Maybe SE should set aside a smaller team to make FF games that are turn based? Just the zealots and the necessary people. Sure it would splinter the company essentially, but I'd rather them be splintered and still make games that I want to play, then be cohesive and be all animations and bad.
Personally, due to the roots of FF, I think the core team should be turn-based, and the spin-off titles can be non-turn-based.
Edit: (Fuck. What am I even arguing against... I don't even give a shit if they're turn-based or not, I just want them to be fun again and not shitty.)
I don't think anybody hates real-time combat. That feels like a strawman.
I think when it comes down to it though, there are huge demographics in the gaming community that are underserved and craving something that the industry has turned its back on because of loud people hating on turn-based combat.
Expedition 33's success is simply a validation to the gamers left waiting, and to the developers that indicates that not all gamers hate turn-based combat, and maybe it isn't an age thing.
In a different perspective, though, I hate the executives and studios who rely on others to lead, and I see it as spineless. If you were a developer afraid to make what you thought was fun because you thought you couldn't maximize your sales around a combat system (cough cough square enix cough), you're chicken shit.
Maybe he feels like your parents will see the obvious and not necessarily insignificant age gap. When I was 25, I would never date a 20 year old. Five years is a lot still at that age. I'm 35 now, and last year I dated a 32 year old guy and I still noticed it.
Think of it this way: no matter the chemistry between you two, you aren't even allowed to legally drink yet because society deems you not fully developed. This is further supported by the fact that you still live with your parents.
I'm not saying this is what he's thinking of, or even intuiting. It's just one possiblity. It could just as likely be him wanting to be proper or traditional or respectful to your parents.
God fucking damnit fuck this fucking timeline I'm so sick of fucking war and reading about this stressful shit and having to decipher political bullshit and who has and doesn't have bombs and who is telling the truth and who is being manipulative
Definitely. Part of how it works for me, is I see the lighting around the space, and how white/bright looks, and how it's VERY different from the dress.
So then my brain picks up on how light in the image works, and then makes a profile that the camera is shitty in a shitty environment, and how to interpret color and context.
Only after that does my brain decipher what's in the picture, being The Dress®
I would argue that if somebody de-blurred the picture, and cut out the dress apart from the background, and just had the dress........
Hmmm... Nah, because... even then, I can see how the seams are basically black or far darker blue (like in the shading), and not actual white or gold.
No see, with that, I can switch back and forth. It's trippy, but I can. Which is why the dress thing is so weird: I've tried many times (over the last....shudders decade).
That's why I find the dress kind of an outlier and actual doubt. It just doesn't add up to me because I can't seem to switch to white-gold.
But then, also, going off the different people here, I also find it hard to believe there would be what looks like 40-45% of people who still are the exact opposite, in only being able to see white-gold, rather than blue black.
Like I get how technically, "the pixels...", but that doesn't explain to me how there's like a near-50% of people (at least the English-speaking internet demographic) that are... To put it bluntly, seemingly deficient. It would be one thing if there was no definitive proof of what color the dress actually is, or if it was just "some people see it start out one way and other people see it the other way, but then both people could switch between", but it's evidently NOT that - it's that some people are just stuck unable to interpret the color in a shitty picture correctly, and that other people are unable to interpret it wrongly (and maybe a smaller chunk of people who are able to go back and forth, but then that presents even more discussions).
There's a lot going on here, both psycho-optically, psychologically, and socially, and I don't think internet forums/social media that can't isolate, drill down, and then research the different sections of the blue-black/white-gold dress phenomenon should be bringing it up (though good luck with that) and basically just flaming and trolling each other in such a.... Cognitively shallow way.
It's worth examining, absolutely. But absolutely not in this format.
Same. But now after all these years, there are enough people in here that are pedants/trolls and flatly saying they can only see white and gold.
It makes me question my own abilities. Sure, I see the dress for what it actually is, but am I lacking the ability to trick my brain into seeing an illusion? Is that a lack of something like imagination? Am I broken?
I'm the exact opposite. When somebody first showed me the picture, I thought "is this some kind of trick question? It's obviously black and blue". And still to this day, after many arguments with (friends and family) as what I can only perceive as stubborn defensiveness, I can still only ever perceive it as black and blue.
I literally cannot override my color perception to trick myself into seeing white and gold and it feels like a mistake a lot of people made (to see white and gold) and then just stuck with and argued for ("it's an optical illusion!" or "look at the pixels!").
But but what if-