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/)TW
Posts
0
Comments
474
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Collectible tracker after getting to a certain threshold. I get that people don't like maps cluttered with stuff, but if someone gets to a point they got over 60% of a thing, it's likely they want to go for all of them, so the option to give them at least a general searching area should be provided.

  • It is definitely more convenient for players, especially now that they dropped class alignment requirements, but there is so much worldbuilding tied to Good and Evil and such, it feels a little strange to treat it like something most characters ignore.

  • Situations like this give me the inclination to treat D&D Good™ and Evil™ as physical properties rather than moral tendencies. D&D Good™ that is a little too eager to murder beings labeled as Evil™ falls short of what I would consider good. If someone used such power to kill someone who is a pathological liar and petty thief, that wouldn't seem good to me even if that person could be classified as Evil™ as the system defines it.

    Then again while to me such act seems evil, I don't think I could call the caster Evil™ because D&D explicitly endorses killing Evil™ creatures as a Good™ act. Since the 1st edition, the purest paragon of Good™ that is the Paladin wields a weapon to kill.

  • Attacking people is still upsetting even if they don't get hurt. There are many ways to harass people without hurting them, and I'd consider surprise schrodinger shanking one of them. I don't know if I'd call that "evil" per se, but I'd definitely call it an asshole move.

    Personally as a DM I wouldn't make the sword evil, but I might make it so eventually it would repel the grasp of the Paladin who used it so flippantly, rather than as a warrior of good.

  • I can't ever forget the first trailer where they pulled street art out of a street into virtual space, and then they had to tip so it wouldn't disappear. It was insanely transparent how any attempt at imaginative play was superficial, that the creators were completely out of touch with what people wanted, and squeezing money out of people was the ultimate goal.

  • Fortnite shows that there are people interested in living in a game enviroment where they are surrounded by recognizable brands. But Meta's infomercial vibe with bland, low budget, dead-eyed characters, which are so sanitized they didn't even have lower bodies, is not anything close to anything that anyone wants.

  • Magic: The Gathering and Dice Throne get regular updates. These are tabletop games. Are they live services? Of course not.

    Well... MTG is as close as a live service game can be as a physical object, including questionable monetization practices. The booster pack is very similar in principle to the lootbox. They also can ensure continuous sales through power creep and controlling what cards are allowed in official competitive formats. It's not the absolute control that digital live services allow, but it's nearly there. As a more practical comparison, MTG is more manipulative than card games that allow players to pick full sets that they want.

    Then we have MTG Arena that is a Live Service in every aspect. They don't let you freely host those games either.

  • For political aims, possibly. What is sure is that Twitter would never be able to repay the amount of debt the company got saddled with. It was barely making ends meet and now it has to pay an additional billion dollars a year in interest. Why would someone would put their money in such a bad deal?

  • The only reason why I'm not so keen on the conspiracy, is that it doesn't make sense to me that someone so wealthy would have to stake this destruction on his own reputation and take collateral losses on his other business if he was being machiavellian about it. He could tell his puppet CEO to take all those destructive measures and still maintain his tech genius image. It just seems more like a wild ego thing.

    But the people who funded his acquisition, this obvious hare-brained idea, maybe they were aiming for its destruction. They should have known that he was paying far more than the website was worth and that its income would never repay it.

  • This question, I can't deal with it. It just kills a bit more of hope for the future that people are thinking like this.

    First of all it's trivial to copy and distribute digital media. There's no great obstacle that impedes players to run games effectively indefinitely, it's a matter of unwillingness. The game is not ephemeral, company support is ephemeral.

    Don't you like the games that you play today? Do you really think nobody will want to play them in the future?

    There are people running Quake 3 Arena servers still today. That's a game from 1999. That's not even bringing up how people figured out how to run even older couch multiplayer games online.

    Can you imagine if that was said out of any other medium? "Why not just acknowledge that books are ephemeral?" That would be an outrageous notion and it would be regarded as a massive failure of society towards culture. Yet we have a whole new medium that would be trivial to preserve if not for deliberate obstacles put in the way, and there are people treating it as a lost cause. It boggles my mind!

  • Seems to me anyone rich enough to spend so much on something so stupid might have gotten some other extravagant accessory to replace it already.

    If anyone thought an electronic device would become a family heirloom they are really clueless.