It is good. I don't watch The Last Of Us because of the conditioning propaganda, which they included in this skit as well. Were the conditioning propaganda edited out it would be great to watch.

This is just hilarious, from mergirl dunne

I only have two points to make, outside that enjoy as you well 1) the haircut from guile:) I want to see somebody wear that:) 2) Chun-li's arms!!! ahh why? why is it so hard for people to realize that a woman fighter's body is not going to look like barbie. Look at female olympian runners or weight lifters or acrobats, all of them have developed arms, veins/muscles. Look at chun li, come on!!! Who does this chun-li fight in the street against? pooh bear?:) P.S. I don't have an issue with Balrog. He is meant to be an older fighter.

forum post

@Rodney campbell yes she does want attention ,she is a body painter who has won competitions for her work

Every gamer has different requirements for enjoying a game. To meet those requirements they have made games that are: Button mashers. Highly graphical. Artistic in design. Story intensive. Shallow. Immersive. Tactical and Strategical. Those elements are then reused and placed into specific themes and genres. Sometimes done very well and sometimes done terribly. My choice for game enjoyment is usually Tactical and Strategical. because in games that are made to be Tactical and Strategical great attention can be given to the Art - Story - Graphics and intensity you will experience. Tactical and Strategical will have all of the very best elements without having to constantly press buttons. Which for me is always a good choice. Games such as Sins Of A Solar Empire which wage war across multiple galaxies and require that you are capable of logistics and resource management as well as ETA of transit vehicles in route across multiple planets and while managing dozens of holding front line positions against no less than nine other factions who can inhabit over a hundred worlds. Well. That takes some serious chops. You will have to be focused. Which is easy to do with the excellent graphics and story which unfolds through your choices. Then there are games like Zombie Defense. A game that pits you against a horde of Zombies intent on destroying whats left of humanity. With only you and your troops holding the line. Every decision matters. What is your priority? Weapons? Income? Personnel? Support? Assistance? Command? Units? Your resources are limited. You cant do it all and you cant have it all. How will you hold the line? Can you hold the line? Similar to that scenario is a game called rebuild. A post apocalyptic survival story driven choice game. Or Invisible incorporated. A top of the line spy game that will test you to your limits and challenge every tactic you can come up with. Also possibly having the best graphics and actions fro that type of a game. My recommendation is always Tactical and Strategy first. If you have a console I highly recommend X-Com in all of its incarnations. I do also play other types of games which provide a completely different gaming experience. But that's another discussion for another TIME. If you find any of these games to your liking or are interested. Give it a go. They are all turn based, and that means you can walk away, and come back to it whenever you need, or want to. Which makes them perfectly oriented for people who have responsibilities. People who would not be able to have any game-time at all. They are safe good clean fun for all ages.

I never played the game but I remember the box cover for the game being a man. It is very telling when they recreate existing characters as opposed to creating a new character, that their agenda is to deconstruct the original and propagandize a new and definitely negative aspect they want to introduce, so they require an established, well known, respected character in order to steal the power from it and make as much of that left over power from it as they can, into their own. SunTzu has a section on this in The Art Of War and it is called just that. Stealing Power. It is the tactic of the weak. Used against the weak. To amass numbers as strength. Because everything about them is a failure. The fact is. Anything that requires an established power source to steal from. Has already failed left to its own devices. Which self defines it as a failure. And in every aspect thereafter it is not only a failure, but a failure and a thief. Although changing a man into a woman reveals far more layers of propaganda and manipulation. Again. Only the weak, the weakminded, and weakwilled will be drawn to it. That is where the spotlight will be and they will finally get the attention they want. It is obvious that artist wanted more attention than they were currently getting. Or else they would have simply used a man as the basis for a man. SunTzu. The Art Of War. Stealing Power.

How Merle Dandridge became the only The Last of Us game actor to reprise role in the series Creators Neil Druckmann and Craig Mazin say the new scenes with Marlene and Ellie in the premiere will bring "a greater payoff" by the end of the show. Nick Romano By Nick Romano January 16, 2023 at 02:20 PM EST Warning: Mild spoilers from HBO's The Last of Us premiere are discussed in this article. Merle Dandridge holds a unique position within the cast of HBO's The Last of Us. The BAFTA Award winner is the only legacy actor from the original video games to play the same role in the live-action series adaptation, that of Marlene, the leader of the rebel group known as the Fireflies. Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson, who originated the roles of Joel and Ellie, will appear as different characters, with Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey taking over as the sci-fi drama's two leads. Jeffrey Pierce, who voiced Joel's brother Tommy in the games, will see Gabriel Luna take over the role he helped originate, but he'll be on hand playing a character newly created for the series. Most of this, obviously, had to do with practicality. "I think Merle Dandridge was probably a bit younger than Marlene was in 2013," series writer and executive producer Craig Mazin tells EW, noting the year the first game released. "Or at least Marlene had gone through the apocalypse. She was a little more weathered and [had] a little more grey in her hair." Dandridge, at 47, is neither weathered nor grey. "Don't ever stand next to her in a picture," warns Neil Druckmann, who created the games and now heads the show with Mazin. "It won't do you anything." "You look like dog s--- next to her, I guarantee you," Mazin agrees. "She's also eternally youthful. It's 10 years later [after the first game's debut] and she does have this wonderful gravitas. So it was really a question of, 'Hey, if we just wig her, I think we're there.' That was an easy one. It's obviously not anything we could contemplate with, say, Troy Baker." Baker, Mazin notes, is "so physically different from Joel," a character described as a hardened survivor who's marked by the traumatic death of his daughter, Sarah (Nico Parker). Twenty years after a fungal brain infection has spread across the globe, transforming victims into zombie-like monsters, Joel is living in a quarantine zone in Boston, where he's tasked with smuggling out a 14-year-old girl, Ellie, who's somehow immune to the virus. "Ashley Johnson is in her 30s and clearly not gonna play a 14-year-old girl, but it was important for us to find space for them [in the show] because they matter," Mazin says. "It's not just about fan service. It's a dramatic genetic connection between the game and the show. They needed to be there." Baker will appear later in The Last of Us as James, a minor character from the games that has been expanded on for the show. He's described as a senior member of a group of settlers who must fight to keep their community alive in the face of increasingly brutal odds. Johnson will play Anna, a pregnant woman, alone and on the run, who must give birth under the most terrifying of circumstances. Pierce will then appear as Perry, described only as a rebel in a quarantine zone. Dandridge is also getting an expanded role, as viewers have already seen in the premiere episode, which dropped on HBO and HBO Max Sunday. Scenes between her character and Ramsey's Ellie confirm that Marlene is somehow linked to the girl's origin story. Druckmann points to an artifact players can find towards the end of The Last of Us game: an audio recording that sheds more light on Marlene's relationship with Ellie. "It doesn't get into the same kind of details as we do in the show, but there is a recording that you could find at the end of the game all the way in the hospital that she spells out some of her relationship with Ellie's origin," he says. "I don't wanna say more to spoil it, but because we don't have to adhere to one perspective — in this part of the game, you're playing as Joel in the quarantine zone, so everything you're seeing is through his eyes — we said, how can we introduce Ellie earlier? That was an opportunity to start showing more of that relationship with Marlene, which then has a greater payoff later because we've established the relationship more explicitly here." PHOTO CREDIT: Merle Dandridge appears as Marleen, her character from 'The Last of Us' video games, in the HBO series. | CREDIT: HBO ARTICLE URL : https://ew.com/tv/the-last-of-us-merle-dandridge-marlene-ellie-origins/

the forum post

@Rodney campbell said the following at the following post https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1671&type=status What say you? I will refrain till more reply.

I answer your two questions below First Gaming videos post in the bge journal, linked below Second question I prefer it. But, the video gaming videos I have shared in the BGE journal haven't been for black designed games but white ones. So... if you find a black produced game or a black gamer then please, cause there are rarer. But, I comprehend this is a small group. If the game play is interesting from a white gamer, even if the game isn't black produced or the character being shown isn't black, then have at it. One important thing, If you have twenty gaming videos in one day you want to share, then put them in one post. Try not to make multiple styled posts in one day. I hope I help

There are many very interesting gaming videos, How would I post them here? And, Must it be black created, black owned, black acted, content?

You are correct. I do expect more from the games I play. Especially in regard to effects and ingame character physical interaction, as well as more voiceover relevant to the ingame universe at that moment in the game. At the same TIME. I dont mind watching the basic gameplay. Because I am not the one who is playing. I have lost track of how many of the advanced effects and liveaction videos of game characters I have watched over the years. Many of them becoming a favorite of mine in their respective gaming category, and specific game genre.

Lego Fried Pork Cutlet Rice Bowl great fun

I watched it, they approached it as if true, without trying to special effects it to death... I like it. It isn't at the special effects level that many audiences want/need/expect/desire when it comes to video game films, but I like the approach Ryu and ken

Your thoughts? Of live action fighting game films, do you have any thoughts?

https://www.deviantart.com/lilacphoenix/journal/Signal-Boost-Post-Surgery-Emergency-Funds-939126702

OC commissions! part 1 part 2 part 3 part 4 Commission information

Jerry Lawson Play and Create a game https://g.co/doodle/pky25gd

A extended essay on ownership https://www.deviantart.com/theonewithbear/journal/Copyright-and-fair-use-A-deeper-look-into-AI-937264127 CONTENT Hello everyone, as the discussion on AI grows and attitudes become ever so polarizing on the subject, I decided I should elaborate and share facts on the law, as it is currently standing. Before I start, disclaimer: I'm not with nor against AI. I'm only interested in exploring the foundation of which a discussion is built upon. I believe it is important for any artist and freelancer to understand law, as it is a key in protecting ourselves. Fear and anger can do very little if the source of it isn't factual. Everything I write is based on my own research, readings, understanding and worded in my own ways. If I am wrong logistically, please feel 100% free to correct me, I won't be offended. This is written as of November 15, 2022. If the law gets updated, I will either update this journal with correct time and information or remove it entirely to avoid confusion. This is based on the US law (which is hilarious because I'm Canadian) and may defer from other country's law. FAIR USE "AI art", as it currently stands in law, is NOT illegal. It may not feel legal, but it is not illegal. This is due to the counter law to copyright: fair use. Fair use isn't just a term tech-bros use to defend AI's existence, it is something we, as creatives, have long benefitted from. Copyright protects the unique expression of an idea. Fair use protects unlicensed usage of copyrighted materials. Fair use allows creatives to make fanart (note: not sell), write fanfics, review video games, make parodies, write movie essays etc. to an extent without obtaining permission from the copyright owners. It is a law that exist to expand freedom of creativity in transformative nature. Fair use of copyright law (Section 107) calls for 4 factors: Purpose - commercial or nonprofit educational Nature of copyrighted work - creative or technical Amount of portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole Effect of use upon the potential market Copyright and fair use conflicts go far into the history, see cases: Summaries of Fair Use Cases A Tale of Two Seusses and Argued Fair Uses: The Fact-Specific Nature of Copyright Fair Use Cariou v. Prince — Artist Rights Banksy loses trademark battle after claiming ‘copyright is for losers’ Top 10 Cases on Appropriation Art and the Law I could go on, but I think you get the idea. As the verdict on whether or not machine learning should motivate an update on copyright law is still up in the air, currently, whether you like it or not, scraping the internet for AI training purpose and putting it to use still falls under fair use protection. Source: U.S. Copyright Office. Click on Videos to listen to the panels that took place in 2021 Source: Pondering AI Machine Learning and Copyright Fair Use "Protected" doesn't mean the court will rule in its favor, because it still depends on -how- it's used. As mentioned, fair use calls for 4 factors. To elaborate on each and use AI as an example (please be mindful that ALL of these scenarios are just possibilities, not absolute and can get really grey when used in combinations. I'm not a lawyer, I won't argue your case): MAY be protected by fair use: - the AI art piece isn't financially profiting - the AI art piece is generated with generic prompts and ideas - if the case is argued from the perspective where AI is built on billions of images, combined with personal photos, prompts, references and the result is transformative compared to the images used. MAY NOT be protected by fair use: - the AI art piece is profiting - is using specific artist's name/brand (note: NOT the art itself. More on this below) * - if argued from the perspective that it is built entirely off of copyrighted work and cannot exist without Additionally, the court may consider: - has the AI piece in question caused loss in revenue for the copyrighted work? - will the AI piece cause future harm in revenue for the copyrighted work? (Note: for the above 2 points to stand, generally, the copyright holder must prove that the market had the intention to pay the copyright holder prior to the market discovering the AI art piece) - is the piece "transformative" enough, meaning if the outcome resembles or reminds you or the copyrighted work, and/or has enough content and personal touch and ideas added to it to separate it from the copyrighted work, making it something new? If so, fair use. If not, copyright infringement. *Artist's name/brand: The reason I separated this into its own tab is because, names and brands don't fall under copyright, but rather trademark law. Copyright protects the unique expression of an idea, in our case, the visual representation of an idea. Styles, compositions, poses, color palettes, subject matter cannot be copyrighted as separate categories, but a unique combination of these categories done in specific ways can be copyrighted. IE: "girl in a black suit" can't be copyrighted, "a girl with red hair, mostly tied up, wearing black suit with yellow glowy eyes named Makina" can be copyrighted. Due to the transformative nature of an AI generated piece, the final product will bond to look different than the copyrighted materials. This may put AI art under fair use or give it bigger argument ground. However, if an artist's name is used as a prompt and the artist's name is trademarked, the case could go beyond just visual representation and fall out of fair use. Unlike copyright, which is automatic (though can be registered for certificate), in order to be protected by trademark law, you have to register for it. Further reading on trademark law and copyright: Copyright in Characters: What Can I Use? Trademark vs. Copyright: Which Do You Need for Your Business? Conclusion: It depends on how good your lawyer is. That's all there is to it. MISCONCEPTION "AI art can't be copyrighted because it infringes on copyright and is illegal" is a FALSE statement. The U.S. law dictates that machine cannot copyright its art, same as animals, plants and nature. If a monkey shits on a banana, the monkey cannot copyright the shit on banana. The machine cannot copyright the awkward looking cow it just generated with 5 words. The same does not apply to the human that uses the machine. On September 15th, 2022, Kris Kashtanova successfully copyrighted their Midjouney generated comic book, Zarya of the Dawn. The approval came from having presented credible creative process. Artist receives first known US copyright registration for latent diffusion AI art It is still early to say what this may mean for copyright law down the road, but it defeats the statement which AI art can't be copyrighted. On the other side of this coin, Microsoft, GitHUB and OpenAI are being sued for allegedly violating copyright law. The lawsuit against Microsoft, GitHub and OpenAI that could change the rules of AI copyright When giants are involved, landscapes shift. The verdict of this trial may be the one we should pay attention to. ETHICS Now we get into the muddiest area of it all, ethics. To be quite honest, I don't know how to discuss this area as it isn't logical and mostly emotional. Everyone on the internet is more ethical than the last moron. Everyone judges just one step below what they find acceptable. The bar of ethics varies vastly from one person to the next, but let's simply compare actions. I personally believe it is very difficult for the art community to talk ethics, as a very big portion of us thrive on fanart. Without fair use, 99% of the time, fanart is a breach on copyright as you've never obtained permission from the copyright holder to create a piece, so we benefit from fair use. Many of us don't just create fanart, we also sell them, which often is no longer protected by fair use and becomes copyright infringement. Many artists not only sell them, but also try evading copyright claims on Etsy, AFTER copyright claims were filed. I've heard many try to defend this by claiming that at least artists have put in the effort to improve craft compared to someone who just types in a few key words. In this argument, you're mixing the positions of victim and offender. The relationship is like this: AI Art - Artist (victim) vs. Tech bros (offender) Fanart - IP owners (victim) vs. Artist (offender) The IP owners have invested millions of dollars, years of effort, and hard work from not just one artist, but teams of people with various skillsets to create memorable characters and stories, just so an artist who has drawn for a few years can profit off of it. You may argue that the fanart you create and sell does not hurt the IP, which may very well be true. I never have any shame selling fanart of Danganronpa because 1. people who buy them already own the games and 2. I sold more copies of the games because people were curious about what I was painting and I speak highly of the games. However, me being able to justify my action in my head does not make it legal. As opposed to machine learning, which has no specific law currently to regulate it, I'm ALREADY breaking the law (plz don't report me to police kthx). So who am I to talk ethics? To me, humans are all the same. If it benefits us, we find ways to justify and welcome it. If it hurts our benefit, we try to burn it to the ground. A portion of the ethic problem with AI is also just context, attitude and usage. If a tech bro uses AI and acts like they are an artist who can do better than you, AI can go to hell. If a concept artist uses AI to speed up work in a production pipeline, AI is a useful tool. CONCLUSION The reason I wrote this journal is not to tell you what is right or wrong. This is not me telling you we should embrace AI with open arms or dump it down the drain. I just wish for people to be more informed on the current state of law, because so much of the anger is based on misconception and that doesn't help our case. Whether you have given consent or not at this point for machine learning doesn't matter, because there's no law to specifically target machine learning. If there is no law targeting it, then the current state of copyright law and fair use apply. You are aiming the pitchfork and torches at the wrong people. There may be very little we can do at the moment, however, please don't despair. Please don't forget the fundamental reason of why creatives are needed in this world and why we create. Tech bros may tell you that ideas matter more than skill, but they fail to recognize that they don't have brilliant ideas. They are just as basic and mediocre as they were before without AI. This is why we are only a few months in, and they have already saturated their own market, gotten bored because they realize it's hard to make a real profit. They can't come up with newer prompts and they can't look any different from each other. But the creatives will live on. We have the ability to be inspired and to build upon. It is in our blood and soul and AI can't take that away from us. If the millions of better artists out there never stopped us from wanting to improve and carve out our own space in this world, why should AI? There are many people I've spoken with that always wanted to draw. They used AI, it gave them the sweet taste of the ability to visualize their ideas, and now they want more. They want to draw. And that's wonderful. There are also many artists doing incredible things with AI and taking their creativity to the next level due to AI opening a sky beyond their limitations. Ultimately, we thrive on the little strokes we lay on the canvas; live for the fucking hot people we create. We have stories to tell, emotions to convey, feet anatomy to struggle with, and we know the satisfaction of watching our piece come together. We will shine through because artists are strong people, and we will find a way to co-exist.

Thoughts to commonly called artificial intelligence and the deviantart tool known as dreamup https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/journal/I-Tell-A-Tale-Of-Dreamup-937255756

This is not about games straightly, but refers to a problem all in the arts have. The following is two parts, my comments to others concerning this topic, and then the post by Chrissabug in completion below MY THOUGHTS As I said somewhere else on deviantart, all artists: musicians/writers/ those who draw, are in an environment where technology allows ownership of the arts to be a challenge, while the potential for revenue or exposure are larger than ever before. We artist have to calmly go through all this. as a writer, I know what the drawing community on deviantart is feeling. I end with what I always, keep creating folks. https://www.deviantart.com/chrissabug/status-update/I-wanted-to-gather-my-937031201 I am no lawyer, nor do I have any extensive comprehension of copyright/trademartk/intellectual property but based on what the lawyers I know or the artist offline I know who do, I concur to your position. I think the larger issue is simpler. The global communication phase in the electronic age has been a challenge for artists. In the prior phases, technology allowed for greater revenue or control while difficult exposure but in this phase, technology has expanded exposure to no limits,expanded revenue channels to all, but also diminished the control. Writers/Musicians/ all artist have felt the challenges in the now. And when an artist is tired of people telling them to get a real job or tired of the real job they have the commonly called Artificial intelligence tools or processes become like the christian seven horns. But, I have been fortunate to speak to artists who welcome the AI For their own pursuits, as tools that will help them. So, I end my speech on another person's soapbox with calm. I know the artist I am. I know the environment I am in puts me at some disadvantages, but that is ok. as long as I can create I will. https://www.deviantart.com/theonewithbear/status-update/Many-people-are-rushing-with-937091579 CHRISSA BUG POST I wanted to gather my thoughts about the AI situation here and help clear up some misunderstandings as well as share my concerns! (Video at the bottom) Let's first start with clearing up 2 main misunderstandings because there is a lot of misinformation spreading around: The opt-out feature has NOTHING to do with DreamUp. It is literally just a flag that says to outside bots that are scraping the internet for images "pretty please do not put this image in your AI dataset". If the opt-out flag is not checked, that does not mean 'opt-in', it just means the code is set to have no extra flag, which is what we already had (and have on every other website) before this update. Whether or not the bots will pay attention to this flag is up in the air, but I do believe it is dA attempting to start a new precedent of giving a way for artists to consent or not. It should have been auto-checked on from the beginning, BUT this flag doesn't actually do much of anything right now and I repeat, it has NOTHING to do with dreamup. dA doesn't get anything from this flag being on or off. DeviantArt themselves did NOT feed ANY deviations or other art into their AI to create Dreamup. DeviantArt did not take your images and put them in this AI. This is why that flag has nothing to do with dreamup. dA didn't train dreamup themselves. This doesn't mean I don't have concerns about dreamup but I want people to get the facts right So what's the problem? My main concern is that Dreamup is built off of a pre-existing AI (Stable Diffusion) and dataset (LAION). DeviantArt did not train this AI themselves, but the learning was already done and existed by scraping the entire internet for images. Deviantart didn't steal anything themselves, but building dreamup on top of Stable Diffusion and LAION means that they have built it ontop of a tool that is created with stolen materials, even if it is someone else who did the stealing. I don't think AI is going away and so we desperately need a truly ethical tool to direct people who are going to use AI anyway. I had hoped that dA would come out with this tool, but something built off of LAION isn't that. I like that dA is trying to get people to categorize AI art better and that they have a form to opt out of your name being used in a prompt, but again my main issue with dreamup itself is that is is built off of LAION. In all actuality, not a whole lot really changes here. dA themselves are not taking our images to train this generator, the flag doesn't really do much right now, and there are still outside bots trolling the web to take images as they already were. I'm not planning on leaving dA BUT now that the workweek has started, I do hope that dA takes the community feedback to heart. I, myself have voiced my concerns directly to staff and I now wait to see what they decide. I did a special stream talking about this and my concerns over the weekend if you want to give it a watch

Title: God Of War Bodypaint Artist: mcroft07 https://www.deviantart.com/mcroft07/art/God-of-War-bodypaint-936708610

I Quote with bracketed inlets by me:) stevie isn't superstitious... <oh no> by rule...but when it comes to fun, he knows what what <who wrote this?> and when it comes to a game console system, only the atari 2600 will do. "my friends tell me the graphics are the best. I don't know what that means, but I know with th atari 2600 they must be upright and out of sight" <ok, now can you give me a dy-n0-mite! wow! who wrote this> Concluding thoughts Atari would had did better to make a game a blind person can play on the system... what a waste of time