@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

ME2 had a main story which railroaded you into working with one of the villain factions, in which characters from the first game continually acted like idiots in order to "justify" you having to work with the space Nazis, and which didn't even give you options to try to work to undermine them from within. It did nothing to advance the overall plot of the series (causing serious problems for ME3), and made serious tonal errors with the main villains (the Reapers are Lovevraftian gods, who see mortals as insects, and yet Harbinger not only notices Shepard but has personal antagonism towards him/her). It also dumbed down the game mechanics so hard that the game wasn't even really an RPG any more, it was just a shooter with a very extensive story and dialogue.

The characters were (mostly) well written (except when they had to get the stupid bug to "force" you into working with Cerberus), and the loyalty missions were (mostly) well executed. But the game was a whole was not outstanding. It had serious problems, was a big step down from the first game, and was the start of Bioware's decline.

No, I'm saying that I think the game mechanics are actually good. I think ME1 is more fun to play, purely in terms of gameplay, than 2 or 3. ME2 isn't even really an RPG any more, it's just a shooter with really extensive dialogue choices. 3 is better, but still has nothing on 1 and how it blended shooting with an RPG. And I love the way KOTOR plays. I think that the way you pause the game to issue commands is fun, I think that the character building is fun and when I go back to the game I look forward to trying out different builds. To me, these games aren't good despite the game mechanics, they are good in part because of the game mechanics.

What? Both KOTOR and ME1 are loads of fun to play. I enjoy both of the games from time to time, even though there's nothing new in the story, precisely because they have fun gameplay.

Honestly, I don't know. Some of the issues were clearly EA's fault, like rushing DA2 out the door or the troubled development some games had due to being forced to use the Frostbite engine. But EA didn't make them write a terrible ending for ME3 (nor did they force the various dumb writing issues in ME2, for that matter). And the lead writer for ME3 was Casey Hudson, who was also the lead on KOTOR (which was excellent!). So it's bizarre that they messed that game up as badly as they did, and I can't really explain it.

I suspect that your theory is along the right lines for at least part of the cause. I bet that after the EA buyout (and subsequent EA interference), there were a lot of veterans who were unhappy with the changes and left. And they likely got replaced by the kind of millennial devs you mentioned, people who spent their college years steeped in politics and felt that they should bring that to their jobs too. Over time, it seems likely that those younger, more political devs were left running things, and that's why we saw the games devolve into partisanship.

It's bloated to all hell because they stretched one game into three. It doesn't play at all like the original, nor is the story really like the original, both of which are cardinal sins for a remake. Also, IMO the gameplay and the different story aren't very good. Regular enemies die so quickly fights are over almost immediately, while bosses drag on even if you're trying to make use of stagger and weaknesses. The story is some lame meta nonsense in which the original fans themselves are portrayed as antagonists to be overcome. I think it utterly fails at being a good remake (to the point that I dispute that it was made with love - it feels like it was made with contempt for the original), but even on its own merits I think it's a pretty bad game.

They didn't make BG3. That was Larian, Bioware made the first two games.

While it's certainly true that Veilguard had some atrocious writing which was just there to advocate for the right politics, I don't think Bioware's fall is as simple as "get woke, go broke". Bioware has been sucking for over a decade at this point. ME3 was a disaster, and so was every game since (with the possible exception of DA:I, which seems to have been pretty positively received). But ME3 was released in 2012, years before there was a general trend of game devs making artistic decisions based on politics rather than what made for a better game. Bioware's games may have suffered from political activism (Veilguard certainly did), but they had already gotten bad at making games even before that.

Jordan died from a rare disease. That's very different from GRRM and Rothfuss who are alive and well, but appear to have gotten terminal writer's block and/or lost interest in completing the series.

I personally hope AI gets to the point where it can make a Final Fantasy VII remake which is actually good. That would be something good to come out of all this, at least.

I cannot believe people are arguing Madison Beer isn't an 11/10. Yes she's unrealistic and plastic...

IMO that alone makes her less than a 10. Looking fake isn't attractive at all.

It's a fair point, but nevertheless I have to notice that Miranda Lawson, the genetically engineered perfect woman, is notably uglier than the actress they modeled her off of.

I think you're being overly harsh here. I looked at a photo of the actress and I don't see any noticeable difference in attractiveness between what she looks like in real life and what Miranda looks like.

And they don't fix it in 3 with slightly better graphics technology, either: if anything she takes one step further towards Michael Jackson.

This is more simply explained by "they didn't think there was anything wrong that needed fixing" than by your theory.

I think you're right, and it reminds me of something similar Scott Alexander said a decade ago (!) in his piece Neutral Vs. Conservative: The Eternal Struggle

The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.

This sort of social taboo has such a weight that it is almost impossible to break, no matter how justified or not the taboo is.

I agree that it's only important she doesn't hate your hobbies. If she shares them, cool, but it ultimately isn't a big deal. It's healthy for a couple to have interests outside of each other anyway, you don't have to be into the same exact pastimes.

I would also add, upon reflection, that how early you bring up issues is largely proportional to how important they are to you. If watching anime is the most important thing in your life, and you would never accept anything less than the most weeb existence imaginable, then it makes sense to mention it as soon as possible so you aren't wasting your time. But if it's just something you do on occasion, it isn't something you really need to prioritize mentioning in conversation.

That is almost certainly what would happen, based on how other tech has gone.

You honestly and straightforwardly say what you do for fun. You don't want to invest a bunch of time and emotional energy into a girl only to find out she hates your hobbies, get stuff out of the way up front.

You can also just sit in the pew, of course. That's what I do (due to an issue where my marriage is considered invalid by the Church, and my wife doesn't want to go through the convalidation process).

Maybe, maybe not. But people are not so dispassionate about their homes as that. At some point, yes, the damage from war gets to be so bad that people will accept foreign occupation rather than continue the war (otherwise wars would never end other than annihilation), but it takes time for the losses to get to be painful enough that people will accept losing their home to the foreign invaders.

Second this. It's the only Youtube channel I find actually worth paying for.

It is true that going back to Reddit would lead to an increase in new posters, but it seems to me that this community would make it less than a year before being banned. Reddit site policy is very clear that a number of left-wing positions are sacrosanct, and this community would not respect that at all (which is kind of the whole point, discussing ideas without respect to sacred cows). I don't think that it would be ultimately beneficial to get new posters but then have the community die (or have to migrate back off again).

Yes and no. Yes, we are stewards of the world and owe it to God to treat his gift with respect. But no, that is not an absolute goal - this world is not our home, and if there is a conflict between our spiritual obligations and our material ones, the spiritual ones take precedence.

Note that I'm not saying Christians have an obligation to avoid dealing with people who do weird sex stuff. Just saying if someone did conclude that, even the fact that it might blow up the world as a consequence would not override the spiritual obligation.

You're confusing a lack of re-litigation with agreement. I thought, and still think, that AI discussion doesn't belong in the CW thread. But we already had the discussion and the community decided it was fine, so why would I continue to argue the point?

If you have a device which allows you to read the minds of other men, by all means, share it with us so we can all use such a useful tool. But for my part at least, you are wrong. I derive meaning from my work because of the satisfaction of a job well done and making the world around me a tiny bit better, not because I'm a narcissist who secretly glories in being better than others.

We aren't arguing about it because there's no point. At this point, both sides have tired of trying to convince each other, each still thinks they are right, and each still thinks the other is willfully ignoring evidence that disproves their POV. What's there to argue about any more? Life's too short.

I'm American and I have never even heard of these people. I have no idea why @magicalkittycat finds this interesting, but it definitely isn't something that would be of interest to most Americans imo.

I'm going to push back on this some:

And yet, the vast, vast majority of women aren't pulling out their boobs on instagram. They just don't like being told they can't or shouldn't do it. And that was literally just Instagram setting their user policy! Not a legal restriction!

Women do that when anyone tries to police female behavior, anywhere.

Nobody likes having their behavior restricted, men or women. Maybe it's an American thing, but it certainly isn't a women thing. I have no desire to paint my house bright pink, but if my city tried to pass an ordinance forbidding that, you best believe I would be at the meetings protesting. People of both genders don't like being told what to do, whether or not they intend to do it.