crispy4000

Speaking of Palworld, this just dropped.

Yes, but old Sony would have shut the franchise down before going multi-platform with it.

With Sony it’d have to be a merger, there’s no way they’d cough up what EA would ask for otherwise. They did buy Bungie and made MLB multi-platform, so that part of it may not be a huge hurdle anymore.

I’d put the offline DQX remake ahead of that.

Don’t forget Popcap and the Sims.

Report: EA Looking To Sell Or Merge KOTAKU.COM The Madden and Apex Legends publisher is apparently looking for a way out Uh oh. Maybe not even with other game companies.

Capcom has a history of quick releases and a strong recent track record, so not completely. But even when I see talk about Capcom being on a roll, I never hear 'you just wait for Pragmata to drop' or the like.

Capcom didn't give us a good enough reason to care in the first place. Feels like typical new-gen vaporware, but I hope it materializes into something cool. I'd be tempted to put Everwild into this category as well, but it's become notorious as an example of smoke & mirrors.

Scorn is also a pretty good one. I don't think people have totally forgotten about it, but might be surprised to learn just how long it was delayed since being a 'launch title.'

Pretty decent looking for a studio debut.

I don't think any atrocity we could do to another animal would be on the same level as killing another of us unjustifiably. As for Erectus, I think that members of homo genus are a close enough relative to err on the side of treating them as "us" ... if that were an issue today. Neanderthals would have been a better example to use here, given how far back in time Erectus is by comparison.

Nice, LA Noire is one of the few Rockstar games that appeals to me on the surface of it. Sounds like I need to give it a go at some point.

Stuff you think would make people here go "oh wait, that's still a thing?" I'll start.

Don't forget to "prove" the subhuman status of the mentally disabled, political dissidents, criminals, etc. This is also used to justify the death penalty in the developed world. I'd be open to live in harmony with another species of a rational kind similar to us, should we ever find one. But with the recognition that neither of us owe it to one another anymore than our own. If they came here wanting to conquer us and farm us for food, that's their own prerogative. I wouldn't blame them for turning on us if it was in the interest of their species.

It's a critical step in answering the question of when our lives actually began and what we genetically are. Don't know what else I can say to convince you that our lifecycles are very much a physical reality. It's also a little odd to me that you continue to single out an unfertilized egg as "you" at some point. What about a sperm that would later meet it? Wouldn't "you" have to simultaneously be both for your view to be consistent? This is where I'd be most open to talking about a hypothetical human-to-be instead. I don't believe that getting into the weeds of our early development takes anything away from the totality of why we're here as we are. If anything, it gives us further insight. Being the direct product of human reproduction is the most fundamental thing that makes us like-beings. I don't think it's any moral stretch to say that we shouldn't go off killing each other without just reason. After all, we wouldn't want the same done to us or others, now or in retrospect. No worries, I don't take any of this personally. Or that you think I'm a belligerent anti-mask wearing karen for that matter.

I think the pro-life position implodes absolutely if it’s not human. Which is why people get tempted to go down that rabbit hole to convince pro-lifers that it’s subhuman.

I gave my reasons earlier if you’d like to discuss them. Or not.

The pro-life position relies on attributing intrinsic value to unwanted unborn human life. The best arguments against it are not to imply the biology textbooks get it wrong on when life begins. But to say in most or all circumstances, it doesn’t matter.

I agree this is where the argument should be. Not what qualifies as a human.

Simply not true from a biological standpoint. Your life didn’t begin as an unfertilized egg, but in the combination of two cells into a new single-celled organism. I don’t this should be controversial, but here we are. It’s not transactional to think that I wouldn’t want to have been aborted and wouldn’t wish it on others. I already made it through.

Came from =\= lived as I value innocent human life because I’d want the same courtesy afforded to me and others.

You or I were never a gamete.

I am. But not for the same reasons. At the least, it’s a choice I wouldn’t personally make considering the options. If IVF was all there was to keep humanity going and build a family, sure.