Goodeye8
- 0 Posts
- 192 Comments
who is the bigger narcissist here?
You’re the bigger narcissist here. You’re literally making up statement I did not make to have a point to argue against. You can’t bother to read anything I say (or alternatively you can’t read, doesn’t really matter to me which it is). You act high and mighty every chance you get.
So I’m not going to address anything else because talking to you is pointless. You’re arguing with a wall because I don’t even need to be here. You’re not going to read what I say, you’re going to make up arguments I never made, you argue your own made up arguments to be right and then call me stupid for having your make-belief arguments. You are the wall you’re arguing with.
I already did. what Embark is ding is not indentured servitude. saying it is doesn’t change reality, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
If you had bothered to read ANYTHING I SAID you’d know that was not my argument.
make a real one to begin with.
I made 3 points at the start, all of which you just ignored and said they signed a contract so nothing else matters.
Pretty zealous of you to dictate what is or isn’t a valid argument. If my argument is so wrong why not instantly debunk it instead of playing this stupid ring around the Rosie?
We can play the same game if you want. Your argument that they signed the contract is not a valid argument because I think it’s utterly stupid and I shouldn’t be addressing it in the first place. Come back with a real argument.
Since you decided to ignore my argument all I can do is attack your stupid argument, which is that the signed contract is all that matters. I’m attacking it by stating you don’t have a problem with indentured servitude as long the servant accepts the contract. That is not the same thing as stating VA work is somehow indentured servitude, please be capable of telling the difference here. If the agreement is all that matters then you have to be okay with indentured servitude in the manner I originally described.
I don’t know what kind of work you do but let’s say your work requires you to log into some kind a system that somehow knows to track the work you do. Now imagine you start your work and your co-worker logs themselves in your place. You do the labor, they get the benefit. Are you being cheated?
The VA would do that labor if there was no TTS with their voice as a model. The VA labor goes into that model because it is their voice. They do the labor but someone else benefits from it? Are they not being cheated?
And final thought experiment. If the VA-s owned the TTS system and Embark asks for a new voiceline. Are the VA-s supposed to give that new voiceline away for free just because some TTS system generated it? Wouldn’t Embark cheat them out their pay if they said “You made it for free so we should be able to use it for free.”?
The intellectual bankruptcy comes from you because instead of actually thinking about the situation you hide behind the “But they agreed to it” argument. People also agreed with indenture servitude, doesn’t mean it’s acceptable.
But are they also getting paid after the fact? Let’s say $50 any time a new voiceline is added to the game using their voice. Because Embark is using a tool to do the work someone would’ve done manually, they would’ve had to pay the person otherwise so I think a royalty-like payment any time the VA voice is used is completely fair. Otherwise it becomes what people are complaining about, that they’re effectively paying a one time fee for the VA voice and then use it for free for forever.
Dorfromantik.
It’s a game where you place tiles to build a map and you get scored based on how well the placed tile matches the rest of the tiles. Extra score comes from additional goals which usually mean finishing a certain area.
It’s my go to game when I’m burnt out and can’t think or I’m so sick I can’t focus on anything, because the game is perfect when you’re low energy. There is no clock, there is no mental overhead of keeping track of something. The game gives you all the information you need and you can play one tile at a time. The music is calm and the tiles you place create this idyllic world that’s pleasing to the eye.
It’s the ultimate chillout game.
I’m fully of the opinion that difficulty is a matter of determination. If a quadriplegic can beat Elden Ring then I really don’t know what kind of a disability someone would have to have to not be able to play difficult games.
I’m not against difficulty options. I turn the difficulty down in some games because I think the higher difficulties simply funnel you into a certain playstyle (looking at you Bethesda). But difficulty options IMO are more of am accessibility for the sake of convenience rather than a necessity and as such I don’t think every game requires difficulty options.
Sekiro can be used to make an interesting point about easy mode. One could argue that the first playthrough is the easy mode because in new game plus you can give away Kuro’s charm which means only perfect blocks prevent chip damage. Does easy mode mean it has to easier or does it mean it has to be without challenge?
I can already tell you that you’re looking at wrong numbers and thus coming to the wrong conclusion. Of course the total number of cheaters will be bigger on windows, 94% of PC gamers play on Windows. That’s like saying Monaco is such a poor country because their GDP is only 30 million compared to the 30 trillion of the US GDP. Except Monaco isn’t poor, the US is simply magnitudes bigger than Monaco.
If you comparable numbers you should compare the proportions of cheaters in relation to the whole userbase of the platform.
I personally know a few people who are interested in buying the Steam Machine but are having doubts because some their regular games use anticheat that doesn’t work on Linux.
I imagine the amount of people is significantly higher than you might think because the vast majority of gamers don’t care about invasive anticheat. To them Steam machine is the equivalent of a console. They probably don’t even care it runs on Linux because all they care about is being able to play games.
Somehow you understand my point perfectly well but can’t address a single point I’ve made. We’re not discussing my arguments here, we’re discussing the bullshit you threw in my way to duck away from my argument. How about you actually address what I originally said if you’re so god damn certain you know what I’m talking about? I’ll spell my points out for you and then you can knock them down.
Argument one. It creates a ludonarrative consistency in games where the world is supposed to be harsh and unforgiving.
Argument two. It can be used to evoke a certain feeling in people.
And I want actual arguments and not this “I don’t care about those things so those arguments are irrelevant” bullshit you used before to cop out making an actual argument.
Not everything is for everyone, of course. But I argue that everything, any game genre should be accesible for anyone who wants to try, and like with anything else, people will filter themselves out if it’s not for them.
I don’t think difficulty is on the same level of accessibility as say being able to turn off epilepsy inducing lights. Difficulty is more of a soft accessibility option because people can learn to overcome difficulty. It’s very rare to have difficulty that is simply impossible not to overcome. I get the people with disabilities angle but I also think they should be treated like people and as people I’d like them to experience art as it is. When it comes to something like Dark Souls, where the difficulty and hardship is so intertwined with the story, world and the metaphors about life itself, I think the piece of art would become less if the difficulty was reduced. I want people to experience Dark Souls like I did because it literally changed my life. I let the difficulty beat me so down that I changed as a person and I know that if I had had the option to turn on easy mode I would’ve 100% turned it on and rob myself from the chance to grow as a person. This is why I’m so adamant that difficulty options are not for every game because sometimes you can find something profound only after you’ve been pushed out of your comfort zone.
Because I enjoy playing games and experiencing the story they have to tell? How is that hard to understand?
But you don’t care when the gameplay enhances or detracts from the story? You’re okay getting shot 1000 times and nothing happening but that one bullet during the cutscene is all that it takes?
You can enjoy playing the game AND enjoy the story they have to tell, I also enjoy games that don’t have a story but have fun gameplay, but the two do not have to be tied at the hip and they shouldn’t.
I absolutely enjoy games that have no story to tell. I agree that gameplay and story don’t need to be joined by the hip. But I think you shouldn’t chainsaw them apart if they are joined by the hip.
You seem to fail at understanding what “difficulty is subjective” means. Who are you to determine what is a “serious challenge” for the player?
I completely understand that difficulty is subjective. I am not the one who determines what is a serious challenge. The game developers are the ones who decide that. Who are you to tell game developers how they should make their game?
Everyone is different. What is a serious challenge to overcome for one is a cakewalk for another, unless the player has the ability to adjust the difficulty to their liking and capabilities.
Which further proves my point that the developers should have fixed difficulty when they use difficulty to guide the player or evoke a feeling. How can they do that when they need to make it work for everyone?
Who fucking cares if someone puts it down to easy? If that is the challenge they are comfortable with then let them have that option. Fuck off with that elitist bullshit.
I’m sorry a game was too difficult for you and you got your feelings hurt and now are trying to turn the entire world around your hurt feelings instead of accepting that you are the one with the problem, not everyone else. Was that elitist enough for you? Fuck you for calling me elitist when you can’t even understand the point I’m making.
If you have a specific trigger you may want to research the movie ahead of time for content. Resources like does the dog die help. Depending on your exact needs you may be able to use other tactics like watching with a friend.
And if people don’t want a challenging game they can research beforehand and decide not to play it. Or they can get a friend to help or they can find mods for the game or they can watch a playthrough. But with games instead of working around the vision (like you’ve suggested with movies) we decide that developers should compromise their vision.
Difficulty is tuneable after the fact. The developer had to make choices about the numbers and implementing them in a way they can be scaled isn’t necessarily more work. Lazy scale the number difficulties are still more accessible than single difficulty.
I think you’re mixing up difficulty for the sake of difficulty with difficulty for the purpose of something else. You can tune difficulty for the sake of difficulty and I don’t an issue there. I don’t think you can tune difficulty that’s designed to evoke a specific feeling or guide the player in a specific way. Take the Asylum demon from Dark Souls. It’s supposed to be near-impossible to beat the first time you see it because the game is telling you to do something different. If you turn the difficulty down and it becomes beatable then you’re actually skipping the rest of the tutorial the game designed for you. And of course environmental difficulties are even harder to tune. You can make Sens Fortress deal less damage but if you can’t avoid the traps you’re still going to end up knocked off and have to start again.
You don’t even know what my point is because you don’t care. I never said anything about oppressing others. If anyone is oppressing anyone it’s you oppressing me.