Grazza

Ah, OK. From having a good browse, there isn't anything I can afford that I want. Unless I'm mistaken, my Platinum coins are expiring, but not the Gold ones, so I might just waste some and hope for a better offer in the future.

I notice Nintendo Switch rewards are "coming soon". What's the betting it's 1st September? Zen Pinball's not bad, but I have it. Really don't know what to choose.

Grazza - 4172-0797-6217 - Gra - No I generally don't play online games, but still like to have people on my Friends List.

Anyone else imagining their starting team? I'm that desperate. At the moment I have a Dragoon in my front line and a Warlock in the rear. I've also just seen that EO IV (excellent) and Millennium Girl (less so, but still worth the money) are only £8.99 on the eShop, so seriously considering getting them digitally to scratch the itch.

Civil War's a funny film in that regard, isn't it? I've watched Age Of Ultron a few times and thought the same of it every time (good scenes, but a bit flat overall). If I'm honest, I didn't like Civil War the first time I saw it, but only because it was different to my expectations. I watched it a couple more times and think much more highly of it now.

I don't think we have a dedicated thread for this - sure to be one of the last great releases on the 3DS. It's the 5th, and quite possibly final, entry in the series. From playing previous entries, the premise is that there are/were seven Yggdrasil trees/labyrinths, but from playing the remakes I got the feeling they were winding it down into five games. It's due out Q3 2017 in the US, with hopefully a European release to follow. Can't wait.

I can just imagine - the intention is to simulate the feel of human skin, yet the reality being the Switch vibrating so much it feels like you're touching a demented bit of plastic!

Is there something in the game that forces you to do that, or was it just a personal thing?

Ah, this is my chance to jump in! I'm really up for a DQ Builders game, especially on the Switch (or a handheld in general).

Oh wow, that's a beauty. There goes the split d-pad problem in the SNK fighters!

Backstory was fine. There really wasn't a plot though - changes of circumstance; one thing leading to another. It's no coincidence OOT is a fan favourite when you have memorable scenes such as the meeting with young Zelda, or how once you take the Master Sword you're transported to a time when Ganondorf has taken over and things are very different. Similar situation with Wind Waker: infiltrating the Forsaken Fortress, putting the pearls in the statues and making the Tower appear, the battle with the Helmarok King, Valoo rescuing you... etc. And when a weapon breaks, you're back to square one. It wasn't a substitute for powering up your swords and shields in earlier games. Fair point about the Champion's skills though. What I mean is that there was a massive, disproportionate amount of land to explore for every one significant location. Furthermore, these locations were not even used to stage events. It's not necessarily about cutscenes. Remember that bit in Twilight Princess where you have a duel with King Bulblin - is that a cutscene or an event? I'd say it's simply something happening in the environment.

If they released them more regularly, different people would love different releases. They don't need to reinvent the wheel every time, and they can't please everyone (100%) every time. Breath of the Wild was impressive, but didn't have any plot, had very little sense of progression and had a poor balance of linearity vs. exploration. I just have a hunch they'd have more chance of a new Majora's Mask or Wind Waker (ie. something a portion of the fans really love) if it didn't have to be such a big deal every time.

For me, there's three things here. Frankly, @drahkon I think the joke you told was disgusting, but it's always been disgusting, so nothing to do with modern political correctness in my opinion. Some people have a tolerance for that sort of thing and others don't. If you told it in my presence I simply wouldn't laugh, but I wouldn't overreact. When this has happened with my friends I just say something like "That's not my sense of humour". I don't expect to like everything I hear, or be protected from hearing things I don't like. Secondly, I don't agree with the mantra of many that "offence is taken, not given". If someone deliberately tries to upset you, you're entitled to take offence. It's like the rules of banter - you don't say anything that your mates are genuinely sensitive about. In my opinion, the only true offence is when you feel you have a weakness and others are attacking it. Racial matters are a bit of a unique matter. As a Caucasian, I'd be gutted if I used the wrong term and upset any of my black friends. I think most us do genuinely want to know the right term in that regard. I am fairly right-wing and said some pretty strong things after the recent terrorist attacks, which offended a lovely Arab woman I'm friends with. Again, I was genuinely upset about that. But overall, I agree. Call it political correctness, virtue signalling, being snowflakes or whatever, this general matter has gone too far. It annoys me when people say they're offended by the Blurred Lines video or the Protein World poster. No, you're not; you're just trying to force your political beliefs on the world. I don't think "offence" is the right term.

No, probably not. I admit I am confusing the matter, but for me the culprits for feminisation are: * Contraceptive pill in drinking water. We do know it's causing fish to change sex. If it's not us drinking the water that's doing it, it might be us eating the fish. * Soya - many say this hugely feminises men, and it's in most "confected" foods such as cake and chocolate bars. * Increased radiation. Now this is my personal hunch. Despite what the data says (about the '70s), I think there has been a huge spike since Wi-Fi became ubiquitous. I don't think it's about keeping phones in pockets (although it's a good theory). For me it's more likely to be the Wi-Fi hotspots you see everywhere you go. We just don't get a break from it. Yep, agree - aggression isn't masculine. It's like those people who feel they have to crush your hand when they meet you. It's doesn't make them more masculine, it's just something they've convinced themselves they have to do.

Good post, @Jonnas , thanks for that. Yep, exactly. This is what I wanted to get at in the first place, and must have worded it badly to cause so much controversy. In my book it's likely to be either radiation limiting the performance of the testes, or oestrogen in the environment (eg. contraceptive pill) overloading the testosterone. I simply think we should take the problem seriously, find the cause (as you say) and address it. Totally agree. Great points. Well, I slightly disagree here, although it depends on the subject. Flower arranging is an example of something I'd argue that's purely about creativity, but society has wrongly classed as feminine. I do think men are biologically less emotional though. I have read that testosterone suppresses tears... Of course, it's not enough to subdue crying in extreme circumstances, but I'd argue that men genuinely do not get as upset about minor things. I really don't want to get dragged into all this again, but as I say, that was a great post.

Excellent advice from @S.C.G At the risk of repeating it, the two main fighters are definitely King of Fighters '98 and Fatal Fury Special. I'd get both, but the difference between them is that KoF has a system where you pit 3 fighters against a team of 3 others, whereas FF has a plane-switching system (like Guardian Heroes or Code of Princess). I really would buy both Metal Slug and Shock Troopers as well, as they are both superb 2-player games done in a slightly different style.

Well this is much better than I expected. A lot of it is automated, but you do actually need to play it, and the battles are not too easy. I found myself almost getting into trouble a lot of times. I also really love the Fire Emblem-style bonding system, which I feel should be a standard in RPGs now. This is one demo that's convinced me to buy the full game.

Regarding the last part... I definitely am. I do see your point, but I don't think this is massively linked to the gay community. I'd like to know what homosexuality is, scientifically, but until we do, it's a bit of a mystery. What we do know is that people have always been gay (about 10% of the population?), whereas the lowering of masculinity I am suggesting has happened dates back to the 1970s (from what we know). I have never considered gay men automatically feminine, but I see what you're saying about acting effeminate not being unusual amongst the community. I don't know - perhaps part of that is throwing off the shackles of what society expects? To be fair, you used the term "tomboy", which I don't really understand. I was just trying to be polite by steering it towards sport. Sport is definitely masculine though. The more testosterone and muscle you have the better you are at it. Competitiveness, hand-to-eye coordination etc. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation anyway, Daft.

Good point. Less testosterone basically means oestrogen has a free ride.

I don't see any reason to doubt it, whereas those who are pro-depopulation have welcomed it. It backs up my existing beliefs just as it suits your prejudices. Not a synonym, but I already said one is caused by the other. You're just being pedantic now. I already said, "having less testosterone". Men's fertility is falling, just as testosterone levels are falling. I am suggesting, yes suggesting, this may be linked to something in the environment either affecting the ability of the testes themselves, or something we consume such as chemicals or hormones, It's a leap, but not a giant leap. http://uk.reuters.com/article/health-testosterone-levels-dc-idUKKIM16976320061031

I do think there is a link between testosterone, muscle and fat-burning, but I don't want to get into a fitness discussion. I genuinely don't understand why you'd think my argument being correct would need evidence of more acute cases in gay communities or in drag queens. I am not saying dressing up as women lowers testosterone. It's something that affects all Western men indiscriminately. As for women, I'd say those who are good at sport do probably have higher testosterone levels than those who aren't. I don't think that's new or controversial.

OK, but our political persuasion encourages us to see the explanation we want. On the BBC, the comments were along the lines of "Good, it'll keep the population down.", whereas the comments on the Daily Mail were in line with my conclusions. You did ask though. Masculinity and testosterone are the same thing (or at least the latter causes the former). There's nothing else to it. (Bangs head against wall) I'm talking about men being more feminine, not acting feminine. As for obesity, quite simply, people in general aren't obese enough for this to be the explanation.

Thank you. I can't stress enough though that I am not saying less masculine behaviour causes the problem. I totally, utterly agree. That is why I wanted to stress that sexual orientation doesn't have anything to do with masculine/feminine, but I thought it might be a reason some were offended.

Be very muscular, find it extremely easy to burn fat, very easily get an erection (sorry to go there).

I did not say that acting effeminate destroys sperm count. Are some of you offended because you think I'm attacking homosexuality? Let me be clear, I'm not. I am suggesting that biological feminisation is lowering male fertility. Men being more feminine is a symptom, not a cause. Or the contraceptive pill, introduced in the 1960s... I don't disagree with your own suggestions for the cause though. This is exactly what I'm saying myself.