“It’s” is an exception to the possessive apostrophe S rule and instead always refers to the contraction “it is” or “it has”. So the possessive form of “it” is always just “its” without an apostrophe.

Native speakers often don’t actively pay attention to grammar rules to the extent that non-native speakers do because native speakers often mostly rely on what intuitively makes sense to them. Non-native speakers, on the other hand, usually first learn the language through a set of rules and exceptions then afterwards develop an intuition for the target language.

For a non-native speaker, some mistakes can be hard to make because you’ve been studying for years to not make it. For a native speaker those mistakes may be easy to make because they got a gut feeling of what was right then didn’t pay attention, care, or remember when it was corrected assuming it was corrected at all.

Hopefully this helps a bit. This is largely what I learned from studying German from a professor with a PhD in linguistics who loved to go on little linguistics rants and tangents. But it also comes from what I’ve observed in my efforts trying to learn German and Japanese. Hope I’m able to get my skill in either language to where you’re currently at in English.

While this could technically work to keep games playable, for a lot of games where the point was to play it online (not games that were forced to be online for arbitrary reasons like Sim City) then it doesn’t make much sense to do. If I had an offline version of Overwatch 1 then yeah I could still look at the characters, skins, and do practice, but that’s not really the point of the game. Games like OW1 are part of the reason people are calling for being able to set up their own community servers so the game could still be playable by dedicated fans without requiring the developers to support it forever.

On that note, perhaps it would make more sense to look at when a console “dies off” than when it first released? In that sense, the PS4 is still a pretty recent console arguably still modern.

To me, it’s less about the time since the console and more about what the average game on the console looked like. While I personally range from “don’t mind” to “quite enjoy” older graphics including pixel art and low poly 3D, the average N64 honestly looked pretty awful in comparison to modern 3D graphics. In Super Mario 64, Bob Omb Battlefield was 2,352 polygons total, compared to an average of 60,000 per level in Super Mario Sunshine. Not to mention all of the additional effects that the GC was able to pull off on top of just raw polygon counts.

The PS1 to PS2 transition had a similar leap in graphical fidelity, though the last major PS1 titles certainly looked a lot closer to what the early PS2 titles did at the time. While I think Final Fantasy 9 looks amazing and it sometimes surprises me that it’s a PS1 title, I think Final Fantasy 7 looked closer (than at least 9 does) to what the average PS1 title looked like graphic wise and the difference in quality between it and Final Fantasy 10 is an incredible leap.

I guess you could also make the argument that retro games are the ones that were primarily designed for being played on a CRT in which the sixth generation of consoles (GameCube, PS2, original Xbox) all would fall under compared to the next generation that at least with the PS3 and Xbox 360 both largely tried to push a new “HD era”. But personally I still see the leap between 5th and 6th generation to be probably the biggest leap in graphical fidelity we’ve ever had and to me that makes it the end cap for the retro console.

Though I do know a bit of that is because of the jump to 3D did kinda take us back a few steps in graphics…

Lol I think you meant $15/hr not $15/yr

Where I’m at, the price for the boxes are minimum $8 or $9, most of the combos are $11-$15 before tax, and they change their menu so often that I can’t be bothered going there. 3 years ago the prices were a lot closer to what you’re seeing.

I used to go there pretty often, but with the prices going up particularly in the last few years and with the additional inconvenience of having to learn what their new gimmick of the week item is and what box or combo items they’ve removed to make space for it, I just can’t be bothered. Also because eventually I realized that there’s a local Mexican restaurant that sells bigger, better burritos for cheaper in a gas station closer to my work than Taco Bell is. Only downside is them not having a drive through.

But 6002 isn’t more than half of 14000. The original line implies he wants something around 14000-16000 ish, but the meme changes that to mean he wants almost exactly 12002.

Discussion about it on the subreddit was insufferable back in the day. All the fanboys would show up in every thread complaining about the problem saying stupid shit like “well Psyonix has the data to judge if it’s working or not and since you don’t that makes your argument invalid”

Even in casual mode, you have a (hidden) rank which does go down the more you lose. If you keep getting demolished in the game then I’d recommend doing the training, playing against bots, and/or continuing to play in casual mode until your rank starts placing you with other players you can better contend with.

There’s also a distinct possibility you were against someone smurfing as some people like to do that either for content or just for kicks and giggles. The very lowest ranks are probably where the most egregious smurfs like to keep their ranks, so unfortunately you can have some of the widest swings in actual skill levels.

Unfortunately the devs don’t really seem to care much about the smurfing problem in the game because it’s been pretty rampant for a very long time and some of the changes they’ve made have actually made it even easier to get away with.

Why’s that?

I’m not saying I know this person is an asshole because they drive a large, obnoxious vehicle every day. I’m saying I see people who drive large, obnoxious vehicles on a daily basis and as such it wouldn’t surprise me if this person also drove this large, obnoxious vehicle on a daily basis because I’ve seen others do it. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that this person does use this as more than a “toy” just as much as it’s possible that this is the only time it was ever on-road.

If this person drives this vehicle regularly in relatively urban areas (or really much anywhere except mostly on empty roads or off road) then I’d be disappointed and frustrated that their toy is something that has been modified in a way that makes it larger and more dangerous to both other drivers and pedestrians. That’s not to say I think they’re doing that specifically to be more dangerous to everyone else, but the net effect is still the same. Their modifications have made it harder to see others close to the car, made it easier for others to go under the vehicle in the event of an accident, and made it more likely to tumble in a crash.

That all being said, my experience with the type of people who install modifications like this to their vehicles would suggest they’re an asshole who’s either apathetic to the danger they cause others or like these modifications specifically because it pisses people off. Just as you said I don’t know from this single photo whether this person fits that mold and I’m not going to pretend I do, but I’m also not going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

You may feel comfortable introducing the possibility and almost insisting that their vehicle is a toy, but personally I’m against calling almost any car or truck a “toy”, much less one that has wheels that look taller than many people.

To a sensible person it wouldn’t be a daily driver. I’ve seen some people who are not sensible on my daily commute.

Well only started using a browser profile, specifically in Chrome, within the last year. I still don’t use it for personal use, though. Or chrome for that matter.

I’m the same boat except I was forced to use it because of work some time in the last 2 ish years.

As far as my personal opinion on whether games such as any of the Soulsbourne titles should be made easier, I’m appreciative of the fact that they don’t have difficulty sliders in much any regard. If I beat Dark Souls 3, there isn’t a question about if I beat it on the easiest mode, anyone who’s gone through the entire experience knows what I also went through. While I agree that most of the FromSoft games are sorely lacking in accessibility options (even more so their older titles), Difficulty is only one of many accessibility options. I would rather they add other accessibility options so that players who struggle with the games as is can have an easier time getting the intended experience than reduce the intended experience down to allow for the lowest common denominator.

As an aside, many of the Soulsbourne games already have something in the way of “easier modes” via alternate weapons, different combat systems, and different play styles. Playing almost any of them primarily using ranged combat reduces the difficulty in most every encounter in the game outside of boss battles. Boss battles often have their own gimmick that you can exploit to make them easier to fight. Often the level design, nearby items (and descriptions), or enemy positions are used as clues to make finding these exploits easier.

As an example, the Taurus Demon in DS1 can be killed fairly easily by baiting him to where the skeleton archers are above the fight, then using a plunging attack on him several times in a row. The intended experience is that you would go into the arena, you may run directly towards the other side, spawn the Taurus demon once you run about halfway through the arena, and notice you’re being shot at from behind. You’ll likely die, but in the next fight against him you can try to take out the archers via your own ranged weapons, but doing so shows a cleverly hidden ladder that leads up to the archers. The ladder isn’t visible when entering the arena but the moment you turn around to look at the archers you can clearly see it next to the doorway you entered from. You can go up the ladder and easily dispatch the archers. I don’t remember if every following fight you have to run halfway through the arena to spawn him again or if you have to run halfway through only the first time, but regardless an observant player will notice after taking down the archers that the drop back down the ladder will look very similar to the plunging attack the game teaches you in the tutorial boss fight. If you make the connection and perform that attack on the Taurus Demon it’ll take out about 30% of his health depending on your class and weapon. Scramble around his legs (now that you’re on the same floor as him) back towards the ladder, climb up, and repeat a few more times for an easy victory. Alternatively you can wait up where the archers were for a few seconds and the Taurus Demon will jump up and fight you there. You now have an alternate wider arena better suited to strafing around him instead of the narrow bridge he spawns in on.

Other games would do things like give a prompt to lower the difficulty, reduce the health of enemies in the background after repeated failures, or give you optional power ups after X defeats. All of these reinforce the mentality that “what you’re doing is right, but you’re lacking the skill to do it” when often in Soulsbourne games that’s a harmful mentality to have as it’ll lead you to keep repeating a tactic or playstyle that’s demonstrably not working. In my opinion, that’s the core of what fans of harder games like myself want to keep experiencing and why so many are against “easier modes” because it subverts the intended experience we enjoy: recognizing what’s going wrong, correcting it to make things go right, and overcoming great challenges.

You’re presenting the two options as similar when I’m not entirely sure they are. You’ve explored making an easy game harder and a hard game easier, but let’s look at the other two results from your presented options: making an easy game easier and a hard game harder.

Making a hard game harder is often met with praise because the people who beat or otherwise enjoy the hard game already want and expect a challenge out of the game, so giving them more of that is almost what they expect already.

Making an easy game easier can be met with praise as much as it can be subject to criticism. The Pokemon series has long been critiqued for continually making every next installment easier and easier for the last several generations.

Obviously in your example of making a hard game easier there are people in favor of it but also people against it. The fact that we’re having a discussion about this controversy is proof enough that many people want it, but dedicated fans are often against it.

And just like in your example, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone against allowing an easy game to have harder modes as long as it doesn’t negatively impact those playing the easier modes.

The trend I’m seeing amongst these 4 outcomes is usually that allowing the option for a harder mode than the game already allows is often agreed upon by the wider gaming community, but asking for easier modes is often controversial. The trend I’m also seeing is that this remains true regardless of if the game was considered easy or hard in the first place.

Your original post seems to imply that players and fans for hard games are being obstinate and resistant to allowing the same concessions that players and fans for easy games do, when you could use the other two results I brought up to make players for easy games seem just as obstinate. “Us players of hard games are allowing for harder games to be made, why do you fans of easy games seem to be having such a controversy over if easy games should be made easier?” or something to that effect.

In my opinion, the controversy isn’t whether hard games should be made easier, it’s whether games that fans enjoy should be made easier.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. Was a little factoid I had heard a long time ago and never questioned. Good to know that it wasn’t actually true.

The Chicago area has more people of Polish descent than Poland.

Iirc there’s ways in steam to do the same thing, though I believe it’s a bit more involved of a process.

I used to play a ton of this game Magicite before the developer destroyed the game with its final update which came out conveniently around the release of their next game. Which they did again for that next title, and again for the one after that.

And by destroy I mean now you have a chance to soft lock in every level, picking up specific auto loot items can cause shops to permanently close up, crafting certain items cause glitchy behavior, co-op went from “minimum one person must survive each level” to “the first death causes everyone to instantly fail”, and the game crashes on the final boss fight before counting it as completed.

Every recommendation I’ve seen for this game also comes with an explanation on how to revert to the second latest version of the game.