You look like you could do with a fresh shirt there

Don't you still need something like GameSpy to keep the list of online dedicated servers?

HORSESHIT.

I believe in equal rights for everybody. When Kotaku posts about misogyny in gaming, they do just about exactly what that guy said. They repost blog posts from strongly feminist people. And the blog posts are usually rants. It is annoying, and does nothing to help the situation.

I agree, but other things I thought were huge flaws:

What?

But force does equal weight

Sigh. Proud of being so goddamn dumb? You're the arrogant jerk getting angry and accusatory, while ignoring entire replies because you misinterpreted the first sentence.

Wow. You're calling me dumb? Maybe you should read the rest of what I said, because you'll see that I'm not saying that there is no perceived motion blur in real life. I'm saying that real life doesn't give motion blurred images to our eyes. Our brain/eyes do that. So why should films have to motion blur the frames…

Or it's because they're not familiar with the technology, and can't tell the difference between real or false information given to them on a computer screen.

But there is no motion blur in real life, or anything to blend the motion for our eyes. All there is, is new images hitting us faster than our eyes or brain can process it.

No but as I pointed out it's not like that. Too much sugar in a cookie will make you feel sick. What will a higher frame rate do? What's the actual reason that makes a frame rate bad when it's higher than 24fps or some other value?

It actually angers me when people complain about the higher frame rate. Get it through your heads, the only reason you don't like it is because you're not used to it.

The voices sound the same in both clips as well

Ugh, lee waves.

If they weren't on Google's site, then they wouldn't have anywhere near as many views/subscribers/ad-clickers. It's not Google's content, but if anyone on YouTube tries to claim their success is entirely theirs, and not heavily dependent on YouTube's algorithms which generously get their video out there, then they're…

Those last two:

Is that a bicep or a penis?

I'm all for calling out Kotaku on it's sensationalism when they do it, and I agree the article has a completely wrong conclusion based on the rest of its content, but it's not for clicks this time. The headline is reasonable, the conclusion is not, but you've already got to have clicked on the article to get to that…

Really? I've never seen that before, where did it come from?