Why are you surprised, 3 is amazing!
3 is shit on and seen as the punching bag because from an overarching story they dropped the ball hard with Desmond’s story line.
The actual game though is one of the better stories (after AC: 2) Ubisoft ever pulled off.
2, 3, IV and Origin/Odyssey are the only times I would say Ubisoft actually tried to do something unique outside of simply pumping yearly releases with marginal engine changes.
I guess reading comprehension is that bad. Here was the rest of the comment:
The justification for attacking them is that they need to be stopped before they cross the line.
I’m not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but the clear idea is that Iran doesn’t currently have nuclear weapons.
Alright fair you are old. Just not because of COD WWII lmao.
COD WWII is my favorite multiplayer ever.
Yes I’m old.
Your favorite game is the fourteenth entry in the franchise. Calm down with the “old” lmfao.
The guns exist out there and the protesters exist out there. You’d just need some mobilizing incident to spark them not to leave the guns they already own at home next time.
It seems an easier solved problem than you let on.
If you’re talking OpenEvolve you have to specific put in the tests and expected values for each function for this approach to work.
That is outrageous! It’s unfair!
I get what you’re doing but they can just change pennames
Lmao, k
If the question is things “only” old people say, you have to exclude phrases old people say that were repopularized through media.
“Heavy” (meaning important, grave)
For example this is a really quotable line from Back to the Future, so kids would pick it up.
Sorry, but you are suggesting that the best strategy possible to stop the genocide is to be nice to the person committing the genocide
No, I suggested we adopt the best strategy regardless of what it is.
You said that even if the best strategy possible is to be nice, you wouldn’t consider doing do.
Then my comment argues you shouldn’t.
83% of statistics are made up. Here’s the original comment:
I’d imagine if one genuinely cares about stopping the genocide they’d be exactly as civil as they’d strategically need to be.
In the scenario where celebrating Bidens death is strategic I actually made an argument pro celebrating his death.
It would require bad reading comprehension to interpret it differently than what it literally says.
they are responsible for a genocide
So then shouldn’t we do everything strategically possible to oppose the genocide?
Why is “we should adopt the best strategy possible to stop genocide” so offensive to you?
Poor reading comprehension on your part?
I’m not going to be trying to persuade anyone about culture war bullshit that doesn’t matter.
The original guy was talking about strategy. Is there a strategic reason to try to persuade those people not to celebrate Trump’s death?
I’m sure as well. I don’t want the guy to die, I want him to stop doing harm.
If death is how that happens I could take that. If death isn’t necessary I’d prefer it.
Ideally we could try people who commit war crimes publicly.
I wish you luck in the war on manners.
I’d imagine if one genuinely cares about stopping the genocide they’d be exactly as civil as they’d strategically need to be.
If your excitement in the cancer diagnosis of a old man is more important to you I get why people are weirded out.
If art is simply a “commodity” then machines could make it cheaper.
I don’t think art is just a “commodity”. I don’t think it’s value is simply in being traded and sold.