Mobile_Pangolin4939 t1_j9q1s42 wrote

Who would have thought that Davide Spade was the coolest looking one. He always played a nerd except for in Joe Dirt. Adam Sandler definitely looked better when he got older. Not that looks are the most important thing. Just an observation.


Mobile_Pangolin4939 t1_j6heisw wrote

The Goonies took place in the 80s I think. The kids definitely weren't like this. Even the kids in Stand bye me weren't this tuff unless you're looking at the older kids that seemed a bit crazy. Kieffer Sutherland always scarred me in that movie.


Mobile_Pangolin4939 t1_j2ufj77 wrote

I'm not certain what came first. From what I've read women during this time period wore dressed because it was thought to reduce the chance of infection when bleeding from the vulva. When absorption pads were invented women could wear pants without worry. I know that the Irish and Scottish wore Kilts. I'm not certain what the Romans and Greeks wore. It didn't appear to be very much. It does look like the elite wore dresses or robes. More primitive people appear to have all worn loincloths of some sort aside from the Eskimos. If the bushman are examples women didn't wear tops. There are so many different cultures with different clothing that it's difficult to say. Many cultures in the 1800s seemed to have women with dresses and men with trousers. It may have been more for practicality at the time rather than any kind of identification with some vague idea of what they are. Clearly in this instance she is modeling herself after a man which may or may not have been a wise decision depending on varying factors at the time about how practical it was. Of course the Native Americans appear to have allowed women to identify as masculine or take on more feminine tasks. I'm not sure if this included the person wearing male or female clothing. I don't think it's as large an issue as people make it out to be honestly. It may comfort people to think about things a certain way and that's okay I guess. It's more of a luxury though. If we lived the old way we would be to busy trying to survive to worry about sexual identification or clothing other than it's practicality too much.


Mobile_Pangolin4939 t1_j2s2v8b wrote

To be honest it doesn't really make sense to dress in a long skirt if you're going to hunt and roam around in the forest. I'm not sure what the original logic was behind wearing dresses. If they served some kind of purpose. You wouldn't think they would be good for doing housework and raising kids either. Perhaps it had something to do with menstruation. I just read that women's dresses had some kind of ties in them to keep them attached to their legs. This might have made them easier to do work in, but I could still see them getting in their way.


Mobile_Pangolin4939 t1_j25hkg5 wrote

I definitely enjoyed the BG2 story more, but their both fun. I guess it largely depends on what's your personal preference. BG2 was made in the 90s and has a 90s style D&D atmosphere. BG2 is real time turn based. You don't make every single move for each character. It's somewhat automated. I prefer the BG2 classes and Forgotten Realms setting. I grew up reading the books.

Divinity Original Sin is fully turn based and has a very different setting. The characters are a lot different in style. The classes are vastly different. The game is turn fully based. There is much more micromanagement. It's 3d vs the 2d of BG2. I'd say it's much more balanced in terms of class power if you care about that. i thought a lot of the voices/dialogue were a bit annoying, but could be fun sometimes. I definitely didn't like the classes as much, but I'll admit there is much more room for customization. It also has crafting which I'm not a big fan of. BG2 has crafting of a sort, but it's mostly for unique items made from unique items.