Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by feltmonkey

  1. Wout has been really useful for us today though. I think it might be worth hooking Antony, who has been okay, but looks like he might get himself sent off.
  2. Martinez!!! What a clever finish to get that up and over Ramsdale and the defenders.
  3. I think we should bring Garnacho on. Move Rashford either into the centre or the right.
  4. Brilliant goal that, not a lot you can do about that.
  5. Well, I'd take this scoreline as the result, to be honest. Arsenal feel more threatening than even Man City did last week. They swarm at you. We've not really created anything ourselves yet, but they've looked close to scoring a few times and are constantly putting our midfield and defence under pressure. Our goal came from a brilliant bit of individual play rather than good team play or match control. We need to somehow get some control. As I said, a fair ref would help. Every player in possession is constantly getting little kicks at the back of their heels. Considering we have a twelve foot tall striker, it would help if we started getting some free-kicks when we get fouled around their box.
  6. Anthony Taylor is giving every 50-50 decision Arsenal's way. He's given quite a few 60-40 in our favour Arsenal's way. He's playing up to the home crowd. It's infuriating.
  7. Wan-Bissaka's big weakness defensively is that he isn't very good at defending the back post from crosses, and it was in full effect there.
  8. Rashford! What a goal!
  9. We're never getting another penalty, are we? Not that that one was cut and dried, but Argentina got one for that in the World Cup.
  10. We're playing a strong XI. I thought we might play Fernandes on the right and bring in Fred to sit on Odegaard.
  11. By the time that happens they won't need to - we'll all have 24/7 VR holograms beamed direct into our cyberbrains.
  12. This is why they don't usually televise mid-table matches.
  13. It was the correct decision, as Havertz's left foot was ahead of the ball when Silva took the first shot. When the ball came in initially, Milner played everyone onside. The offside was from Silva's shot. When it rebounded to Havertz he became active and therefore it was offside. This is similiar to the one last week - technically correct but feels wrong. I doubt there will be the same outcry, though! I kind of think we should be a bit fairer to the officials, who have called two weird offsides correctly despite them being really difficult decisions. There were two more in the Liverpool-Wolves game that seemed crazy but were both technically correct. Someone should revisit the law in the close season because it's not really working as intended. The handball law too - it seems bizarre to me that there's this whole exception to the law where accidental handballs are fine unless the same player who accidentally handballed it scores. It throws up all sorts of bizarre scenarios.
  14. feltmonkey

    High on Life

    What??? No I fucking haven't. I said nothing of the sort. Why make something like that up? I said a lot of the humour in the game is cruel. How you would make the leap from that to what you've just written is beyond me. I posted my opinion. I was clear that I had only played the first couple of hours. I stand by my opinion from what I played, I wasn't making up any "nonsense narrative." I even said that perhaps there is stuff later in the game that undercuts and balances what I percieved as a flavour of cruelty in the humour. I respect your opinion of the game, but you must realise that other opinions are available. My having a different opinion to yours doesn't constitute some kind of attack, as you seem to have interpreted it. Your opinion was one thing, mine was another (literally one point out of ten lower than yours - I said it's a 7/10) neither of us are right because it's impossible to have an objectively right opinion about the quality of a game. But listen, if you think that my post will put people off here's something for you - Hey everyone! I thought High On Life was just alright, but other people such as RubberJohnny think it's better than that! He's played more of the game than me, so maybe you should trust his opinion more than mine. Don't let his strange response to my post put you off, I'm sure he knows what he's talking about! Nope, I didn't say anything of the sort and I don't think anything of the sort. Insinuating that the devs and and anyone who likes the game are bastards? What on Earth... I'm problematic due to this opinion you have made up in your head and assigned to me? Really??? Seriously, are you okay? By the way, I'm not passing judgement on Roiland's output based on the recent accusations for reasons I mentioned in my post - they're currently just accusations. I can also separate the art from the artist, although that's always just to a degree. Unfortunately I think we all have things we enjoy that were made by terrible people, not that we can say that Roiland is a terrible person yet. Well, as @Benny pointed out, I wasn't making that up about the game forcing you to kill peaceful enemies in order to continue. That is the specific part I was referencing - I was just avoiding a spoiler. In the first area, the slums, I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying that some of the enemies stop fighting you. I remember one guard standing behind a pilar, lowering their weapon, and not shooting me, while sound clips of an enemy terrified by my bloody rampage played. Perhaps that was just a bug or I'm just making things up and lying for some reason, or maybe it was in the game and actually in character with a lot of the game, who knows? However, me being wrong is a concept I can get behind. If you'd said I was wrong and the game is great, and the humour is really funny I'd have accepted that happily. There's nothing as subjective as humour so of course what each person finds funny is personal to them alone. I don't know why anyone would find one person not finding something funny that they liked an attack on them, as you have. I can't imagine anyone not finding something funny and accusing anyone who did so of being a monster either*, as you seem to think I am doing. You found it funny, I found it hit and miss. That's the strange thing - I said I laughed out loud at some of it! I had one paragraph were I explained which parts of the humour I didn't like, which was roughly the same length as the paragraph where I talked about the parts of the humour I did like. You've taken this paragraph and out of thin air spun a narrative where I'm accusing people of being terrible people. I mean, I'd be accusing myself of that, as I've admitted laughing at quite a few of the jokes myself. Your respose is very strange. I'm going to assume that we're all trapped in a Rick and Morty plot, and you are getting angry at a completely different review that fell through from an alternative dimension. There probably could be a R&M episode that takes the piss out of people who consider someone expressing an opinion that is different to their own as a personal attack. I'd watch that. * Unless we're talking about Mrs Brown's Boys, in which case I do reserve the right to call you a monster.
  15. feltmonkey

    High on Life

    Am I the "someone" you're talking about? Weird how you are talking about me as if I'm not here. 😂 I don't know where you got right wing from. As for cruelty, there's an awful lot of humour that derives from how pathetic or disgusting one character or another is. When you find the guy who ends up as your mentor, and he's in a terrible state, the game doesn't afford him any sympathy at all. I felt sympathy for him, but it really felt that the game was in opposition to this reaction and actively pulling against it. I was supposed to be disgusted and disappointed by him, not feel sorry for him. The treasure chests are living creatures you kill to get the coins inside. If you don't do this, you can't afford upgrades. The game constantly pokes you into killing creatures you might otherwise not by making the game much more annoying if you resist it. That floating guy I described is designed to be disliked or hated. The generic enemies sometimes react with fear towards you and basically surrender, but you can't progress without killing them. The game expects you to react with glee to the combat, and laugh as you dispatch essentially helpless enemies. Characters comment on how great it is that certain enemies are easy to kill. There are no likable characters - everyone is characterised as stupid or disgusting or both, and every character is dehumanised and considered worthless by the game. That's what someone means by cruel humour. They might also say hateful.
  16. Almost everything that could go wrong went wrong in that second half. Rashford had an absolute stinker, we were denied an obvious penalty, then the gamble to keep Casemiro on backfires with his booking, and we don't even manage to hold on for the win because of an absolute worldy free-kick that we couldn't do a thing about. Then we manage to miss an open goal in injury time. The worst possible last fifteen minutes! Well, actually it could have been even worse if it hadn't been for Wan-Bissaka's telescopic leg. He was our man of the match for me.
  17. At least people will stop talking about the title. That was never on the cards anyway. I like that comment from Zaha in his interview about Wan-Bissaka. He got through on goal, had a look over his shoulder, and thought, "Oh no, it's Aaron."
  18. What a tackle by Wan-Bissaka.
  19. What a goal that is.
  20. You know what's really annoying? If that clear penalty had been given, Casemiro wouldn't have still been on the pitch to get that card, and the suspension for the Arsenal game.
  21. No, definitely not. That was quite agricultural.
  22. Great save. Just shows what an effect that insane non-penalty decision still could be. By the way, Palace are a really dirty team in general, aren't they?
  23. Why is that not a penalty? I'd love to hear an explanation.
  24. Our midfield three have been excellent tonight.
  25. That's really lax from the security. We had a fan punch Ramsdale last week, and that bellend was allowed to walk onto the pitch and take a selfie with Casemiro. Still they didn't come on, until the fan had walked off the pitch. That could have been dangerous. As for the prick who got on the pitch, I hope they delete his camera roll. Real main character syndrome thinking it's okay to hold up a match because you want a photograph.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.