This whole fake debate seems really weird to someone who thought D&D races were species and that it would be more interesting to treat monsters as people circa 1987.
The article is a good example of the NYT's semi-recent approach to 'balanced' journalism. It rises to the level of egregious when the topic is more serious.
It's also why we finally cancelled our subscription after decades of being loyal readers.
I really enjoyed the finale, but the previous episode delivered the best and clearest statement of Star Trek’s way of doing science fiction in a few lines of dialogue.
As a young boy I would have said Jet Jaguar but seeing as I’m almost 56 something more fundamentally busted like Jet Alone is probably more appropriate.
Yes, I know they’re both robots. But kaiju-adjacent robots.
Thanks for reminding me I inadvertently murdered an entire elven village while trying to date Merrill in DA2. I managed to suppress that memory. The things you do for love. Like doing things you later regret forever.
Which leads us to Veilguard. I just finished a 70 hour play-through where it...
I think this misunderstands what makes people suspend their disbelief in a fictional world.
I suspect the size of the audience for whom a realistic ecology matters is vanishingly small.
Hey, Larry suffered the great indignity of never being nominated for a Hugo for his books about shooting monsters with guns. Think of the suffering he endured.
As for Elon... I'm kinda missing the days when he just missed the point of Culture novels.
No need to lawyer this (apologies to all the lawyers here). The rules in the books are subordinate to the social contract between the people playing.
As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end.