r u ok hun

Do you understand why your original comment was annoying?

OP here had a response to the opinion expressed in the meme. All you did was say “I disagree”.

You don’t have to have a take but if you’re going to go to the point of writing something, not having anything to contribute is annoying and that’s what I’m complaining about. Understand?

Good, now go back to downvoting everything you disagree with, like everyone else does.

Hopefully it’s obvious that when I talk about a communist state or other state initiating huge state-run enterprises like game studios, the current US adminstration is not of much interest.

Sexualisation is not the same as sexual content. Widowmaker in Overwatch is a sexualised character, because she is portrayed as sexually attractive, seductive and generally in such a way as to have her viewed as a sexual being. There are other characters who are not sexualised.

At least they had a take, unlike you.

Exactly. The alternative to most companies setting prices dictated by what they can get away with charging is some kind of state involvement in setting prices, or even in production - you can imagine that in a communist state, there might be a government-run game studio, for example, and it would put out games at a certain price point calculated to be acceptable to the government’s goals and ideals.

I think this could actually work just fine, and think it’d be a great way to solve the problem of copyright. But we also shouldn’t kid ourselves: the government isn’t going to take vast amounts of money it could allocate to healthcare, transport, etc and allocate it to non-essential entertainment like video games. Look at government expenditure on the arts nowadays. So there would be fewer video games coming out in that system, and fewer opportunities for a Hollow Knight to come out of it all.

Per the article:

The decision was a rare case in which the country’s highest court ruled against the government’s conduct in Gaza in recent years.

Kony2025?

So, just to be clear, what are we condemning the courts - which haven’t convicted anyone of anything in this - for?

Condemnation certainly doesn’t achieve anything when anyone can see you’re condemning people for stuff they haven’t done. I know that the zeitgeist is vibes-based but we should really be doing better than that.

Yeah and they also didn’t mention anything about any of the other thousands of court cases that weren’t this one, because that’s not how court judgements work.

Do you want to try again, using the words I wrote rather than the ones you pulled out of the air?

Nazi guards murdered people. I’ll condemn the courts for carrying out the law when it involves murdering people.

I don’t believe anyone has been convicted yet in these cases (probably many have not even been charged) so the role of the courts so far was to agree to judicial review but to decline an interim block on the order. Parliament is clearly more to blame for this.

Well, some opinions are more valid than others, even when there is subjectivity… of course, I would say that.

“Design intent” is not an excuse for unfun mechanics. Design intent matters - for example if you’re complaining that it took you 50 attempts to do a boss and you’re frustrated, but other people are completing the same bosses in fewer attempts and enjoying it, the intent of the designers and the spectrum of opinions is absolutely critical. But this isn’t that.

Someone else in the thread made a great example: would you be so “design intent is all important” if the designers put a 1-minute unskippable cutscene before the boss? To me, and I think to almost everybody, that would be fuckin awful. Everyone hates unskippable cutscenes you have to sit through repeatedly. How does that differ, really, from a typical 1-minute runback?

I think my distro history was:

1. Redhat
2. Fedora Core
3. Debian
4. Ubuntu
5. Linux Mint
6. Fedora

I think we have the language and you just proved it, but often people are just not reading or thinking enough about other perspectives before talking, and so do talk past each other like this.

I like your comparison to an unskippable cutscene; these are, I think, universally reviled at the start of boss fights. For some reason I don’t think long runbacks are reviled in nearly the same way, yet repeatedly running through the same area with no challenges (jumping off the staircase for the shortcut to Ornstein & Smough in DS1 does not count ffs!) is not really any less boring.

The ideal runback to me has a few enemies that you can soon work out how to run around. You actually get a feeling of having accomplished something, but don’t have to get perfect at defeating those enemies, nor waste time doing so (running will always be faster than fighting, pretty much).

I think “git gud” is just a knee-jerk meme though - there is no reason to believe that someone saying it has engaged in the slightest with what has been said to that point; they’re just trolling.

A lot of DS1 runbacks were true runbacks where you could just run past everything. Once you’d worked out the running, they weren’t too irritating, but some were a bit long. In DS3 a number of runbacks had unavoidable enemies on the way where you could mess up and eat a hit and then be down an Estus charge.

The main two problems are:

1. boredom. Punishing you for failure by forcing you to walk through a section of level again for a couple of minutes isn’t fun for anyone. It’s not “stakes”; it’s boring. Repeatedly dying to the challenging boss is not boring because you are constantly trying to improve, learn its moves, and beat it. Running through the same path is boring. Anything boring is bad game design.
2. Risk of unrelated mistakes. This is more subjective, but for me there should be some separation between different challenges; there should be a feeling that after you have convincingly solved one challenge, you shouldn’t have prove yourself against it again too much. Doing so is, yes, boring again, but also frustrating. Things that are frustrating (to some) can be good game design, but I don’t want to be frustrated. Whiffing a roll you’ve done successfully many times and being set back on an unrelated challenge is, to me, annoying.

I don’t think the BBC does a good enough job of connecting the dots here. This position only makes sense if you believe either:

1. that Europe is going to use this as a jumping-off point to invade Russia or her allies; or
2. that Ukraine is not a sovereign country.

1 is not credible given that Europe has been a pretty peaceful neighbour for 80 years, whereas Russia has invaded a bunch of countries.

So this really demonstrates Putin’s belief that Ukraine should not have control over her own territory, that Ukraine can have some autonomy but at the end of the day needs to submit to Russia’s will. Russia doesn’t want to admit this to the West because it harms Russia’s credibility, so this little argument really deserves to be made clearer.

From the amended text of the Convention:

The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention,

This Convention shall not apply to nuclear material used or retained for military purposes or to a nuclear facility containing such material.

And this is why I stand by that tongue-in-cheek reference to the ICC. International Law is complex and your assertion that Israel broke it by striking Iran is worth nothing compared to the opinion of experts. Your quoting of them is noted.

Another stupid excuse.

You said that the actions were “smoke screen” because they hadn’t caused Netanyahu to act. When I pointed out they don’t have the power to make him act, you only say they are obliged to by international law. I agree that they are, but can we agree then that your assertion that Netanyahu’s lack of response doesn’t have any bearing on whether the actions of European leaders are, in fact, steps in the right direction?

There is no sensible definition of probability that makes that question answerable.