Unpopular opinions.

[jimbaxters]

2 hours ago, MONKMAN said:

On the computer game thing. I used to work with a guy (mid 30’s) who would spend his spare time at work watching YouTube videos, of people playing computer games. I find this truly strange. Same guy was in to “mine craft”, which I’m led to believe is basically Lego for the computer. He has his own YouTube channel with a ridiculous amount of followers, and actually earns a decent wee bit cash off it. One of the other boys at work found his channel once, and it’s videos of him sitting with his headphones on, building stuff that people request. Fair play for making a bit of cash out of it, but I just find it all strange.

 

Being a scouser, he also pretends to support Liverpool but can tell he’s not really interested in football. More bizarre, he’s into MMA and Thai boxing which I believe he’s fairly good at. Strange combination of hobbies.

 

I had my mind changed a wee bit recently on the watching YouTube vids of others playing computer games issue. One of the lads I teach is a right gamer and when we spoke about this he said it's no worse than watching vids of great football goals or moves. Football fans will watch either because they could never do it themselves or as young people they aspire to reach that level.

[Dunning1874]

Re the film list, anyone who hasn't seen Paths of Glory should stop what they're doing immediately and watch it.

[NotThePars]

On the computer game thing. I used to work with a guy (mid 30’s) who would spend his spare time at work watching YouTube videos, of people playing computer games. I find this truly strange. Same guy was in to “mine craft”, which I’m led to believe is basically Lego for the computer. He has his own YouTube channel with a ridiculous amount of followers, and actually earns a decent wee bit cash off it. One of the other boys at work found his channel once, and it’s videos of him sitting with his headphones on, building stuff that people request. Fair play for making a bit of cash out of it, but I just find it all strange.
 
Being a scouser, he also pretends to support Liverpool but can tell he’s not really interested in football. More bizarre, he’s into MMA and Thai boxing which I believe he’s fairly good at. Strange combination of hobbies.
 

That second last sentence is indicative. You’re too feart to slag him.

[Academically Deficient]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

Re the film list, anyone who hasn't seen Paths of Glory should stop what they're doing immediately and watch it.

See that's what I said earlier, albeit far more sarcastically.

[John Lambies Doos]

Only fools and horses
Dad Army
Porridge
Fawlty towers

All gash, and if there are others of the era/genre I have missed, they are gash too.

All of them.

They really aren't

[Boo Khaki]

Never seen the attraction of OFAH myself. Any time I've tried to watch it I've concluded that I must have just sat through one of the far less funny episodes. 

[Miguel Sanchez]

On 24/08/2020 at 06:42, Melanius Mullarkey said:

Sweet chilli flavour is the most overrated flavour of anything anywhere. 
 

 

Yes! Also what Baracus said.

On 24/08/2020 at 12:43, ICTChris said:

I'd say that there is a difference between watching a film or TV show and playing a video game.  Can a video game be a piece of art, the way that a film or TV show can be?  What about novels, or poetry or music, can you compare playing a video game to them?  Of course, most films and TV shows aren't works of art, they are entertainment but the medium can surpass that and give us a greater understanding of humanity.

I didn't characterise everyone who likes video games as being like anything and I certainly didn't say that people should be "out getting pissed, having fights and shagging birds" - I would say that people who behave like that into their middle age are displaying the same phenomenon of a petrified adolesence just in a different way.

I'm not trying to say I'm superior to anyone, I deliberately tried not to use derogatory language.  I'm guilty of many of these traits myself, to be honest, just in different ways.  Is supporting a football team and caring about their results really different to playing Doom for few hours a day?  Probably not.

 

Alright there Roger Ebert, calm down

While there are innumerable problems with the games industry in a range of areas, I don't think it's your idea of what video games are that's the problem, it's what's in them. Aside from you namechecking things like Sonic and Doom which were big names in the 90s (Doom's made a comeback in the last few years as a purely visceral experience which is enjoyable from a mechanical perspective and the less said about Sonic on non-Sega consoles the better) you seem to be characterising 'video games' as repetitive mechanical exercises based on button presses with no other means of enjoyment or engagement involved. I know you're at pains to point out that it's a sincere ignorance on your part, so I'm only trying to explain it to you rather than criticise.

Even then, what's the difference between someone who's 30 playing a video game they first played ten years ago and someone who's 30 playing 5-a-side with their mates? Playing games is an inherently childish thing he would have done a lot more when he was younger, why is that readily accepted when video games aren't?

On the subject of whether or not games have deeper imparted meanings or not, there's a sort of self-fulfilling problem with the model for creating, selling and playing games that can make the notion of profundity in them difficult. Someone sitting alone at a computer for a year could write a transcendent life-affirming masterpiece of a novel. With the proliferation of smart phones and HD video recording kit, people can make films which are similar and while obviously not Hollywood blockbusters, can still have genuine acting and worthwhile writing. Someone alone in their room with a guitar could record the same kind of music. 

Now imagine what you assume video games look like nowadays. One person trying to create that would need a hundred lifetimes. Many games that attempt to contain deeper meanings have to deal with that, they have to deal with making someone that a publisher will finance because they think it will sell enough to be viable, and to do that they need to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Look at a game like Spec Ops: The Line which is heavily influenced by Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. The game is functional in that it has a character you control who does things when you press the relevant buttons and it has environments you can see and recognise and navigate. 99% of the focus of this game is in the character development, the events of the story and the self-referential nature of the physical act of gameplay itself, inducing the player to consider their actions as something other than simply an objective-completing exercise. Now look at the Reception section of that article. Mid-70s across the board because it looks ugly, has generic mechanics and "low replay value."

It goes even shallower than that, BioShock is a game which does many of the things I've just described above. It's cover art looks like this:

A later game in the series, BioShock Infinite, has a cover that looks like this: 

Here's why. 

Quote

"We went and did a tour... around to a bunch of, like, frathouses and places like that. People who were gamers. Not people who read IGN. And [we] said, so, have you guys heard of BioShock? Not a single one of them had heard of it."

...

"Would I buy that game if I had 60 bucks and I bought three games a year... would I even pick up the box? I went back to the box for System Shock 1, which was obviously incredibly important – that game was incredibly influential on me, System Shock 2 was the first game I ever made. I remember I picked it up... looked at it and I said, I have no idea what this game is. And I didn't have a lot of money back then. So, back on the shelf. And I was a gamer."

"I wanted the uninformed, the person who doesn't read IGN... to pick up the box and say, okay, this looks kind of cool, let me turn it over. Oh, a flying city. Look at this girl, Elizabeth on the back. Look at that creature. And start to read about it, start to think about it."

This incredibly deep, richly created game (some people will tell you Infinite is pretentious and stupid, these people are idiots) got a cover of a guy with a gun on the box because people that say they play video games who only ever buy every FIFA and Call of Duty each year (or Madden if that was America) wouldn't buy a game if it didn't have a picture of a guy with a gun on it.

I think video games nowadays fulfil three purposes, mostly:

There are story-driven games which lots of publishers will tell you they don't make because there's no market for them. The real reason is they don't like it because there's very little money in it. If people buy it at launch they give up money then, that's that. Maybe people wait and buy it cheaper, maybe they even buy it pre-owned and the publisher gets no money. 

There are competitive games - people can play anything competitively, and if you type "speedrun" or "AGDQ" into youtube you'll find an alarming amount of hours of video, even moreso when you imagine the practice time that went into people reaching that stage. Competitive gaming isn't as susceptible to the same problems as single-sell single player games though since popular, lasting competitive games are things people are going to play anyway. Your Starcrafts, your Counter Strikers, your Rocket Leagues, these are just... there. It's also worth poingint out the amount of time and skill that goes into people becoming professional at this game is intense and can't be approached as a childish pastime. 

The third option is two halves of the same intent - monetisation. Why sell people a game at full price when you can sell them a game full price then sell them the same game full price a year later too, with lots of extra content they can spend money on each time and start afresh each year? Go into the FIFA 20 thread and look at how much time and energy (I don't know how much money they put in) people expend on a game they all readily accept is broken. 

Fully agree on the superhero movies though. Repetitive, gaudy shite that might be fine in small doses but multiple yearly releases, all these films interconnecting with each other? Nah. One Iron Man film was fine, another two was pushing it then having him team up with a bunch of other guys just smacks of a boring individual character. You can sub in any of the others that have their own films then team up for the Avengers. At least Batman and the like are real people, if a bit eccentric. 

On 24/08/2020 at 13:04, NotThePars said:

The “can video games” be art argument is redundant, they can be as much as any other medium but the examples offered by gamers normally aren’t. The best example offered of a video game as art that I hear is The Last of Us which is good but is ultimately a fairly derivative episode of the Walking Dead that’s especially well produced and acted. Maybe gamers are just shite at advertising their medium.

Superhero movies likewise. Marvel movies are just entertaining theme park rides with nothing to say and while DC movies seem to be trying to say something are usually saying something incredibly stupid (which tbf I enjoy).

The Last of Us is shite. 

20 hours ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I do slightly agree with the trackies thing tbf. Was chatting to some friends while working from home and was surprised to discover that the majority only wear trackies round the house and would consider jeans "going out clothes". Several expressed amazement that I tend to wear jeans every day. 

Wearing jeans when in the house with no plans to go anywhere is weird, that's why.

9 hours ago, MONKMAN said:

On the computer game thing. I used to work with a guy (mid 30’s) who would spend his spare time at work watching YouTube videos, of people playing computer games. I find this truly strange. Same guy was in to “mine craft”, which I’m led to believe is basically Lego for the computer. He has his own YouTube channel with a ridiculous amount of followers, and actually earns a decent wee bit cash off it. One of the other boys at work found his channel once, and it’s videos of him sitting with his headphones on, building stuff that people request. Fair play for making a bit of cash out of it, but I just find it all strange.

 

Being a scouser, he also pretends to support Liverpool but can tell he’s not really interested in football. More bizarre, he’s into MMA and Thai boxing which I believe he’s fairly good at. Strange combination of hobbies.

 

I'm fairly sure I've said this on here before, but what difference is there between watching someone streaming a game and pretty much any other form of media centred around one person doing something the viewer has an interest in anyway? I think the internet and streaming has allowed people (viewers and streamers) to find communities for shared interests and then congregate around people who make content in that area. Is it just video game streamers you'd take issue with? What if a chess grandmaster streamed themselves playing games and explaining what they're doing? What if a musician did the same with the piano, guitar, any other instrument? What if LiamDFC streamed himself drawing the many proud moments of P&B history? Is this any different from Radio DJs in the 60s and 70s who built reputations and shaped culture because they were simply there, as available focal points that people were able to tune into?

Take for instance Zafarcakes who's spent lockdown steaming himself playing Pro Ev 5 and adding an entire backstory into it. He's a comedian who was effectively jobless like so many people this year, he went online and offered something different and engaging. 

I'm not trying to defend every streamer. Since I know you don't like him and I know you'd only focus on that if I said who it was, there's a popular figure in Scottish culture whose content I enjoy. They stream themselves playing various games and I've tried a few but never been able to stick it. They don't know what they're doing and it's fucking infuriating to watch. That, nope. Other people I do watch I watch partly for entertainment, partly as learning experience. I play Gran Turismo Sport a lot and since discovering the amount of online video content for that have got into sim-racing more seriously over the past couple of years. If I watch a top alien driving in a game I get to see both an entertaining race and get to hear their commentary and explanation of what's going on and what they're doing. That makes me better. 

Minecraft is for children though. You'd be as well opening up MS Paint and colouring in pixels. 

 

[MONKMAN]

That second last sentence is indicative. You’re too feart to slag him.

Quite the opposite actually, he got slagged mercilessly but couldn’t give a f**k which is the way it should be. I’m sure it was a nice little earner for him and he would spend hours with his kids playing it so each to their own. Just something I can’t get my head round.

That said, he could knock the living f**k out of me if he ever wanted to. For being into his martial arts, he was a fairly hefty lad. Was quite funny seeing a 20 odd stone boy in the gym, doing the splits while stretching.

[Homer Thompson]

I have some opinions that even I don't really agree with they are that unpopular.
One is about adulthood and people who are really into things that, a few years ago, were for children.  Video games, superhero movies, Harry Potter books etc.  There's something odd to me about people in their 30s and 40s spending significant time in their lives playing computer games or rewatching entire superhero franchises in their 'man caves'.  I have colleagues who are older than I am and have children who have rooms in their houses for all their gaming stuff, rooms they forbid their children to enter or use.  I just find that odd - I think back to when I was a kid and what my dad did in his spare time and what other people's dads did, I don't remember many people having interests that would directly cross over with their childrens.  What did people used to do for the time that they now spend playing video games?  Maybe they just watched more TV and games are a better use of their time.  A lot of people seem to live in a petrfieid adolescence, everyone dresses the same when they are 45 as they did when they were 15 now.  I'm not some sort of martyr, I do often think I'm too scruffy wearing jeans and a polo shirt to take my wee boy to the park or pick him up from nursery and then you get there and half the other dads are wearing tracksuits with the arses hanging down.
On the other hand though, what does it matter if people play video games, they aren't hurting anyone.  Maybe it's a generational thing and I'm out of touch by viewing video games as something for kids when they are in fact more like movies or novels now, something that can be enjoyed by everyone.  Also, people's time preferences change depending on what is available.  I remember reading an article about football crowds in the 20th century and one reason that you had such enormous attendances in the early and middle 20th century is that watching football was one of the few sources of entertainment for people.  Once things like television became affordable people could do that instead - the article also made the point that a pastime like gardening, unavailable to everyone but the rich for most of history, became something that far more people could do with the advent of council housing and clearences of slums.  Maybe video games are like that, gardening for the 21st century and I am just a Luddite.
I'm sure on adults reading Harry Potter books though, they are clearly weirdos and the people who play Quidditch on the Meadows need a fucking slap.
 

Adults today are the first generation who grew up playing video games as kids.

I don't think there's anything weird about them continuing to do it as adults.

You're right about Harry Potter though

[engelbert_humperdink]

58 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

Yes! Also what Baracus said.

Alright there Roger Ebert, calm down

While there are innumerable problems with the games industry in a range of areas, I don't think it's your idea of what video games are that's the problem, it's what's in them. Aside from you namechecking things like Sonic and Doom which were big names in the 90s (Doom's made a comeback in the last few years as a purely visceral experience which is enjoyable from a mechanical perspective and the less said about Sonic on non-Sega consoles the better) you seem to be characterising 'video games' as repetitive mechanical exercises based on button presses with no other means of enjoyment or engagement involved. I know you're at pains to point out that it's a sincere ignorance on your part, so I'm only trying to explain it to you rather than criticise.

Even then, what's the difference between someone who's 30 playing a video game they first played ten years ago and someone who's 30 playing 5-a-side with their mates? Playing games is an inherently childish thing he would have done a lot more when he was younger, why is that readily accepted when video games aren't?

On the subject of whether or not games have deeper imparted meanings or not, there's a sort of self-fulfilling problem with the model for creating, selling and playing games that can make the notion of profundity in them difficult. Someone sitting alone at a computer for a year could write a transcendent life-affirming masterpiece of a novel. With the proliferation of smart phones and HD video recording kit, people can make films which are similar and while obviously not Hollywood blockbusters, can still have genuine acting and worthwhile writing. Someone alone in their room with a guitar could record the same kind of music. 

Now imagine what you assume video games look like nowadays. One person trying to create that would need a hundred lifetimes. Many games that attempt to contain deeper meanings have to deal with that, they have to deal with making someone that a publisher will finance because they think it will sell enough to be viable, and to do that they need to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Look at a game like Spec Ops: The Line which is heavily influenced by Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. The game is functional in that it has a character you control who does things when you press the relevant buttons and it has environments you can see and recognise and navigate. 99% of the focus of this game is in the character development, the events of the story and the self-referential nature of the physical act of gameplay itself, inducing the player to consider their actions as something other than simply an objective-completing exercise. Now look at the Reception section of that article. Mid-70s across the board because it looks ugly, has generic mechanics and "low replay value."

It goes even shallower than that, BioShock is a game which does many of the things I've just described above. It's cover art looks like this:

A later game in the series, BioShock Infinite, has a cover that looks like this: 

Here's why. 

This incredibly deep, richly created game (some people will tell you Infinite is pretentious and stupid, these people are idiots) got a cover of a guy with a gun on the box because people that say they play video games who only ever buy every FIFA and Call of Duty each year (or Madden if that was America) wouldn't buy a game if it didn't have a picture of a guy with a gun on it.

I think video games nowadays fulfil three purposes, mostly:

There are story-driven games which lots of publishers will tell you they don't make because there's no market for them. The real reason is they don't like it because there's very little money in it. If people buy it at launch they give up money then, that's that. Maybe people wait and buy it cheaper, maybe they even buy it pre-owned and the publisher gets no money. 

There are competitive games - people can play anything competitively, and if you type "speedrun" or "AGDQ" into youtube you'll find an alarming amount of hours of video, even moreso when you imagine the practice time that went into people reaching that stage. Competitive gaming isn't as susceptible to the same problems as single-sell single player games though since popular, lasting competitive games are things people are going to play anyway. Your Starcrafts, your Counter Strikers, your Rocket Leagues, these are just... there. It's also worth poingint out the amount of time and skill that goes into people becoming professional at this game is intense and can't be approached as a childish pastime. 

The third option is two halves of the same intent - monetisation. Why sell people a game at full price when you can sell them a game full price then sell them the same game full price a year later too, with lots of extra content they can spend money on each time and start afresh each year? Go into the FIFA 20 thread and look at how much time and energy (I don't know how much money they put in) people expend on a game they all readily accept is broken. 

Fully agree on the superhero movies though. Repetitive, gaudy shite that might be fine in small doses but multiple yearly releases, all these films interconnecting with each other? Nah. One Iron Man film was fine, another two was pushing it then having him team up with a bunch of other guys just smacks of a boring individual character. You can sub in any of the others that have their own films then team up for the Avengers. At least Batman and the like are real people, if a bit eccentric. 

The Last of Us is shite. 

Wearing jeans when in the house with no plans to go anywhere is weird, that's why.

I'm fairly sure I've said this on here before, but what difference is there between watching someone streaming a game and pretty much any other form of media centred around one person doing something the viewer has an interest in anyway? I think the internet and streaming has allowed people (viewers and streamers) to find communities for shared interests and then congregate around people who make content in that area. Is it just video game streamers you'd take issue with? What if a chess grandmaster streamed themselves playing games and explaining what they're doing? What if a musician did the same with the piano, guitar, any other instrument? What if LiamDFC streamed himself drawing the many proud moments of P&B history? Is this any different from Radio DJs in the 60s and 70s who built reputations and shaped culture because they were simply there, as available focal points that people were able to tune into?

Take for instance Zafarcakes who's spent lockdown steaming himself playing Pro Ev 5 and adding an entire backstory into it. He's a comedian who was effectively jobless like so many people this year, he went online and offered something different and engaging. 

I'm not trying to defend every streamer. Since I know you don't like him and I know you'd only focus on that if I said who it was, there's a popular figure in Scottish culture whose content I enjoy. They stream themselves playing various games and I've tried a few but never been able to stick it. They don't know what they're doing and it's fucking infuriating to watch. That, nope. Other people I do watch I watch partly for entertainment, partly as learning experience. I play Gran Turismo Sport a lot and since discovering the amount of online video content for that have got into sim-racing more seriously over the past couple of years. If I watch a top alien driving in a game I get to see both an entertaining race and get to hear their commentary and explanation of what's going on and what they're doing. That makes me better. 

Minecraft is for children though. You'd be as well opening up MS Paint and colouring in pixels. 

 

I'm the type whom it would be a waste of money buying a console as it would be used once or twice a month . But Bioshock Infinite I played from start to finish and thought it was fucking brilliant. I guess different strokes for different folks, I certainly don't laugh at guys 20 + playing games, but stopped being on any real interest to be around theage of 17. But certain games just seem to tick all the boxes in your brain

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Occasionally playing video games as an adult is fine. I include games on your phone in that.

It's way lower on the "need to grow up scale" than adult males in their late 20s who still live with their parents.

[Boo Khaki]

I'll hold my hand up to spending far more time playing video games than I should. I'm cursed with the fact that like a lot of aspies I have a tendency towards the compulsive, obsessive, and addiction, so that means lists, databases, collections etc are like heroin for me. I'm a wee bit odd in that despite being a gaming addict, my collection of games is rather meagre. I tend to play the arse out of something for weeks or months on end, then drop it completely for the next obsession, before returning to it eventually just as obsessive as I was before. 

The sort of big console titles that you can 'complete' in 8-10 hours don't interest me at all, and for some reason I have absolutely zero interest in a lot of the big franchises and titles. C.o.D, GTA, Fortnite, etc hold absolutely no interest for me and I've been bored within minutes any time I've tried to play FPS games, things like Red Dead, The Last of Us etc, but give me a sports strategy, good MMORPG, racing sim etc and I'll disappear into it for months. 

I think I only have about 5 or 6 titles installed right now, and funnily enough most of them are games that I've been playing for at least a couple of years on and off. I just don't really get any pleasure from things that 'end' or can be 'completed', which is why I indulge almost exclusively in open ended stuff, but despite the obvious obsessiveness, I'm not in any way a 'completionist' when it comes to games. I prefer to experiment and find unusual or quirky ways of doing something, so fannying about with off-meta and silly character builds in Action RPG's is another thing I'm guilty of. DIablo 3, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, all of them suck up far too much of my time. Likewise Football Manager, Motorsport Manager, Eastside Hockey Manager.

Kenshi is my personal kryptonite. I deliberately haven't gone near it since Christmas because it turns me even more antisocial and reclusive than I already am normally. Oh aye, and I 'retired' a near ten year old World of Tanks account a couple of years ago because it genuinely was making me ill. No, you can't 'have my stuff' you grabby b*****d.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[Gordon EF]

Adults have always had hobbies or interests that revolve around games or things that are similar to what children tend to enjoy. Lots of kids play football but nobody thinks adults who play football are doing something childish. Computer games in the 80s and 90s were largely aimed at children but the vast majority of games these days are specifically aimed at adults.

[tamthebam]

11 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

Minecrafts graphics are shite that's all I know or care to know about it. Oh and the guy who invented it is alt right.

If he's alt right should it not be called Mein Kraft...?

[ICTChris]

I’m not going to quote Miguel Sanchez post because it’s such a monster but very good post.

I agree and did say in original post that the medium has clearly developed. I have a family friend who is involved in game development and am well aware of what’s involved, I hadn’t thought about how that could affect the medium itself, which is a really prescient point you make.

[Boo Khaki]

If anyone has ever played EvE Online, aka "Spreadsheets in Space", that was another one I had to actively quit about 10 years back. I was in the grip of a really profound depression and unable to work at the time, yet eventually I was spending about 18 hours a day running my own stations, building Capitals, hauling materials, and still finding time to PvP. It was all getting really unhealthy and a bit silly.

For some reason I don't think the dopamine hits work in autistic brains the way they do with most neurotypical gamers. In my long-term FM18 (yes, I know) save, after 15 or so seasons in charge, I've just recently won my first ever Champions League after having selected the stupidest, most tin-pot side in Italy at the start of the game and led them up the leagues. For anyone familiar with the old and original SI forum, I was one of the weirdo 'LLAMA' crowd, so that means I play the game in a way that means no tactics sharing, no player tipping, not signing any players that my scouts haven't discovered, not jumping to the Real Madrid job because the game offers you it after winning the Tunnocks Cup with East Fife etc, so I've done that using entirely my own tactic I developed over years, a team full of my own youth products etc. That for me is a much bigger buzz than completing a game in 8 hours or something, even though it's taken 2+ years playing the game on and off. The changes to the scouting engine in the game a few years back made true LLAMA play a lot more difficult, but I still try to play the game that way to the fullest extent reasonable.

I deliberately have never looked at Minecraft, because I suspect I'd actually like it, and that's a bit scary tbh.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[Stellaboz]

I've got an FM 18 game running, trying to win something on every continent. Just waiting on the South African leagues to be added and a job to open up.

Had a Kelty save that I played over 100 hours on. Took them up and last had them qualified for teh Champions League group stage. Have some legends in it that will mean nothing to anybody else.

[BFTD]

Catching up here, but has anyone posted what real adults are supposed to be doing with their spare time?

My mother can't cope with doing anything other than work, and my father reads the paper and gets himself wound up about what it tells him the immigrants and lefties are up to. I don't really fancy either of those scenarios, but if that makes me a manchild, so be it.

[tamthebam]

15 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Catching up here, but has anyone posted what real adults are supposed to be doing with their spare time?

My mother can't cope with doing anything other than work, and my father reads the paper and gets himself wound up about what it tells him the immigrants and lefties are up to. I don't really fancy either of those scenarios, but if that makes me a manchild, so be it.

My old man used to go to beach fishing. Standing in the cold catching f**k all seemed to be more fun than staying in the house. 

[Homer Thompson]

My old man used to go to beach fishing. Standing in the cold catching f**k all seemed to be more fun than staying in the house. 

Only because he didn't have any video games to play.