, with worse outcomes leading to full-on studio closures. Ubisoft and it's studios have been one of most prolific examples of this. These impacts have stretched far enough that live service plans for Shadows even had to be curtailed.

Given how expensive video game development budgets have become for these studios (their words), and these mass layoffs, do you believe AC: Shadows marks the last open world RPG entry for the AC franchise?

Edit: So people understand, I'm not referring to an end of the franchise. I'm specifically referring to the Open world RPGs the various Ubisoft studios have made (Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla, and Shadows).

I originally played when the game first launch, with Vex being my first character. I did practically all the content, and was doing some early-game story stuff with Harlowe. I put the game down for some time and haven't revisited since (this is before Takedowns, C4SH, or pearls being added).

Since I have some downtime this summer, I wanted to know if I people feel it's more worthwhile to restart the campaign, or just skip all of it and just jump straight into UVH.

I was having a conversation with a colleague of mine who mentioned how, years ago, he was working for a chemical manufacturing plant. One day, they brought every worker out on the floor, and told nearly every single one of them that they were being fired (save for my colleague). Lots of tears shed, people cussing out the manager who delivered the news, and a lot of long, isolated talks with the victims behind closed doors.

​

Luckily, I've not had to experience an en masse firing, but my company has been downsizing quite a bit over the last 5 years. It's also not been bothering to replace at the same rate, or at all, either. Just wondering if you folks have been a part of such an event.

The reason I distinguish technology from Social/Cultural norms is because, from my perspective:

1. Conservatives generally stand by having a uniform culture for a society, as it aids in moral and ethical cohesion. It's an ideology Conservatives share and desire to be present in the vast majority of the countries citizens.

2. While technological progress can be considered as a national point of pride, it's considered so in a more symbolic manner, as opposed to hardline support for any one technological industry. Another way of putting it is that the sum of the countries technological progress matters more than any one tech field or industry.

Technological progress can often be fueled by private industry, sometimes in conjunction with the government. Conservatives are more likely to loathe regulation in private industries, which means regulations on technological innovation are less stagnant.

From my own standpoint, this can be a catch-22. Yes, your country has more opportunities to innovate because there's a lack of restriction withholding such advancement (among other undescribed reasons). However, this also means the knock-on effects of said technological advancement, if done too quickly, can potentially lead to adverse effects if society - and/or their respective govt - isn't ready to handle them.

Hence, the point of the question. Sorry if this was too long-winded.

I consider myself Liberal, and it's become more apparent that this particular foreign conflict is seeing a growing number of left-leaning voters seeing it as their only voting issue. This is especially true for young Americans. It's become so common, that several candidates, including Progressives ones, are written off entirely if they've been supported by any groups tied to Israel.

There was a recent post I saw with many Liberals/Progressives/Leftists being upset that Jasmine Crockett decided to endorse Colin Allred over Cori Bush. I didn't get the chance to investigate, but - presumably - the outrage is that he accepted donations from an Israel-friendly lobbyist (such as AIPAC). From the looks of it, taking any support from AIPAC has become a major purity test for these specific voters.

These are my own observations, but I thought I'd ask the topic title. In addition:

- For those who do believe the conflict matters more than what's going on here in the States, what made you come to that conclusion?

- Are there some here who think this being a single-issue item for growing number of left leaning voters is detrimental to sustaining Democratic power (or causing infighting).