Resident Evil 7 is being written by Richard Pearsey

RE always had shit writing, it's supposed to be cheesy bullshit and that's been the case since the very first game

It's not pretentious, it's just Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad on a modern setting. You should get your head out of the guttee and read some books if you thought that SO:TL was pretentious nigger.
Now indieshit like Braid or Gone Homo, that is pretentious.

It was really pretentious though because it thought it was ground-breaking and deep for attacking the player for playing the game they paid for (speaking for the average individual).

It's also hypocritical since the developers are the ones who allowed the player the ability to kill people, while also disallowing any alternatives, then acting like you're a total monster for doing the only thing you're allowed to do.

So yes Spec Ops The Line was pretentious as fuck.

Braid and Gone Home are clearly representative of the 2010s indie scene which try to expouse some deeper meanings whilst defying conventions

True game snobs like us prefer games such as RE4, the metal gear solid series and Spec Ops: The Line, thank you very much.

kill yourself

Exactly, are you guys really worried about RE's story?
However, this is a weird choice for a silly hammer horror series. Gonna be interesting, I guess?

was more going for a cinema snob esq style comment, but being about games.

It's entirely possible for the story to become so stupid and retarded that it impairs enjoyment of the game.

They might try to be serious again.

What the dick are you talking about user?

his mom's addiction to nigger cox

Exactly. If this dude tries to write it all artsy fartsy, it's gonna suck.

those were pure shit

Its about war, that shit can happen in war,. Its supposed to be messed up.

Then the game has no right to judge the player for doing the only thing they're allowed to do within its constraints. But it does.

Games aren't meant to always have haooy endings, you are paying for an experience just like a film or a book it can be positive or negative on its message.

This guy is such a fucking terrible writer. Why the fuck did they hire him of all people? Spec Ops is pure shit.

It's a flawed and broken and dishonest message, that the player is a bad person for enjoying the product they paid for. And it wasn't actually an enjoyable product anyway, it was a completely generic and bland cover shooter and the only reason anyone remembers it is because of its half-baked "artsy" story.

user, people do judge soldiers even when then didn't have an option. Even when it was just orders. Thats why its war, its fucked up. In many ways the game acts how many people react towards soldiers after a war.

The game wasn't judging you, retard, it was trying to make a point about linear games and war shooters like Call of Duty in general.

In the intro credits it even lists you as a "guest start" or some such shit. The game is judging Walker, not the player, and through Walker the unthinking way players approach modern military games.

It's just autistic retards like you that get butthurt a linear TPS game doesn't offer you a choice and get upset you don't get to be the hero. Guess the game hit a nerve.

Did you even play the game?

Every "choice" the game had offered you so far was set up in such a way that no matter what you chose it would end badly.

You, and other nimrods like you (and we had many back when the game came out) profoundly misunderstand what the game was about.

It wasn't a non-linear experience, it wasn't about giving you a fucking choice, it was about making the player understand that the hero worship bullshit Call of Duty and the like get up to, and its glorification of war as a fun ride with all those nicely scripted setpieces falling apart are a sham, and that war is shit and bad shit happens to innocent people.

Nope, your game is shit that tried really hard to have this captivating and mind-blowing story that had already been told twice in better ways in different mediums by more talented people, and it wasn't even a well-made game, so it has absolutely no real merits to stand on at all and the only people who like it are pretentious wanking wannabe "art connoisseurs" that somehow think "killing is bad" is a deep and mind-blowing moral revelation.

I bet you think "you could always choose to stop playing the game" was actually a valid option too.

I was just watching some gameplay. I should replay that game, its was super interesting.

Good lord.
I do wonder what Capcom are trying to do, though. Nothing about the demo said Resi to me. I guess the redneck cult/family is a bit Resi4-ish, but otherwise it just looked like a Silent Hills ripoff/Slender: Capcom Edition.

But the effect is severely dulled by the fact that the player has no choice. The player has no responsibility for their actions, because they didn't choose them. Compare to Undertale which actually has a choice between killing and pacifism and its message is better for it. Please don't make this thread about UT, it was just the only example I could think of off the top of my head.
You could argue that soldiers have no choice in war either and have to fight, but even then there could be choices. You could desert, or choose a more morally righteous path. By not having any choice in the matter, the game really misses out.

But the difference between a book or a film and a game is that games are interactive. A movie watcher has no say in what the characters of the screen do. You could criticize the watcher by saying they enjoy watching the violence unfolding before them. Their only choices would be to not watch or to watch. The watcher is never in control.
In games, you have at least the illusion of control, so it feels very dissonant when the game criticizes you for playing a certain way and yet only gives you one way of interacting.

Sounds fun. Pre ordering when I get paid.

You idiots who keeps on defending this piece of shit should just look at the loading screens one more time. It changes from gaming tips to pretentious bullshit.

Also the writers said that a valid ending was to stop playing

Sadly, a lot of the impact is now lost.

I pretty much went into it blind, with just a vague idea it was different from other TPS games. I was pleasantly surprised because the writing is far more nuanced that what most games offer.

And there's all these neat touches that show the developers cared. Your team starts off in clean and nice uniforms and perform actions such as executions in a professional manner, but as the game goes on and the craziness starts piling up they start looking like complete lunatics, torn and patched up, and the executions get all manner of brutal, and their responses get vicious.

Nah, it's shit. Before you ask again, yes, I've played the game to completion. It's garbage. PC port is utter trash as well.

What a fucking embarrassment.

It speaks volumes about what a faggot you are. The whole cRPG genre and the best you could think of is Tumblrtale. You could have at least mentioned Way of the Samurai or some other shit.

How does interactivity suddenly translate into non-linearity?

Again, you fuckwits, is Doom suddenly a bad game because you don't get the choice to hug a demon and make friends? It seems to me the thing you're upset about is that the game is telling you Walker is a shitty person.

I keep seeing this gif, what's it from?

Walker is a shitbag. Outside of the few "choices" given his personal need to be involved in the events of the game precipitates a bad situation into a fatal one.

Walker's whole mission was to go to Dubai, find something and report back, and the joke here is that he did just that, right at the start of the game, with the distress beacon and the blood on the humvee. He should have called it in and gone back, but he (not the player, note) decided to keep pushing ahead, and pushing ahead.

Why do you fuckers get upset over one single instance of Walker acting like an imbecile in a game full of such linear events where the player has no choice? Why do you keep lambasting the game for being linear?

The funny thing is, Spec Ops actually does have a segment that conveys its "WAR AND KILLING ARE REALLY REALLY BAD, GUYS" message perfectly, hidden in the middle of a sea of shitty finger-wagging because you did the only thing possible. The part in question is the one where pissed-off civilians are mobbing one of your allies, and you have to save his ass, and it's the best part of the game in terms of making its point.

The obvious and fastest solution at that part is to just gun their asses down and end the problem there, and it's the solution the game calls you a complete monster for picking. However, you're also able to aim up into the sky, fire off a few rounds and make them all run for their lives that way without any casualties, something that's not given a huge prompt to signify it as an option. You're expected to either act without thinking and hurt innocent (by rabid dune coon standards, at least) people in the process, or stop for a moment, use your head and find a way to do things better, and the game's blunt message about thoughtlessly murdering people and being turned into a mindless killing machine by warfare rings true here. You can either be an oblivious twat and not care/not realize that you're fucking shit up, or you can be the sort of person who thinks things through despite the stress and pressure of a given situation.

The fact that the rest of the game is a railroaded fucking mess makes this part stand out so much more than it would if the whole game were like it, since that part actually waits for you to show how you'll behave and either congratulates you or tells you you're an ass, whereas the rest of it only offers the option of killing or not playing, then shits on you for playing the only way possible.

If I remember right, even the devs are twats about it too, claiming you have a choice in no longer playing the game instead of continuing, despite that being retarded nonsense since you theoretically paid for the product and having it tell you to do nothing with it is complete idiocy. It also flies in the face of basic logic, since turning the game off mid-playthrough and leaving it forever could be equated to your character just lying down and dying for no good reason, which is utter bullshit as far as "player choice" goes since any and every game in existence allows for that "option".

If the rest of the game actually gave you a fucking choice, even one as simple and lazy as "just make a u-turn in the intro area, after you find confirmation that shit's fucked (which is what you came for), and leave", similar to how Far Cry 4 let you actually sit there as asked until the villain came back and he'd do as promised if you did, it wouldn't be so insulting for the game to call you an asshole for playing it through. If the player actually has a choice in the events of the story, then chastising him for being violent when he has just as much opportunity to take the high road is fair, but doing the same when there's no other option is as asinine as it gets in terms of story-writing.

Considering how poorly Spec Ops ended up going outside that one segment where it gave you a legitimate choice that required conscious thought, having the writer work on this means RE7 will probably be hackneyed trash that chastises the player for daring to pay 60 shekels for the product and then attempting to enjoy it.

Lots of games do that.
The devs never said that, only the pretensious writer appointed by 2K Walt Williams.
Games generic and bland as fuck, its a streamlined Heart of Darkness put into a video game.
Its unique, an ok experience despite the gameplay.

Much like Drakengard

I'll spoonfeed you once and only once because people are faggots and didn't save it with the proper filename
It's called Rondo Duo

It's a shame all that attention to detail is wasted on a shitty generic cover shooter. It was the only thing that convinced me that any effort went into the game at all.

The devs themselves jerk off about how the game deconstructs military shooters. The game shits on you constantly complete with lines like "Do you feel like a hero yet?" over and over despite railroading the player into every single "bad choice" it jerks off about.

summed it up pretty well.

Even if RE4 was the only game ever made by Capcom in the Resident Evil franchise, it would still be shit. How's is a generic 3rd person shooter with "so random zombies!!!XD" in any way spectacular? They removed everything good from RE1 (cheesy dialogue, figure out story yourself, survival horror, actual fucking zombies), so that the game could appeal to normalfags.

Oh boy, here we go

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the developers took into consideration the gentle feelings of butthurt autists that want to be the hero, and get bent out of shape when a choice made by the character (in a linear story!), without full knowledge of the situation (just like in a real world military situation!), ends up killing a shitload of innocent mudshits.

What then?

Because Walker roasting all those civilians and American soldiers to death and whooping about it is the breaking point of the story, it's the part where the character completely loses his fucking mind and reaching Konrad becomes his obsession, a pathological need he uses to justify every other atrocity he does afterwards. Shooting phosphorous of US soldiers, and later finding he shoahed a bunch of done coons too, is Walker crossing the moral event horizon.

That's the whole fucking point though. Not the "choices", but to show the player war is not fun and games.

It makes you feel like shit the same way Heart of Darkness does. Are you gonna blame the book for not having a happy ending as well?

The book doesn't call you a bad person for reading it to its conclusion.

It wasn't generic when it came out, idiot.

The book didn't claim to have player choice and directly insult the reader. The story of Spec Ops is the only thing it has to show because the gameplay is the most generic, boring AAA cover shooter garbage available.

You're still sidestepping the point that you're railroaded into "choices" that the game then calls you an asshole for making. Anyone sane would see that shit's fucked 5 minutes into the game and then fuck off out of there because that's literally your mission. The entire premise falls apart in the opening sequence.

Wheres that implied anywhere in the interviews or the game?

It's not even generic now. I can't think of many other shooters that play like RE4. Most third-person-shooters play like Gears of War and shit.

Neither does the game. In fact, the only choice that matters in the whole story is at the end, where the game puts the question to the player (and Walker).

Do you feel responsible for all that has happened?

You are then left to contemplate and make your decision, and it's the only decision that changes anything of significance in the game.

This is why I really liked The Line.

I also enjoyed how they wrote walker as a character. In most video games you can always trust who you're playing, but in spec ops you can't trust walker, he's an unreliable narrator, the first time through I took everything I was seeing at face value, after the WP event, he gets a bit more fucked up but even before that he was altering details in the world, and it's possible he had PTSD before they ever went to Dubai, that being said, it could be totally possible that there was a choice to be made during the attack on the base, however due to his state it's possible that he overlooked it and that's why it's not included, he was lost before he began attacking.

"There's no choice" and we as the player have to trust the narrator that is walker that this is the best choice. it's not, and instead of everything going fine like in call of duty it's fucked up and you get to see the bad side of war, the side that fucks people up because we trusted the game to a happy story. In call of duty, you don't even get choices, but nothing bad happens.

I never said that it's bad because it's different. It's that RE1, and RE2 to a large degree, built themselves up as a new genre. They were built on the back of AITD; puzzle games, with combat that was less important. RE1 was never about zombies, or the story: it was about surviving Spencer's Mansion.

How would you like it if, after MGS1, Kojima made it a puzzle game, like Tetris. "Oh, you don't like it? It's because your afraid of change."

You do realise that SpecOps does NOTHING that a hundred incredibly popular and acclaimed games did before? You do realise that you whine about Spec Ops not really because it did not give you a choice - you complain because it SHOWED you the horrific result of your actions?

Yes, you are supposed to feel crappy - but you should not feel crappy because of this particular instance of killing civilians - you should realise that the completely common trope, where the game has you bombaring an area full fo people because it's simply a part of progression is IN GENERAL kinda fucked up.

It's adressing a systematical problem. If you dislike the lack of choice with the white phosphorus in The Line, then you HAVE to raise the same fucking complain on every single game that ever featured similar altilery stricke - ever.

...

It's a good action game, and a piss-poor RE game. How about that?

Kill yourself,

The game literally calls you a monster and asks if you feel like a hero yet directly after the white phosphorus scene. I now throw your question earlier in the thread back at you: Did you even play the game?

What modern military shooter game other than Spec Ops has you bombing civilians to advance? In fact, even Call of Duty penalizes you or outright game overs you if you kill civilians. In fact, that scene was specifically calling out Call of Duty, where the only scene in the franchise that you kill civilians is one that's played explicitly for horror and drama.

Ironically enough, "No Russian", the level in question, allows you to complete it without firing upon a single civilian and even acknowledges that choice. Spec Ops is an utter failure.

The game forces the player to ask a question whenever he does feel morally responcible for what happened or not.

And this is the thing most people never understood. IT JUST ASKS THEM. It's not teaching them a lesson - the point is not to understand that one answer is right - the game is not "guilt-tripping you" because rejecting the guilt is just as valid option as accepting it. Basically it asks you how much do you identify with the actions of your character.

those are the same retards who buy apple shit and get tricked into signing 4 years+ loans on new cars

Go home dick, I don't feel bad about bombing mudslimes never did you love them so much go join ISIS nigger.

You know. I think in this case it doesn't really matter if hes western. In actuality here this maybe explains the switch back to horror. Capcom does have some roots in america still, so maybe the handed off to them. Which always is a good idea. I mean look at how all the newer silent hill games fared compared to that one by that Japanese guy no one cares about. Good on Konami for shutting it down. Thus, the american team probably saw all the hate for the more rocking action-y titles and decided to go full horror and modernize it so youtubers can blow out their vocal cords.
Which is weird. Because normally american devs build large, bombastic, and comically stupid action games and the Japanese make really good quiet and psychological horror games.
And now we have japanese devs who made one of the most mechanically tight third person shooters out of an entire generation of games, being followed up by american devs who're making a spooky horror game with psychological elements with a writer who has kind of done a nice job once with the psychological bit.
As a side note, the success of either game will probably be around the same. RE is a big series but if we look at games meant primarily for youtubers like this, they generally only are bought by youtubers or the odd person who wants to try it.

Granted, but it's the only game I can think of that is expressly about pacifism vs violence and has an actual choice between them. Sure, some CRPG questlines have these choices, but not the WHOLE game. Also, you can't finish any ending in WotS (at least, 3 and 4, I haven't played 1 and 2 in a long time so I'm not certain) without violence.
Spec Ops tells you you're a bad person the whole game, but you have no choice to act otherwise. So why should the player give a shit? They didn't choose to act this way, so there's no reason to feel responsible. It loses all impact.
Why make it a game at all? The only thing that makes it unique is it's commentary on the war shooter genre. If you're tricked into playing it while thinking it's a generic shooter, it has some surprise factor. But otherwise, it's not as clever as you think it is.

It doesn't, but the game is accusing you of making a choice you never made, which implies interactivity. Can you see why this would be frustrating for a player? The premise of Doom is to shoot demons and the game never says you're a bad person for doing so. So, it doesn't matter that there's no choice.

Drakengard did the loading screens bit better than Spec Ops.

I never said the combat was bad. Forcing the player to stop, and shoot, is an excellent mechanic. RE1 was never about combat. If you think that, you're a faggot who never actually beat RE1

Walker does that, not the player. You feeling shitty because of that is only you identified with Walker.

But you weren't bombing civilians, they were collateral damage, you were bombing the 33rd to advance the game.

Like I said, it's addressing a systematic issue with modern military shooters. Recall those gunship scenes in Call of Duty they love so much, how emotionless the radio operator is as he reports you slaughtering people and ripping them to shreds with heavy ordnance.

Did anyone even stop and think what was going on in that scene? No, because the game doesn't want you to think about the possible consequences of unleashing that much lead at stuff. Just keep shooting the red squares like a good little goy and don't think too hard what that shit does to people.

Pewdiepie and his cabal of cancerous LP buddies.

Thats the whole fucking theme, I shouldnt be playing such a generic piece of shit.
I only pirated it due to some people telling me it was something I wasnt expecting, it successed in that regard.
The gameplay and story is everything you expect from a shitty generic shooter and it plays with your expectations, it actually makes you think.

It was advertised as another dudebro shooter but its anything but that narrative wise.

Where is the Line ever about pacifism? You're comparing apples and oranges.

The reason you're upset is not that the game forced you into using phosphorous, but because it showed you the consequences.

Would it have mattered if Walker had just slaughtered the 33rd troops conventionally, without resorting to the mortar? No, because you're just shooting a bunch of pixels in uniform, but when it actually shows you what CoD doesn't, that military action, especially when there is "fog of war" tends to end up with a lot of collateral damage to non-combatants, suddenly people cry like bitches.

What about the game having you decide between the CIA agent or the civilians? Or how about letting a man burn to death or giving him a quick death? Why weren't you feeling like shit then?

Did you feel like a hero letting the CIA agent/civilians get executed? Did you feel like a hero crashing the water cistern?

Why do you keep singling out that one scene the characters had no way of knowing would end the way it did?

You made plenty of choices before, all with shit consequences. The whole game is one long string of bad decisions on Walker's part, yet you keep getting butthurt the game calls him out on it.

The player is a spectator here, he's not Walker, he's the stunt director, he doesn't decide what Walker is gonna do, or where he's gonna go, just how he gets from point A to point B.

I never said it didnt
Many games did it better
I feel like most people who complained about either actually bought it or feel like their favorite isnt recognized for it.
Spec Ops succeded by presenting and advertising itself as a generic shooter unlike most other games.
Thats where it shined

If anything it deserves recognition for making you think.
Its an alright buy for 10 dollars, not much else, but its alright.

*favorite deconstruction game

Thing is, the developers were ordered to make just another shitty military shooter, and yes, they did make just another shitty military shooter, but they also went the extra step and tried to break the mold and tell a different narrative.

Call of Duty tries to make war look bad, but that's only superficial, because the actions of the protagonists are always justified, always correct, they're the heroes and can do no wrong.

Well, in the Line you're leading such a character, or at least one such on the surface, and the game goes on to show what happens when you have a fucktard trying to act like an action movie (or military FPS) hero.

All it made me think is that there are publishers dumb enough to pull tricks on the consumer and get away with it. It worked and now the industry is all hyped up on hating gamers and making child molesting mudslides look good.

Said mudshits hang the moralfag member of your team, the one dude that was feeling the worst about roasting them.

The Line does nobody any favors, everyone, the 33rd, Konrad, Walker, the CIA, the insurgents, all are shit people. You can speculate what drove them to such extremes, but there is no good guy in the game.

I thought Joseph Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness

What tricks?
The gameplay is generic shooter number 0451
Its the narrative that isnt

It surprised me and broke my expectations having a really nice climax even with the mediocre gameplay.

Much like Monster Girl Quest and Drakengard.

Medal of Honor 2010 has a scene where you bomb an entire village from a plane. It also has some propaganda quotes after the ending.

ALquieda and isis would present this all in reverse and there would no feels bad man from them. He's a islam loving traitor he and his spawn do not deserve the west they deserve death. Just look at his twitter he loves promoting the socjus agenda.

twitter.com/richardpearsey

I bet many of you are banned from even looking at that link but I'll tell you all the fucking offenders are there JIm fatboy, Neofag All the traitors are there he also loves this propaganda piece coming out to make islam look like a a poor under dog 100% guarantee the child molesting and drug addiction won't be shown in that shit.

Because Resident Evils writing up to this point has been shakespeare right?

How can this idiot even make it worse

You're missing my point. What I don't like about Spec Ops is that the game blames you for things that Walker decides to do. The player has NO choice in anything, aside from a couple of instances.
Why am I frustrated by this? Because, by accusing you of doing something wrong, it implies that there is a better way of doing things. I believe the game is poorly presented.
Even if the other choices could have lead to bad things happening, but at least the player had a choice. I'd still feel cheated if there was only one outcome, but at least I chose to end up there. Spec Ops forces you into an outcome and then blames you for it. I find this very jarring.

It isn't. But what other choice do you have other than violence? By telling the player that they chose the "bad" option, it implies there is a "good" option. An option that a better person should have chosen. It's not so much violence vs pacifism, but rather an implied better or worse choice. Any black and white example would have sufficed.

What scene? I haven't mentioned any specific scene in any of my posts.

Make up your mind.
The game is about Walker, but criticizes the player for making these decisions that they never made. The game implies interaction, but there isn't any.

Totally true. This gimmick is the only truly great thing about Spec Ops.

Sure, but it's still flawed and being a "thinking" game doesn't make it immune to criticism.

They miss represented the product to the consumer on purpose THAT is a near illegal practice that has become the norm. Kill yourself for defending this practice.

By taking it seriously.

By making it all about poor poor islam and rape culture never overlapping of course. :^)

Fun fact: false advertising like this technically is illegal in the UK. That's why all our commercials have to have a little notice saying "not in-game footage" in the corner.

By removing the gameplay….oh wait

Don't get me wrong, I love my rip and tear and I also love deconstructing said rip and tear, but the "featured" rack at Gamestop still has the same shit for the past ten years now and it needs to go somewhere for fuck's sake. Spec Ops gave me something without turning into a walking sim albeit being a cover shooter. All it needs is some writing and design fine-tuning and it could've been seriously great.

Want to know how I know you've never played RE4? Shit is campy as fuck, just in an action-horror setting instead of a horror-action one.

I believe the point was to make you gain some empathy for US soldiers who are blamed for shit outside of their control, while also pointing out just how dissociated most modern shooters are. It seemed to be a very much love/hate thing.

Yes user, anything bad could have been good by not being bad. But they didn't do that, so we can only assume they were incapable of doing that.

This writer only makes good stuff.
Hype.

I just need to know that RE7 will actually have science/zombies and not rely on paranormal crap and I'm sold to high heaven.

I mean, OP… Resident Evil 5 and 6 didn't exactly have good writing.

You know what I meant. If the game managed to give the player a choice in things and unfucked the cover-shooting bullshit. It would've been good. Hell, even the cover shooting could even be debated to be on purpose "because art." Whatever, debating it at this point would be pointless but acknowledged at the very least.

Already was, anyway. Arguments like "the game is unsatisfying and unfun because WAR ISN'T A GAME OOOHH"

I never said otherwise, I certainly woulnt pay for it, the gameplay is trash and the narrative has a shitton of plot holes.

But thet didnt, the game is a generic shooter trough and trough.
The first MGS did the same thing, except the gameplay didnt look like generic shit.

Sure fam

I love how no you shill niggers can give a rebuttal to how much this dick nigger loves Islam HAHAHHA Pearsey is a child molester HA.

Show me where he says he loves Islam

Both of the last two are Jill only. Chris has to do it all himself because he's a man.

ask me if i remember anything about the FEAR expansions out side of a black guy screaming "test tube mother fuck'a " in slow mo

Jill is literally designed to be easy mode, so this is silly to complain about.

All his "Achievements" involve muslims being poorly mistreated by big bad America also he has one Fox retweet the rest is his timeline is VICE and GAF hes a traitor along with the rest of upper class authoritarian left.

The problem with spec ops is how they delivered the story to the player through the game. The story itself would've been an alright war story had it been a book or a movie.

I remember that one of them had you play as a random American spec ops guy who also had slo-mo powers for no explained reason and he fought cartwheeling commando ninjas.

If Pearsay was behind that then maybe he is a fitting writer for Resident Evil.

Thats a no no on the checklist hes an obvious traitor to the cause
I want NatSoc to leave

You're free to go back to cuckchan anytime you like, I hear they started harvesting IP's again.

Nevermind, the cunt follows Feminist Frequency.
Tell me about your Fuher and how Fascism is the way to go even though they've sacrificed culture and nationalism for the governmments own purposes.
You're holier than thou attitude is just as bad as the commies.