• 1 Post
  • 646 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Yes and no. Some games you just cannot be patient about, as part of the whole selling point is the community in the moment. For example, the way in which hype went for Helldivers 2 pretty much necessitated that if you weren’t part of the community in the first 3 months then you missed out on a lot of “storytelling”.

    This would go for most multiplayer games. Single player games though have a lot more freedom to be late to the game, so to speak ;)

    Otherwise, for me personally it usually just comes down to the IP. Monster Hunter is my go-to, so it’s sort of a no-brainer for me to go for the new game as they come out barring any major issues or personal life events, I get them. I did buy Cyberpunk on release, however that was more because I wanted to see what my new 3080 could do and I was looking for a solid single player game, and I didn’t encounter nearly as many problems as other players did. But, I haven’t gotten the DLC for it because I haven’t been looking for that kind of game again yet.

    Being ready for the game is another aspect I take into consideration, Dragon’s Dogma 2 was something I was pretty highly anticipating, but after hearing about the release issues and remembering what DD:DA was like to replay, I realized that I wasn’t ready for it again at release. However now it’s on sale and I’ve been out of gaming for a few months outside of small old games on my Steam Deck once in a while. I picked it up and I’ve been enjoying it.

    So I think patient gaming really comes down to having the understanding of the social aspect the game is trying to sell - sometimes it’s marketing (2077) and sometimes it’s the nature of a game that’s fun to play with other people. Getting games like Phasmaphobia, Dale & Dawsons, they aren’t really going to be that fun if you’re multiple years late to the game. Similarly, if your friend just finds out about the game late, it’s just a smaller niche, being your friend group instead of random people in public lobbies, at which point you can expect to play that game a handful of times before your group drops it forever, lol.




  • And to the end user who doesn’t know what they’re doing, the end result is the same or the AI one will get them “further”.

    I say this because if you’re following forums, chances are you’re following guides, which means you don’t understand what it is you’re doing. Which is fine, I typically don’t either, which is why I have a harder time with Linux.

    But realistically, following the guide of Stackoverflow will hit a hiccup and you will be stuck. Following AI, things might not work and need to be troubleshooted, but it will continue answering questions until the two of you put together something that sort of works.

    Not because of AI, but because the person kept trying. AI only made it so they didn’t need to understand.


  • The Boys is a good one, and an interesting one specifically because it plays to the StarWars-Imperialist / DC-Marvel-Authoritarian types. Garth Ennis, who wrote for The Punisher comics and of course, The Boys, is vehemently anti-everything that these types of authoritarians stand for.

    Yet despite his hatred of them, he writes them exceptionally well in a way that is lost on the less observant viewers (man I just love that phrase lol). The people who love the Punisher for the wrong reasons are the very same people who love The Boys for the wrong reasons, it’s actually crazy how much crossover there is between the two pieces.

    I think The Boys (show) also played up this aspect as a way to vilify power seeking behavior to the Conservative crowd by mocking Homelander outright, and subtly by showing the effects on The Boys (the group themselves and their struggles with power and how they use it). Very similarly to Sunny, there is a shift in the way The Boys is perceived by the conservative crowd around Season 3, as the writers were amping up their highlighting of the issues specifically because idiots were perpetuating Storm-lander’s sexualization of weaponized dehumanization (i.e. getting off on Nazi romance) - in the show so much so that even Homelander was like dude that’s fucked up.

    The issue of course is that Homelander is justified to these idiots, so making him look silly and dumb comes to be one of the only ways that a specific demographic will understand that his actions are bad – which of course, they get offended by and do not like, because they’ve wanted to emulate Homelander the whole time. Characters like the right-wing Stepdad and the Podcaster Listener at the convenience store show how an individual can fall into the cycle of hatred perpetuated by the media and the entire point is completely lost on them because Homelander lasering those liberals was exactly what he should have done.

    Part of it is scary, because I don’t believe it’s Marvel and cartoons that are breeding this mindset. These people are conservative christians who listen to talk radio and watch the news, and they are not being inspired by characters like Homelander, they were already like this. Characters like Homelander or the Punisher are just placeholders, scapegoats, a way for these hateful individuals to self-insert themselves into media. This does not mean that the answer is culling these characters existence, but rather continuing to highlight their faults and flaws in order to re-engage people to show them what it is like to actually be a good person.


  • I feel like the real reason Democrats would be attacking her would be due to her happily accepting donations from Republican led sponsors, aiming to actively sway Democratic voters instead of specifically both, and the distance that she has from actual election given that she’s not on the ballot in a number of states and is posing herself as the anti-war candidate despite saying that Russia invaded Ukraine because they needed to defend themselves from nukes. Odd how it’s okay to be apologetic to Russia but not Israel. You must understand - as a third party they can claim to have a plan for world peace, but what members in Congress will sponsor those bills? Even if Jill Stein did become President, who is approving her policies?

    All that aside – she does very little in between election years. The Green Party as a whole has accomplished less of its supposed goals while having far more funding than the SRA. I would also expect that the leader of the Green Party practice what she preaches, as her and her husband have stock in just as many oil companies as the Democrats do. So quite honestly, it’s hard to see her as anyone but a faux candidate who shows up to take money from Green Party voters, preventing actual change from happening with that money because it’s going into a candidacy that will go nowhere.

    If she cared, she would campaign for her donations to be given to something that would actually have meaningful effects, and she would push for more local candidates to run. The sad fact of the matter is that the Green Party has candidates who start out Green then move to a different party and are completely happy taking donations from Big Oil just like Kyrsten Sinema.

    To call the Democrats a joke party when the tactics of the Green Party have been laughable is just one reason why they aren’t taken seriously. Another would be this quote:

    there are more open socialists in just the New York state legislature right now (8, all caucusing together, will be 9 next year) than have been elected total above the local level for the Green Party (5). even accounting for party switching, this expands to just 9 people in history.

    We can also just look at the Public Office Holders for the Socialists and the Green Party.

    In short – The Green Party is the vote of choice because there is a Presidential candidate, but they offer nothing else through the four years. People are asking where the Democrats have been for them, what about the Green Party? Why are they all too happy to take money from you but do nothing in between for local activism? People are saying that the Democrats only provide lip service when they say things like supporting a two state solution, but lip service from the Green Party is totally fine? The Socialists or the DSA seem to at least aim for actionable goals, but is there no support for them because there’s no Presidential candidate? We’ve also seen that they (Socialists) actually have a chance of being elected if they run on a democratic platform and push bills that we can be proud of, something that historically cannot be said for members of the Green Party.

    I hope this provides some insight on why people, not just Democrats, don’t feel like the Green Party is a worthwhile option.


  • I formed a barometer for measuring comedy and it’s perceived ripple effect on society. Look at the comedy piece, the joke, the theme as a whole, whichever element, and then ask - does it highlight the issue, or does it perpetuate it? It may be the case that the intention of the piece to be a commentary denigrating fascism, but if it does a poor job conveying that message it might just look like an over-the-top approval of it.

    An example of this that hit me close to was for It’s Always Sunny during 2016, the insane “I can do whatever I want” antics that some Americans were replicating was seemingly getting higher and the crossover between people quoting the show in the wrong ways just made me realize that maybe the show hadn’t done a good enough job presenting itself to less observant viewers. Well they also felt the same way because they really ramped up the highlighting of the issues after season 12, in a way that is presented in a different fashion.

    This of course, was disliked by that specific crowd - there’s a few people who aren’t hateful who just don’t like the new presentation and that’s fine (they’re wrong of course! lol). It wasn’t uncommon for a few years to see people rage about how the show went woke, and still happens but less often now because they all got angry and dropped the show (Newsflash asshole, they were talking about you the whole goddamn time!).

    Anyway, as mentioned with Starship Troopers, this happens with a lot of popular media in the conservative sphere, as can be seen with Idiocracy. There’s a ton of other examples too, but we’re all aware of how often this occurs.


  • As opposed to everyone else calling them bootlickers, I think there is likely a subset of people like this who are not considering piracy against the big corporations as unethical, but the “trickle down effect” of piracy towards smaller business/individuals.

    For example, if you were to pirate Starfield, no one would really care. If you were to pirate something like BlackOps, most people wouldn’t care (and those that do are corporate bootlickers). However, what about pirating indie games, or music VST’s, or circumventing a patreon from someone with under 100 supporters?

    There’s two camps when I see anti-piracy comments; the bootlickers, and those that have the idea that pirates pirate everything relentlessly. The fact of the matter is that piracy does not hurt big corporations, but we cannot say that is also true for small developers publishing their game on their own, and vocal anti-piracy, or rather artist-in-mind individuals, will let the world know that we should support independent artsits and not pirate.

    Now, whether or not indie games are getting pirated is a whole different story. And really, what this comes down to is just having the opportunity to purchase in a way that supports the pirates ease of access.

    Also, it completely ignores the ethical aspect of piracy which is why support a company that doesn’t have your interests at the forefront of its business practices. Which is a very similar reason to decide to not pirate – I enjoy It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, I would like to see more if it, I will pay Hulu and watch the show to tell them to make more IASIP.

    If you like something, don’t pirate it if you want more of it. It’s actually very simple. If you do like it but can’t support it for personal reasons, don’t expect to get more of it.

    Which of course, for the anti-piracy crowd is another sentence for, “you didn’t pay to watch it so they cancelled my favorite show!”

    Tl;DR - A poor crossover between an individuals enjoyment of corporate content and an supporting independent artists living wage.












  • I was more talking about their mobile devices, the iPods, iPhones, iPads, I should have made that more clear.

    Even so, that doesn’t change the fact that Apple does actively prohibits users from accessing files/folders within the system, computers included. For something as basic as the Library folder to be hidden is just a little ridiculous.

    It’s not hating on Apple to call out ridiculous things, and none of this is facetious. Unless you are a developer of some kind, having this hidden away in some ways is good for users who might break things. It just happens to make it difficult for anyone else who wants to have control over their computer.