a lil bee 🐝 @ alilbee @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

407

Joined

2 yr. ago

Please read the rest of the sentence you quoted.

WELL I'm NOT very PASSIONATE about IT either.

Outer Wilds... was a... space shooter.

no I'm not confusing them

You sure do argue in good faith buddy, for sure. You can even admit when you made a common tiny mistake that I gave you every bit of grace on!

Your paragraphs are just badly-formatted run-on thoughts that don't even accurately address my points, you completely misunderstand what I mean by "dig through", you confront random asides instead of the central point I'm making, and you manage to show your ass harder than anyone else in this thread. Wasn't even here to argue, just wanted to have a discussion on gaming and everyone else here managed to disagree with me politely and just discuss without being a raging asshole. All of that is why I didn't want to continue my argument with you.

I don't think we get much further than this. The world would explode into activity the moment America is showing weakness or a blind eye abroad. China, Russia, and Iran would make huge plays for Taiwan, Ukraine+, and Israel respectively. Rogue states like North Korea would take any viable action they could. Virtually every terrorist group would attack, spurred on by those same countries. You don't let opportunities like that go to waste. It would be an extremely dangerous time to be living.

I think it's both for me, which I think is what you might be saying as well. I would absolutely push the button to create the copy, or whatever, because I think I would derive satisfaction from creating a life (identical to mine, no less) that was free of the circumstance I was in, which must have been dire. However, I definitely don't consider that instance "me" even if I do consider the copy a legitimate, separate version of "me", so I don't feel that I have perpetuated my own instance, leaving me in whatever fight-or-flight terror I was in to cause the scenario in the first place.

I hope that gets to the point where major players are able and willing to use it. I only have so much sway with my clients when it comes to tooling choice and open source options can be hard to sell to some enterprises until they hit a certain proliferation point.

Most of my clients were not impacted by that change, since it was more related to building Terraform-adjacent tooling and not so much products built with Terraform. I was not a fan, but it didn't necessarily kill it as an option for me. This though... IBM will absolutely fuck this up.

Oh christ, there goes Terraform... That really sucks.

You're confusing Outer Worlds and Outer Wilds (no big deal, I have to remind myself constantly lol). Trust me, Outer Wilds is a once in a generation game, at least for some of us.

I don't really see how you can on one hand accuse me of using my biases and then turn around and say that three GOTY candidates are not actually all that great because you know some people who didn't like them all that much. That feels inconsistent to me. I was also never arguing that gaming is in a great place because I like these games, but rather just because these were highly-rated (on average by both users and critics).

I have additionally addressed multiple times that I am by no means saying that there are not bad games being released or that there are not problematic patterns, especially in the AAA space. Seeing all these arguments about loot boxes and season passes when I have explicitly mentioned that digging past that layer of titles is necessary to find the good games (which I have listed non-exhaustive examples of above) is just giving me the impression that you are not truly wanting to engage with the core conceit here. You seem very passionate about this and there's nothing wrong with that, but honestly, I'm not a huge fan of your argument style and I think I'd rather just agree to disagree on this very inconsequential topic. Feel free to respond, but I will likely not reply to your next response.

It's a matter of perspective, I suppose, and I was really just naming semi-recent games that I enjoyed, so I assumed I didn't need to be exhaustive of every "good" game that has come out to satisfy the argument. There are hundreds of McDonald's for every French Laundry, dozens of Marvel and adaption movies for every Best Picture winner, and the same applies to games.

I genuinely insist that you focus on that pool of shitty games if you want to. I can see how concerned you and a lot of others in this thread would be, because that is only going to grow as development becomes more accessible. I'm going to focus on the high points, play the good indies in currently backed up on, and have a good time. I don't expect that supply to dry up any time soon.

I just don't agree that the majority of games are garbage or in a garbage state. There are plenty of good games coming out. I've listed several in this thread. Baldur's Gate is a once in a generation game. So is Elden Ring. So is Outer Wilds. Not being exhaustive here, just some of my favorites. How many "once in a generation" games are required before we can admit that there are good options out there? The state of gaming should not be defined by its lows, but by the whole.

Hey, listen though, I'm just here to have a discussion, not trying to change your mind. There is a lot of bad going on in video games, and I don't like it either. This is really a matter of perspective at the end of the day, so there's no right or wrong answer here.

I don't think what we're saying is at odds though. Thinking that AAA games are in a terrible place is a totally valid opinion to have. You get at my point in the tail end of your comment though. It has never been easier for AA and indie studios to make solid games, and there has been an explosion relative to the past. I do not personally think "gaming is ruined" as a whole by AAA games sucking the same way movies aren't ruined by Marvel and food isn't ruined by McDonalds. Good games still exist, good movies still exist, good food still exists. Dig a little past that outer layer of the latest CoD or Assassin's Creed and there's a plethora of amazing, unique, non-exploitative games available. To me, that's an argument that gaming is better than it's ever been.

Your point in there about there being less standouts is really the one that gets at what I'm saying. I do disagree though. If we look at prior eras of gaming, it was almost exclusively AAA making sales and driving the direction of the industry. Even just releasing a game on a major platform was insanely prohibitive. Now, I have a massive laundry list of totally awesome indies. Outer Wilds made me cry, Return of the Obra Dinn was a concept I have never seen before, Baldur's Gate ruined a month of my life. What series of indie or even AAA releases was able to do a run of games like that in the 360/ps3 era? We barely had xbox arcade on consoles and steam was still in bare infancy, more associated as being an orange box launcher than as a marketplace for indies.

I don't think that's a reasonable paraphrase of my argument. I think you're perfectly entitled to be bothered by things like loot boxes in gaming. I am more than troubled by their implementation in a lot of games aimed at children, like I imagine a lot of us are.

That is a far cry from saying "gaming is ruined", and that's really my entire point. One or even several things you're bothered by existing doesn't mean that the entire industry or state of gaming is in any way "ruined".

But that's my point, how is that "ruining gaming"? Her words in the video do not support the premise. Just don't play those games, and you have a larger backlog than ever of games that she admits are better than they've ever been. The presence of bad games does not ruin the good ones. This video is just rage bait for upset gamers.

I disagree with the premise. Nothing has "ruined gaming". On the production side, it's a booming industry increasingly making footholds in popular culture. On the consumption side, players have more choice now than they have ever had. Nobody can go load up the front page of steam or even better, the top 100 most played from last year, and tell me with a straight face that we're worse off than in the 90s or early 2000s without making an appeal to quality that will be heavily colored by their own nostalgia.

Now, are there a lot of games with greedy decision making, loot boxes, etc? Absolutely, nobody disputes that. I personally think there is nuance even there, because I genuinely am not bothered (as a player) by some forms of loot boxes or season passes. Even if you discount every game with those options though, you still have more choice than I did as a kid.

Oh and that's somewhere where PowerShell really shines! Check out the examples on the docs page for some examples and see how easy they are to read and write compared to sed/awk/etc.

I also think PowerShell being object-based instead of string-based gives it flexibility for those of us who have experience with object-oriented programming languages. Being able to ship around objects to functions, splatting, etc are huge value adds for me personally.

Again though, sooooo subjective! Some people will legit hate that it's object-based and hate the syntax. The world supports all kinds of developers and we're all making cool stuff, so it's all good!

Not hating, but you should really try it out before forming an opinion. PowerShell Core is multi platform and if you value readable scripts at all, PowerShell is heads and shoulders over bash. I know all of us admins are proud of our bash scripts, but bash reads like hieroglyphics to anyone who didn't write it. PowerShell has noun verb syntax and just heaps of syntax sugar. Scripts, even more than code imo, needs that readability for fast debugging and maintenance.

But hey, opinions on languages and such are highly, highly subjective. No skin off my nose if you just don't like it at all.

And PowerShell, as an addendum

Okay but I don't think you can just assert that this is a binary without much more information. Would hiring more devs and a PM with the gobs of money they made cause any additional crunch? Obviously at extreme ends, it would, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that. For what it's worth, I like Valheim too, but they absolutely did not end up maintaining the huge amount of hype they had. That may have been intentional, but it cost them.

My argument would be that by eliminating the means of wealth being an avenue to power, it will merely shift to the government that is enforcing those rules. Those same shitty people will infiltrate that government and use it to inflate themselves while oppressing others. There was no utopian society prior to capitalism and fiat currency, and there won't be one after.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that this is an impossible problem to solve. I just do not think eliminating the notion of a billionaire is the cure for all of your listed ills. I agree with you that it would absolutely have impacts on all of them, but we would still wake up to world hunger, climate change, etc.

Each of your listed issues is a complex, multi-faceted problem. We cannot boil down that nuance just so we can point to our favorite enemy, deserving as they might be. Fight them too, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture.

Hate both, where it's appropriate. Some of these players perpetuate the game that we all hate. Elon Musk is a player who has become part of the structure of the game, fighting regulations and damaging democracy for the sake of his own capitalistic endeavors. Someone mentioned below that Dolly Parton could be a billionaire. Not gonna hate on Dolly Parton who I assume did not come by her wealth through being an asshole, but more just being successful and our current "game" rewarding her with more than she would have in a better society. I would tax the absolute fuck out of her though.