Greatoneshere

There's a scene in Justice League where The Flash grabs Wonder Woman and runs super fast but ends up falling on top of her as he saves her. He then awkwardly super fast gets off of her and has a super awkward look on his face as Wonder Woman barely realizes everything that just happened. Groped seems aggressive here, I thought it was a funny little bit of physical comedy but yeah.

It's just weird to me that people would even think to note it at all. First time I saw Abby, I was like: "muscular woman" in the same way I'd note a muscular man, and moved on, never to be thought of again. Why would there be any focus on that? I didn't see people questioning Schwarzenegger's physique in every movie, even when it didn't necessarily make sense.

I said in the other thread people have a problem with Abby's muscular design even though it's perfectly fine (and even explained in game). Sad.

Yeah, and I believe his long-time girlfriend said he was very psychologically abusive as well. But I thought on set he was a chill dude.

The utility isn't in telling someone they're doing something wrong, it's knowing what is better, wanting better for them, and suggesting as much. My original post was simply positing wonder at the choice a person would make financially to choose an XSX over a PC at this point in time if one were a "serious" gamer beyond legitimate reasons like money or family sharing. That was really the extent of it. It wasn't about telling anyone the way they are doing something is wrong, it was about when being presented with two choices, why wouldn't one do the PC, which has all the XSX stuff, rather than XSX, which is good but doesn't have all the PC stuff (by a wide margin). My original post had nothing to do with pointing fingers at anybody, merely wondering aloud and making a point about the distinction when faced with such a choice at purchase. Again, the original post was about simple, basic hardware selection, when presented with a choice between two options when one is clearly better and you take what you do seriously with regard to it. It doesn't mean you're "wrong" or "less than" if you choose an XSX over a PC, just that that choice confounds me is all. It wasn't a debate about the distinctions that arbitrarily make one a "serious" gamer or not as some label. Again, I will not be commenting on this further. If people want to discuss further (always happy to, I enjoy discourse), please PM me instead at this point.

I think he meant it doesn't matter in terms of enjoying the thing, which I was agreeing with. That it doesn't matter in terms of enjoyment. The distinction is merely for, as I outlined previously, the person who refuses to get better out of stubbornness, etc. rather than for any real, good reason but continues to call themselves serious about that thing. That rings false to me, and that's what lead to my original "serious" gamer comment. The distinction matters in the context of my original post, not in the context of enjoyment. I'm not going to be addressing this anymore because I feel I am repeating myself at this point. Continue on about the XSX everyone, please.

This is just about basic hardware selection, not the finer detail but that's neither here not there. Additionally, your example doesn't work because, again, no, that doesn't mean he's less serious. But if that person intentionally opted to not get the better setup if they could? I'd question that, yes. You can disagree with me, that's fair, but I do think you can assess someone's seriousness with something to one degree or another with enough evidence/details. You may think that's stupid, but I've seen the same human failings too consistently for it not to be measurable. And I never said it mattered, just that it's the case.

Yeah agreed - and I'd read the same as well. Snyder Cut will be interesting if nothing else.

I think that's pretty believable to me. At that point I think Johns, et. al. just wanted the thing done and over with.

That just sounds stubborn. This is my point, all my posts went over your head. This has nothing to do with money or lording something over someone. If I bought an $89 bike from Walmart and cycled, I certainly wouldn't call myself a serious cyclist would I? I can enjoy myself thoroughly, but would I call myself a serious cyclist? No, I wouldn't. Ergo, my point still stands. Invest or don't invest as much as you want into something, but I'm not gonna think you're a serious cyclist if you choose to keep cycling with a terrible bike for no reason other than . . . to use worse equipment and materials for no reason? No one is saying you can't derive enjoyment from it (of course you can), I'm saying that if I were to be serious about cycling, I probably would look into and research bikes and try to get one of the best, yes. It doesn't have to be the most expensive, just what cyclists consider top tier for cyclists, if I'm gonna take myself serious as a cyclist. So no, the person themselves does not get to decide how "serious" they are, their actions and decisions do. There are objective factors to any industry or hobby and you can enjoy any hobby to any degree you want, no one can take that away from you, but whether you take something seriously or not is determined by more than your enjoyment of the thing. How much you know, how you practice it, etc. This is partly why humanity sucks so much, everyone is so entitled to their lazy practice of things with no push to be better or try harder to do more. My posts are about people who could buy a serious bike, but don't, but then call them a serious cyclist. You see the hypocrisy there? It's not a measurement, it's a value judgment based on the factors. For gaming, presumably, if you care about gaming, you'd do it the best way(s) you could, no? It's as simple as that. If someone intentionally chooses to do their hobby in a worse way, like, let's say, watch movies on VHS instead of Bluray, then that's their prerogative, but it doesn't make it any less stupid. My point about being "serious" doesn't lock out poor people or whatever. I considered myself a "serious" gamer for years before I went full powerhouse PC 3-4 years ago. But the only reason I never went PC sooner was because I simply couldn't afford it, so your $89 bike analogy doesn't work here. This is only about people that can afford the expensive bikes, call themselves serious cyclists, then cycle with an $89 bike. That makes no sense. Have fun, go cycle, enjoy yourself, but you are not a serious cyclist. Someone who loves cycling and gets the best they can for their means, like an $89 bike, is a serious cyclist, the only reason for their limitation is external factors that aren't their fault. They would get the better tech if they could (like me when I wanted a PC but couldn't get one), they simply are unable to do so because of external factors. Such a person does not apply to any of my previous posts. Casual is fine, social is fine. What do you think the inverse of a "serious" gamer is? A casual gamer. So if you're saying you are a casual gamer, then all my posts in this thread don't apply to you, since my initial post was about "serious" gamers. That's my point, there's nothing wrong with being a casual or social gamer, I know many. I was referring to people who are really into this shit, in a "serious" way.

Laziness is perfectly valid, I never said it wasn't just to be clear. I simply meant that laziness is anathema to me in regards to anything, and I don't believe any "serious" gamer would be lazy about something like this per se if they couldn't be I would hope. That's what I meant by serious, someone who wouldn't be "lazy" (or whatever word one wants to use) about something they say they take seriously. I think that makes sense? I was simply calling a spade a spade. It IS lazy, but I don't care if someone chooses to be lazy. But it is lazy. Lazy means averse or disinclined to work or an activity, so yes, it's lazy to me if someone says they are seriously into gaming, could maximize the hobby, but choose not to because "it's too much work (fussing with the PC)" or whatever typical weak excuse(s) people use to not do something that would be better for them but in the short term may require or ask more of them, despite the benefits and making their life easier down the road. To me, that is lazy, to avoid it because "it ain't broke". I guess maximization isn't on peoples' minds, and that to me strikes me as lame. I should also be clear I never meant to derail the thread.

No, it makes sense, I take your point (see my separate post right above this one). The only distinction I want to make is I believe I am using their values. I would think most gamers would care about the things I outlined. If they truly don't, well, that's extremely bizarre to me, but okay. PC's really aren't that much work and all the gains with none of the losses, I just . . . that's very hard to compute. I do believe in the straightforwardness of consoles, I just believe PC's are nearly as straightforward once you know how to use it at even a medium level of competency and all the other gains you'll make in putting the work to do so easily trumps any straightforwardness gained by using a console by comparison, especially when you become good at using a PC for games. I'm saying the work and time investment is worth the trade off, and anyone who doesn't do so does, indeed, appear lazy to me because, why not do it? Perhaps I'm missing the gap in straightforwardness? PC's have always seemed pretty easy to use to me, even since I was a kid.

I know a lot of gamers in real life who don't use PC's "just cause". They just don't bother because they don't feel like putting in the time/work, when I know that if they bothered they'd ultimately adopt and prefer it over their current set-ups/ways to play, and they have the means to do so but just . . . don't. I know a lot of gamers like that, and that was my original point. As outlined, that just appears lazy to me, no? It can simply be some real entrenched, lazy thinking is all. "If it ain't broke" type mentality. Something logistical like can't run the wires to the TV or something, or you have a family, then yeah, those make sense to not do PC. But every gamer I know, like me, is single or married without kids, and could easily make it work. That's the group I was originally commenting on.

I totally understand that - I'm not saying people can't enjoy things at different levels. My question originally was: if you could do PC gaming, and didn't have a good reason not to (like a lack of money, sharing with the family, etc.), why wouldn't you? That was basically it. Your explanation of people having different preferences I think has become moot since PC can suit all preferences (can play with any kind of controller, can hook it up to your TV, choice of mouse and keyboard, largest library of games by far, etc. etc.) and the reasoning that a person would avoid or skip all of that because of something meager like "fussing with the PC" I think the trade off can't possibly be worth it. I object all the time though. I think calling out peoples' strange reasoning and desiring explanations for what don't make sense so things can be reconciled to make sense isn't strange to me. My sister-in-law (my wife's younger sister) took 8 years to finish a basic college with a shitty bachelor's of psychology degree, she's 26, broke, no job (not because of Covid), dating an ex-con who went back to jail after only dating him less than two months (they've now been together for another 1.5 years since he went to jail) and wants to get pregnant and have his baby as soon as he gets out in another 2 years despite her having very little prospects and him having absolutely none. This is after lying to her in those first two months, hiding his alcoholism from her (which is what ultimately got him sent back to prison since he was drunk when he was committing the crime), bringing cops to my mother-in-law's door by surprise, etc. etc. Now, I could go: "these are her preferences, she wants to live this kind of life, I could question these preferences, suggesting it makes more sense to stabilize your life and at least be financially secure before having a baby, beyond every other fucked up thing I just listed about her situation". Like, logic objects. I object. What makes sense objects. People can do what they want, but in any order of priorities when it comes to gaming, if you could do PC gaming and without good reason just frivolously choose not to, those might be your preferences but they make no sense from any priority I'd care about as a gamer who has been playing games for 30 years now. It has nothing to do with PC master race or saying XSX or PS5 are moot or anything like that. My original point was simply being mystified by what I just laid out. I really am arguing in good faith here.

I'm not the one who called out my original post. I felt I had to elaborate once my post was mischaracterized, and that's how we got here. I didn't ask nor want to get into a lengthy debate when I made my original post. If people understand my point, then great, it certainly doesn't seem that way from the thread but it's not like I'm that invested here.

Again, do as you like! But to me, that just sounds like brainwashing or locked into old fashioned thinking. Obviously, do what you prefer, but I push myself outside my comfort zones to adapt to the best. That makes more sense to me, even if I was originally more comfortable with something else.

I can't possibly see how it's worth the tradeoff, having been on both sides of the equation. And I think it's funny people think I care about "PC master race". I don't. This is just logical. More games, played better, more options, better graphics, etc. etc. I mean, fussing with a PC isn't worth all that? Crazy. You can have the best of all worlds and people are willfully choosing not to in some instances. That is nuts to me. But people will keep making my arguments about pushing some master race narrative or that I'm against people who have a good reason not to get the best because it's easier to argue against those points, one's I'm not making.

Again, that's a good reason. Makes sense. It's a logistical concern, otherwise you would do it. That's been my entire point from the start. I don't think sleep mode on a PC is that different than sleep/rest mode with my PS4, and even if it was, my point still stands regardless. Again, the benefits are numerous and these things sound nitpicky by comparison.

Difference in ease and speed are negligible and you can leave PC's on (just turn off the monitor, etc.) just fine, so for me, yes, it's hard to understand and appears lazy.

You can connect that same nice gaming PC tower to that nice TV and bypass the Xbox entirely and play it from your couch, and then you'll even get the choice of controller or mouse and keyboard depending on the game and all the benefits a PC otherwise gives over consoles. You can always get a second tower if you also want to game on a PC monitor for some reason.

Hmmm - I just use the GeForce Experience program and then just max out all the settings in game and 9/10 times I'm set and good to go and I just play. I don't bother with benchmark tests or anything and I've been fine just downloading games and jumping in on my PC. I'm honestly surprised it dwarfs your time with consoles because for me they are literally the same, no joke. PC boots up fast, Steam or Epic or whatever is ready to go, launch game, turn on controller, good to go. I dunno. I'm not saying you don't get the odd bug as you outlined, but consoles these days function as closed OS computers to a degree and so it's not like they don't require some upkeep themselves, just less, which to me is not worth the trade off elsewhere when you switch to PC from consoles. I don't see how it could for anyone. Like I said, with cross-play needing a PS4 or Xbox is unnecessary, and you can just as easily hook up an Xbox controller or PS4 controller to a PC. If it's for family, as I said, that's a good reason, and doesn't fall under the logic I've outlined. I'm very surprised you've had so much trouble that it would dissuade you from PC gaming, I've never had such issues. I'm saying I'm surprised any serious gamer would mind the upkeep, especially given at least in my experience, it's minimal arguably given the loss of other things (60fps, 4K whatever) when switching to consoles.

Yes, to me they are lazy if they could get a PC and didn't. Without a good reason it just doesn't make sense not to do. My posts are pretty clear. Good reasons not too: will never be able to save up enough. Play with multiple family members on multiple TV's in the house. Something like that. Outside of such reasons, why not do it?

I don't run into any of these problems with either my PC or my Android. Not once. Simple, easy upkeep, no different than what I'd do with maintaining my car or other electronics. I think you have a very outmodded idea of the PC experience. It's very easy and simple and an excellent experience. I wouldn't be saying that I can never go back after switching to a powerful PC a few years ago unless I truly thought so. I'm good with computers but not out of the ordinary for a serious gamer. Anything I know anyone else could easily learn and it's worth it once you do. You may not want the PC experience, but it's still objectively better in gaming terms regardless of what people want out of their personal experiences.

But I don't really spend more time fussing with my PC (after initial setup) than I do with my PS4. I still go through all the options the game provides in game in both instances and I'm rarely spending any real notable amount of time more tinkering on PC than I do playing on console. And "PC requires more time" is a lame excuse to miss out on all the things PC does better. That's my point - if you're a gamer, without a good reason, why do that trade off? It doesn't make sense. I think there is a correct weighing of multiple objective functions because like with anything different things should/do take priority over others. Presumably a "serious gamer" cares more about games variety and selection than initial hardware costs. Presumably a serious gamer cares more about the best graphical and aural experience as can be had in the game, which means a need for the most powerful hardware. Presumably a serious gamer cares more about future proofing their hardware than buying a new console system every few years. I mean, I'd question the priority of a serious gamer who doesn't care about these things. You don't have to care about these things, but they do matter regardless. As I just said . . . I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. If someone is so lazy they prefer the ability for something "to plug in and work" instead of just using a PC which has numerous benefits aside from the fact it can't just "plug in and play" (which, after initial setup, is exactly what a PC does) then they should go do that. Doesn't make the logic I'm pointing out any less true. But nor am I dictating to anyone what they should do. Don't PC game if you don't want to, but without good reason, I believe that decision/choice has logical implications.