Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)LA
Posts
0
Comments
183
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • "It's not a sequel or a remake, it doesn't take 400 hours to beat, has zero microtransactions, no pointless open world grinding..."

    All of that sounds pretty great, though. I hadn't heard of this game until now, so I'm wondering how efficient they were with that 40 mil in marketing

    Or maybe the idea is good, but the execution is bad. Maybe meeting strict deadlines meant the game had to be pushed out unfinished, or concepts had to be cut or changed. I don't know jack shit about this game, but there are a lot of things worth looking into besides "These games just don't sell these days"

    Editing to add that it's currently 60% off on steam, sitting at a "mostly positive"

  • Art, beauty, and pleasure, and the desire to see more of that in earnest in a world that seeks to convert anything and everything into profit; The beauty and humbling significance of nature in its indifferent power, and the grand scope of the endless nothingness that stretches beyond what our eyes will ever hope to see; People, real and true, speaking against cruelty and injustice, seeking to better spread love instead of otherness, to show a less conditional love than that of any state or religion

  • Have you seen the world? Shit's irrational as fuck. I'll argue here that rationality has an aspect of subjectiveness to it; It is based on your ability to understand and perceive things. There is a very very small number of things you don't know, and a practically infinite ocean of things you will never even know to not know. Even things that behave rationally may behave irrationally under some variables you will never even fathom, and so, to you, that would just be irrational

    You wanna see something rational? Read fiction. Truth is always stranger than fiction. It was Mark Twain who added that "fiction has to make sense."

  • That's too vague a definition. Like, if person A is an accomplished athlete, the best basketball player ever, I do not think his position of power or success should be, say, president. I think this is actually a very dangerous mindset derived from the capitalistic notion that success determines your--I'll call it value. If you're successful, you must be smart; If you're smart, you can be anything, even the president. Success is equal to wealth in these talking circles, and it sort of ends up as a backwards meritocracy. You gain merit measured by your success (wealth) instead of the other way around

    But if you define it as a place in which positions of authority are given to people who have proven themselves knowledgeable and capable in the field in which the position of authority is being granted, I do believe in it in principle. I say that because principle and practice are rarely the same in politics and sociology. There are countless other factors that will impact your "success" that are not actually based on your expertise in the field. Better people have designed public transport, electric cars, social media, and spaceships than Elon Musk, yet the man sits in a position of tremendous influence. In a just meritocracy, we would never have heard his name

    Which brings about the point that we have certain ideas as a culture (or maybe system) that awards some merits disproportionately more than others. Some will say his merit is in being a ruthless business man. He's good at that, I guess, so he should be the leader of the company. His "merit" of being a bad human being is being disproportionately rewarded compared to the merit of the scientists that actually design his spaceships, and the engineers that make them work. Meritocracy only really works in a closed system. The most capable archaeologist will be the head of the expedition. If you let the ideas go beyond that, and start comparing apples to oranges, you start seeing instead a system's idea of what's important, and by extension that of the society built in that system

  • there also tends to be an expectation that men (even those of us that are submissive) be dominant to some degree

    This is an important point to make, for sure. Things like this will be greatly impacted by things such as cultural norms and expectations, so any statement that says "There are more D men than D women" needs to come with the caveat that there are likely biases in these observations, and that culture and upbringing have an impact, either deciding the ratio, or skewing it

    I do tend to default thinking of men as Dominant, and that is in no small part due to culture, but I'll add that this assumption is specifically outside of the kink community. In BDSM spaces specifically, I expect most men to be subs, but my own experiences could also be because I attract the guys who are looking for their "goth mommy dommy" 😅

  • I like submissive men, and generally am downright turned-off by dominant men. Am I the norm? Probably not. I think there are more subs than Doms just in general, but especially among women

    But I'm just answering your question as presented. Another has already commented some decent love advice if you're asking about this stuff as pertaining to you

    I will add, though, that while strictly in a D/s dynamic, women are subs more often than Dommes, in any dynamic that strays from BDSM, the submissive tendencies are just sort of a spice when they come up, and that, if you're using the word submissive to describe a man who isn't conventionally masculine (Or maybe toxic masculine), you're probably better off. We wanna feel safe with who we're with, and outside of BDSM, you'll probably have better luck as a gentle, emotionally intelligent, confident person. Some people might describe that as submissive

  • I legitimately know someone who speaks about Nintendo religiously. Like, he says "Miyamoto almighty" and I reeeeaaaaally wanna believe he's doing it ironically, but I don't know if even he recognizes it as ironic now. He is defensive of every of nintendo's actions, all of them, justifying everything they've done while condemning other companies for doing the same. It looks like nationalism applied to a specific corporation

    Like, I'm a big nintendo fan, but I cannot fathom the zealotry that I have personally witnessed coming from this person

  • But that's not what's going on here? Nintendo is suing a mod creator who modded their actual IP into the game, and furthermore locked that mod through a paywall (Patreon), so, you know, profiting off of unlicensed distribution of another's intellectual property

    Regarding genre, yeah, nintendo has no leg to stand on, and they know it anyway. You can't claim ownership of art styles or game mechanics, but that's neither the article nor the situation

  • Between this and crowsworn, I'm more interested in the latter, as it looks like it has some more polish, smoother animations, really committing to the artstyle

    But, honestly, this still looks cute, and I like some of the gimmicks and mechanics it's bringing to the table

  • People like this HAVE to believe in some inherent, unearned superiority they have, because otherwise, they're exactly what they look like they are

    And for those who want to know his name, I did the legwork. This is Rain Epler