If you feel like you need to ask whether or not you should get a particular tattoo, then you probably shouldn't get it.

I have a feeling that some people like to do that because they think it'll mitigate their personal responsibility. Like, some dude might read up on anti-social personality disorder and say, "gee, that kind of sounds a little bit like me." Then he'll go around telling people that he has it in order to have an excuse to not give a crap about people. Instead of "I just don't give a crap about you guys because I'm actually a jerk", he tries to make into, "hey, I can't help acting that way! It's not my fault!"

I'm obviously not trying to suggest that such diseases don't actually exist, but I think that at least in certain cases some people try to use such diseases as an excuse for their own behaviour. I tend to be especially suspicious when people start throwing around such conditions but then mention that at no point have they ever bothered to get a proper diagnosis.

To be fair, I was creeped out because I didn't know it was inherent to drag culture. Above, you can see me honestly asking if there is anything about drag culture that changes the context.

Well, to be fair strippers are sometimes called "performance artists" as well, and throwing dollar bills at strippers is also a way of "tipping them" for their performance. Can you explain to me, someone who is mostly ignorant about drag culture, WHY throwing dollar bills is inherent to drag performances? Like, how did that practice originate and is there a sexual angle to it? Because if so, it might be a good idea to keep kids out of those kinds of performances regardless of if throwing bills is standard practice.

I'm pretty sure that's not true at all. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I'm not a scientist. But the thing about humans as opposed to animals and plants is that animals and plants don't have state issued ID cards or friends and family who will go screaming to the government if they go missing or die from cancer. And that's just in normal circumstances. Add to that that it's an exclusion zone, and there probably aren't a whole hell of a lot of people willing to risk getting cancer just to study the long term effects on every animal that lives in the area.

Point being: I'm sure that the radiation is probably quite harmful to a lot of animals and plants. But do you know what else is harmful to animals and plants? The presence of humans. Seeing as how humans decided to stay the f*** away from the place, it's not entirely surprising to me that animals would thrive even with the presence of radiation.

@Yams1980: Yeah...if there were enough of a demand for that kind of niche reviewing, then I could get behind that as an OPTION for those who want it. I mean, yeah, I think that options are good.

But realistically, it just plain isn't going to happen. Forget the free reviews at places like this. The demand for that kind of review would be pretty niche. Which means that any place that does it would probably get low traffic and therefore not be pulling in a lot of ad money. On top of that, this would require more time spent on reviews and more employees writing reviews. That coupled with the lower advertisement money would likely requiring those reviews to be put behind a pretty hefty paywall. Then on top of that, many reviews would STILL be released months late anyway.

It's a nice pipe dream, but it's just plain not going to happen. People say they want it, but I doubt that most people who say they want it would be willing to pay a significant sum just to get reviews months late. For games that actually deserve it, there's always the option to go back later and write articles about they've held up over time and after multiple playthroughs. But for initial reviews, that kind of thing is just incredibly unrealistic.

And to a large extent, it's not really the kids' fault since they're kids and don't know any better. The thing is, adults aren't supposed to go along with it and encourage it.

I don't even have a problem with the kid dressing up in drag. Some people might, but I don't really see a problem. But if you're running a bar and some 11 year old kid comes up wanting to perform a dance there, then you tell them no because a bar is no place for a freaking kid to be dancing. The adults ought to know better. Same as how adults ought to know that regardless of it's a boy or a girl or if they're in drag or not, you don't go around throwing dollar bills at them. I honestly don't see how the drag is even relevant, the only thing I see relevant is that it's a freaking kid.

Maybe this is just me being unfamiliar with drag and what it means, but how is it more acceptable to throw dollar bills at a kid in drag vs a kid who's not in drag? Why should the drag have any bearing at all on whether or not it's okay to be treating an 11 year old child like a stripper? And that's me genuinely asking due to being unfamiliar with the culture.

I think that child pageantry is a bit creepy in the first place, but I don't see anything inherently more wrong about a child in drag. My impression (and I could be wrong) was that that's not automatically sexualizing a small child. Same way that a little girl getting in a dress and performing a dance doesn't automatically turn her into a sex object either. But there's a place for that kind of thing. I can't imagine any responsible parent letting their 11 year old girl dress up and dance at a bar, and I'd have to imagine that throwing dollar bills at an 11 year old girl is the kind of thing that would result in someone getting the crap kicked out of them. So how exactly does the kid in question being in drag somehow make this behavior any more tolerable?

Well, sure, but like you said that's not really feasible.

Secondly, I don't have a backlog of games that I have to get through in order to make a deadline. I'm just a guy who sometimes plays games, not a professional reviewer or a game afficionado who has to delve deeply into every game in order to get the full experience. I'll SOMETIMES play a game twice, but not very often. So a thorough 2-playthrough review is just something that usually wouldn't be relevant to me personally since I'm probably never going to play the game twice.

Yes, I know that some people are much more dedicated to games than I have, and that it would be nice if there were at least more options for getting critical reviews from people who have spent more time with the game. That's fine and well, and I don't disagree. Unfortunately, that's either going to mean fewer reviews, or more staff. And in both cases, definitely more money. So if that's something that people actually want, then it's sort of on the market to make that kind of niche criticism actually feasible.

Anyway, I don't entirely disagree with you in principle. But look at movie reviews. Most movies are done in two hours, and yet still most movie critics don't feel required to watch a movie over and over again before giving a review for a new release. Plenty of content is certainly written for movies after release, and some critics will spend multiple hours rewatching movies for the movies that DESERVE it. But when it comes to reviews for new releases, why should critics be expected to watch the movie multiple times if that's not indicative of the experience that their AUDIENCE is getting? Most people who watch a given movie or play a given game will do so once. If the movie/game isn't able to be fully appreciated until after the second time, then wouldn't second playthrough reviews usually be LESS useful for most of the audience?

@uninspiredcup: I haven't seen The Predator yet, but is that supposed to have been as if Dutch was like, some member of an anti-Predator task force or something? I don't have the necessary context for the deleted scene since I didn't see the movie, but that's kind of what it looks like from your description. Anyway, I guess something like that could work. I mean, Ellen Ripley was just "some woman". Then in the very next movie she's selected to go on an Alien-fighting mission, ends up ordering the marines around when she's just a consultant, and single handedly slaughters a bunch of Aliens with grenades and machine guns while having practically zero training. So I guess the concept could work. But it's kind of hard to sell that kind of thing without some character development. Ripley had it, Dutch didn't.

Anyway, I suppose I'll get around to watching the movie eventually. Just because it's a Predator movie. Same as how I eventually watch all of the Alien movies even though I know they'll probably suck.

But what the hell is the deal with new super Predators and mixing DNA and stuff? Same thing with the Aliens (to some extent). There's always some rush to make a new monster like a Queen Alien or an ugly-ass Human/Alien (which I've always personally thought looked more like a naked mole rat) or a Predalien or a Black Super-predator or those sickly looking white Aliens from Alien Covenant. Am I the only one who feels like that kind of seems like a holdover from the days when Kenner had a freaking Aliens toy series with Snake Aliens and Gorilla Aliens? Or how Tony Stark gets a new suit in every Marvel Movie. But at least that makes sense with Marvel Movies. That stuff exists to drive sales of kids toys, like giving Malibu Stacy a new hat. But why the hell do they need to do this in freaking Alien and Predator movies? That kind of stuff may have driven action figures back in the day, but those were the days when freaking Robocop could get a goddamn Saturday morning cartoon. Those days are over.

I can still at least kind of see why the Alien movies do this. I mean, the Aliens are dumb-ass animals so I guess it makes some sense to at least introduce new Aliens for the purpose of trying to hide the fact that they're just re-doing the exact same thing as previous movies. But Predator? Does the Predator franchise really need to resort to that thing? The concept was built as a race of super-advanced aliens that travels across the galaxy killing things for sport. They're intelligent. There are lots of time periods to play with. There are lots of hypothetical tactics that they may have to adopt in order to defeat their prey. I mean, the concept of this franchise seems perfectly made to be perfectly sustainable without screwing with the actual Predators. Predators vs Roman legions? Predators in WWIII? Predators trying to stay hidden in a time where security cameras are prevalent everywhere? How do their tactics vary when they're hunting a few guys in a dense jungle as opposed to trying to get the head of a general who is leading a 10,000 strong army? Isn't the concept FAR more versatile than the concept of the Aliens? Why the need to keep going with "new more badass Predators" instead of actually taking advantage of the idea of keeping the Predators the same and having the setting change? Just seems like a bit of wasted opportunity to me.

I think my PS4's disc drive may be about to crap out on me. It stopped playing Blu Ray movies (without skipping or stuttering) about a year ago. And while my older game discs still run fine, I just bought a newer game this past September (Dragon Quest 11) and the game wouldn't run. I had to download the digital version in order to play the game.

Part of the reason why I haven't gotten Red Dead Redemption 2 yet. I have a feeling that the disc drive won't be able to handle it. And I'm not really wanting to do a 100-something GB download.