Would You Rather: Non-Automotive Edition

[W3H5]

Being the stick that I am I could probably sleep on a automotive seat belt strung up between trees so long as it was long enough to support my length.

I’ve never played this before...

Would you rather - be attacked by 5 20 year olds or 20 5 year olds? Unarmed, of course.

 

[Liquid]

Twenty 5 year olds could smother you and suffocate you to death if they don't already know to just punch you in the funzone.

So I'd say five 20 year olds if they all had muscular dystrophy.

 

[W3H5]

Twenty 5 year olds could smother you and suffocate you to death if they don't already know to just punch you in the funzone.

So I'd say five 20 year olds if they all had muscular dystrophy.

Not so easily, mister.

The 20 5 year olds have all just had a Happy Meal (with Coke) and the 5 20 year olds have just been let out of collage on a Friday afternoon to begin their weekend.

 

[TexRex]

Even as genuine self-defense, I'd be uncomfortable fending off kids; five 20-year-olds.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Not so easily, mister.

The 20 5 year olds have all just had a Happy Meal (with Coke) and the 5 20 year olds have just been let out of collage on a Friday afternoon to begin their weekend.

Easy, even 100 5 year olds would be a no brainer over 5 20 year olds. Only so many people can attack you at once, less force and reach equals higher chance of survival.

 

[W3H5]

Easy, even 100 5 year olds would be a no brainer over 5 20 year olds. Only so many people can attack you at once, less force and reach equals higher chance of survival.

Mate, I work with 5 year olds on a daily basis and let me tell you for a fact that they aren’t to be trifled with when they get set on whatever vengeance a 5 year old may have.

20 year olds, on the other other hand, without any prior combat experience or even bar brawling experience will have there asses handed to them by anyone with half an idea about defensive combat.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Mate, I work with 5 year olds on a daily basis and let me tell you for a fact that they aren’t to be trifled with when they get set on whatever vengeance a 5 year old may have.

20 year olds, on the other other hand, without any prior combat experience or even bar brawling experience will have there asses handed to them by anyone with half an idea about defensive combat.

You say yourself you are a stick and work with 5 year olds on a daily basis...

20 year olds can do serious damage if they wanted to especially ones let out of a "collage" only for the weekend . Tried this How Many Five Year Olds Can You Realistically Take In A Fight? quiz and got 21, it says so on the Internet so it must be true. I'll fancy my chances without using any violence too. 5 year olds don't have much weight, strength or reach so they will probably end up fighting each other getting in each others way . 5 20 year olds on the other hand, I think I would end up dead no matter how much I knew about defensive combat unless they were extremely feeble. I think you are overestimating 5 year olds strengths and underestimating young adults who were also 5 year olds once too.

 

[TB]

Tried this How Many Five Year Olds Can You Realistically Take In A Fight? quiz and got 21,

52?! 52! I am in awe. You are a true child-whoopin' hero. They should hold a ceremony in your honor. They should rename Devry University in your honor. They should rename that Foo Fighters' album "In Your Honor" in your honor.

 

[TexRex]

52?! 52! I am in awe. You are a true child-whoopin' hero. They should hold a ceremony in your honor. They should rename Devry University in your honor. They should rename that Foo Fighters' album "In Your Honor" in your honor.

Monster!

Would you describe yourself as a person that can be "climbed easily?"

I snorted.

 

[Daz555]

Would you rather - be attacked by 5 20 year olds or 20 5 year olds? Unarmed, of course.

I can walk faster than most 5 year olds can run. You just point to the sky and shout "Look SANTA!" and then leg it in the other direction.

That would probably work for the 5 20yr olds as well but they'd soon catch me - not as fast as I once was!

 

[Rallywagon]

I would take on the 20 5 year olds. Honestly, 40 lbs of kid is nothing compared to fighting a full grown adult. 5 adults, even inexperienced, would be more than a handful for even a pro fighter, if they are organized. A group of 5 year olds. Just start punting away. Maybe grab a couple by the hair and start spinning like a helicopter. Any strategy is likely to work on a group of munchkins.
And that test, it's clearly flawed. Same answers, except clicking the accurate age group (31-40) lands me at 21 5 year olds. If I move it to the next younger age group 22-30, and I can take an infinite number. I gotta say, i may not have quite the same stamina as 29 year old me, but at 37, i would smash 29 year old me handedly.

 

[Sonygamer455]

Here's an interesting question!

If you had the power of time travel and ways of manipulating video game development, would you rather:
A. Have a canceled game you like to be finished and released as it was originally intended?
B. Stop a game you dislike from ever being produced?

 

[Rallywagon]

A. I would stop EA from touching Sim City, Spore and Thrillkill

 

[Sonygamer455]

A. I would stop EA from touching Sim City, Spore and Thrillkill

Wouldn't that be letter B then?

 

[Rallywagon]

Well no, not b since I would want all of those games made still. Thrill kill was canceled, then later became that Wu Tang fighting game. So that's definitely A. Spore and Sim City obviously weren't canceled, however, they were completely ruined by EA, so close enough to a. Maybe a c option, cancel a company?

 

[Sonygamer455]

Well no, not b since I would want all of those games made still. Thrill kill was canceled, then later became that Wu Tang fighting game. So that's definitely A.

Okay, I guess I see your point there.

Spore and Sim City obviously weren't canceled, however, they were completely ruined by EA, so close enough to a.

I disagree. Letter A was about canceled games and as you said, they weren't canceled, so you can't really pick those two.

Also, for the record, when I said "a game", I meant only one, not multiple. (though I'm aware stopping one game could theoretically prevent many others from spawning)

Maybe a c option, cancel a company?

Maybe for another question.

 

[Rallywagon]

Okay, I guess I see your point there.
I disagree. Letter A was about canceled games and as you said, they weren't canceled, so you can't really pick those two.

Also, for the record, when I said "a game", I meant only one, not multiple. (though I'm aware stopping one game could theoretically prevent many others from spawning)
Maybe for another question.

Sorry mate, I run loose and free, cant be held down by silly things like rules

 

[Sonygamer455]

Okay then.

As for my answer, I pick A. My choice would be the canceled Star Wars Battlefront III. I'm a huge fan of the original Battlefront titles and I can remember being excited hearing about the third one, only to be disappointed later on when I learned it got canceled after it was, according to them, almost complete. If this game was to have been finished and released as it was intended, I have a gut feeling it would have been a blast to play and who knows, maybe it would save the company from going bankrupt?

B is a little too unpredictable in my opinion because even if you do stop a game from ever seeing the light of day, how do we know something much worse won't happen as a result? If I had to pick a game for this one though, it'd be EA's Star Wars Battlefront.

 

[Rallywagon]

Okay then.

As for my answer, I pick A. My choice would be the canceled Star Wars Battlefront III. I'm a huge fan of the original Battlefront titles and I can remember being excited hearing about the third one, only to be disappointed later on when I learned it got canceled after it was, according to them, almost complete. If this game was to have been finished and released as it was intended, I have a gut feeling it would have been a blast to play and who knows, maybe it would save the company from going bankrupt?

B is a little too unpredictable in my opinion because even if you do stop a game from ever seeing the light of day, how do we know something much worse won't happen as a result? If I had to pick a game for this one though, it'd be EA's Star Wars Battlefront.

See, let's just do away with EA altogether. That should be allowed under option b.

 

[Sonygamer455]

Except I was talking about a particular game, not an entire company. However, this question will cover that.

Assuming we have time travel like the other question mentioned, would you rather:
A. Save a video game company from becoming defunct?
B. Prevent one from ever existing?
(developer or publisher, it doesn't matter)

 

[Rallywagon]

I think I would take A and save Midway. This in turn would keep companies like Paradox alive as well.