bogdugg @ bogdugg @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

115

Joined

2 yr. ago

I suck at math, but if the mean is sufficiently over the "positive" threshold, and there's a low standard deviation across reviews, wouldn't this have the problem I describe? The more certain people are about the quality of good games, the less relevant the ratio becomes, which is perhaps the opposite of what you would want.

I loved Swiss Army Man, the directors' previous film, for its weirdness, charm, music, humour and visual flare. Everything Everywhere was an improvement over all of these aspects so I absolutely loved it, such that I can overlook the pacing issues. They never lose the very human story through the madness.

I played it - and if it was truly only made by two people is quite impressive - but it's just alright. The world is very cool, and is structured around multiple levels of a tower each with their own language that you need to learn to progress. My main issue with the game is that the differences between these languages, and the puzzles built around them, aren't particularly interesting or deep or varied. There are a few gems, but overall it's much closer to a traditional adventure game than you might expect on first glance.

That said, the art and world design are very cool.

Edit: As an aside, it's worth noting that the Steam Reviews metric is a tad misleading in a similar way to Rotten Tomatoes, in that it only gauges ratio of positive reviews, over what those reviews are actually saying. A universal consensus of a game being a 7/10 (if we assume 7/10 is positive) will appear "better" than a game where 99% of people believe it is a 10/10, but 1% think it sucks. It's good at predicting whether you will like it, it is bad at predicting how much.

If your perception is subject to failure, so to is the evidence, no matter how convincing. So yes, we act upon the assumption that reality exists. We both agree with this.

But that doesn't mean it is true. And all I'm saying is for this very narrow point of what I care most about, Descartes does have a point. I care more about my mind than my foot. I mean, maybe you can think of a better way to frame the argument because I doubt you even disagree. If you have a gun and you are forced to shoot yourself anywhere on your body, would you choose your foot or your brain?

The better counter to me would be to prove external value. Would I sacrifice myself for someone else? If I believe reality doesn't exist, the answer should presumably be no. If I believe reality does exist, the answer could be yes. Or alternatively, shooting myself in the foot suggests I believe in a causal relationship within reality towards shooting my brain and losing consciousness, which I shouldn't necessarily believe.

But even then, it's not that I disbelieve reality, it's just that I can't know for certain what's real outside my mind, so there's not really any contradiction between acting as if it is real and being uncertain if it is.

All this is doesn't matter anyway: the point is less you could be a brain in a vat, but rather if you were a brain in a vat, would you be any less you? I don't think so.

I have more evidence that the real world exists than I do that you are a thinking mind.

I have more evidence that I am a thinking mind than that I do that the real world exists. There's no point arguing this point it won't go anywhere.

The default is the assumption that the way the universe presents itself is the way it is.

Sure, but this is still an assumption I would need to agree to - though obviously a productive one - not necessarily true. The only thing I can know is my experience.

This isn't particularly useful beyond explaining why I view my consciousness as primary and hands secondary or tertiary or something. The brain is tricky because again, I don't know where it ends and my consciousness begins.

That's one way of seeing things, and I respect that viewpoint, but I disagree. I primarily view myself as my consciousness; everything else is secondary. How do you know you aren't a brain in a vat?

By determined, I mean it follows a logical set of rules, not that it is set on a specific action. The idea would be that it was determined to make all those choices because everything else is also following the rules of the universe. Just as it was determined that they play in traffic, so was it determined for me to tell them to stop, just as it was determined for them to listen. They didn't choose to change their mind, they were always going to change their mind.

We are constantly making and updating our choices in response to new information. Just because the brain decided upon one course of action at one point in time does not preclude it from changing course in the future. That's just a new choice. All available information is taken into consideration at all points in time.

I believe consciousness is a result of processes of the brain, and the brain is a very complex machine. It's hard to say anything too concretely beyond that because I don't really understand how it works. I live as though the brain and my consciousness are in perfect sync, but I'm unsure how true that is.

There are, for example, experiments where it can be shown that decisions are made before we are consciously aware that we have made them. Others show that severing a nerve between the hemispheres of our brain can result in two independent consciousnesses. Who can say where I end and my brain begins?

What drives the thing that drives the hammer? What drives the thing that drives the thing that drives the hammer? What drives the thing that drives the thing that drives the thing that drives the hammer?

Physical processes out of our control.

Doesn’t that imply that people have the ability to change their behavior?

My answer changes depending on your meaning but:

Of course. My brain is constantly updating and improving itself. I'm just not ultimately in control of how that process happens. Though that does not mean that I should stop living. I can still experience and enjoy my life, and 'choose' to improve it. It's just that the I that made that choice is a consequence of my brain calculating optimal paths based on a myriad of factors: genetics, culture, circumstance, biological drives, personal history, drugs, etc.

One interpretation would be Many Worlds; that is, every quantum possibility is real in its own multiversal branch. So, to assign moral agency you would need to show that I chose the world I'm in now, over some other version of my life in which different choices were made. Although, I'm not certain you even need to go that far: I have no idea to what degree quantum randomness can actually affect our choices. But, in any case, that too would be out of our control.

I'm a fairly hardcore/radical determinist, and tend to agree that individuals shouldn't be held morally responsible for actions, any more than a hammer is morally responsible for driving a nail. However, that does not mean people should be free from consequence. There are plenty of reasons - even as a hardcore determinist - to hold people to account for their actions, either as a social corrective mechanism, public safety, deterrent, or personal sanity.

As for getting their actions to align with your morals, that's a more complicated question that depends on the type of person they are.

The Curse of the Black Pearl, and it's not particularly close.

From what I understand, there's (at least) two kinds of free speech. There's free speech as in the government will not restrict your speech, which is important for criticizing the state without fear of being locked up. Then there's the fanatical idea of maximizing speech: that the marketplace of ideas requires minimal limitations on what can be said anywhere, and the 'best ideas' will naturally rise to the top.

The problem with the latter is that it is incredibly noisy, easy to manipulate, and often an illusion anyway. Proponents of the latter in the US will use the former as cover, but they are different things. The 2nd 1st Amendment has nothing to do with your ability to moderate private spaces. Removing trolls, enforcing rules, and focusing discussion are all necessary for engaging in useful dialogue.

The Elon Musks of the world are both wrong and fuckin' nuts, in my opinion. Often, what they really want is for the consensus of a place of discussion to more closely align with their own ideals. They think, "I am right, others disagree, therefore there must be some fundamental flaw in the system." The simpler explanation is that they're a moron.

I have two podcasts in my rotation currently:

• Remap Radio; previously Waypoint Radio, sometimes their politics feel overly dogmatic, perhaps as a reflection of the audience and culture they have cultivated, but the vibes are good and they have insightful things to say. I'd say they are currently in a transition period so they're still finding their rhythm.
• 8-4 Play; Started by a localization company based in Tokyo, you'll get a unique perspective of life in Japan, Japanese games, and industry connections that you can't really get anywhere else, at least not in English.

Used to listen to the Bombcast, but none of the splinters from what it was appeal to me much. New Bombcast, Nextlander, solo Gerstmann, are all flawed in different ways imo.

Why all the hate towards this guy?

As time went on, he developed a reputation for big promises and hype and underdelivering - viewed by some as straight up lying. He arguably killed the Fable brand. He presented a tech demo for the launch of the Kinect that was thought to be a real game, that was mostly smoke and mirrors. Following Fable 3's poor reception, he makes his own company and hypes up "Curiosity", essentially a bad clicker game with a promised prize to the person who gets the final click. The tech was bad, and the "prize" was supposedly a share of the revenue from their following project Godus. That project was not good (which was only expected to be at all due to his penchant for inflating expectations), and the cherry on top was that the person who won the prize for the aforementioned Curiosity game never received a dime.

After that, people stopped caring.

Oh you're definitely correct. But I think many decisions were made in this way, and it compromises the core experience. There's all these friction points between the different systems that make the experience feel disjointed. They are each fine in isolation, but they don't talk to each other very well, in my opinion.

Even Skyrim arguably suffered a little from problem of locations not mattering, but at least you needed to first visit the place to unlock it as a fast travel point, which meant you needed to travel there on foot, which meant exploring the world, which requires other design work that supports that experience. But for Starfield of course, these are planets so you can just fly there. It makes sense for what the game is, but it doesn't make for a compelling experience. See that mountain? You can go to your map and fast travel there.*

*I know it doesn't work that way once you land on a planet, but you know what I mean

I believe it amplifies some of the worst aspects of their games. If I think back to what I liked about Oblivion, it was a world that felt lived in. Objects had purpose, characters had homes, content was discovered. It relied a lot on procedural content, but it felt like there was a strong level of cohesion between the procedural elements and mechanics. The disparate aspects of the game fed into one another. With Starfield, you get this huge increase in scope, but each individual part feels kind of empty and boring and clunky and slow.

Here's a contrasting example:

In Oblivion, imagine if you wanted to steal something from a vendor. You have to wait for night, you have to pick the lock, items have actual value, you have to stealth in case they catch you, you know if they can see you, there are other things to do in the city in the meantime, and during all this you might find something unexpected along the way that completely tangents you off into a different direction. All these elements come together to create interesting player stories, and none if it needs to be tied to any guided narrative.

In Starfield, all of these elements fall apart. The scope of the game means you're constantly fast travelling from location to location. No single location has too much going on, and half the time what is there is sending you back out to space anyway, so you never really feel much connection to any physical place. The relative value of items is totally skewed because of the scale of ship related expenses compared to anything else, so what's the value of stealing a cool rock? It's also very difficult to tell relative weapon/item quality at a glance. I know that a steel sword is better than an iron sword; I have no clue why a Reflective Terrablazer is better than a Targeted Blurgun - and the default weapons usually don't matter anyway because I would much rather have cool modifiers. The stealth and lockpick mechanics are both behind skill tree unlocks, so you're far less likely to engage with those mechanics in the first place. The shops are all open 24/7 (I think? honestly don't even know) so the day/night cycle seems irrelevant, so sneaking in to the shop is a no go, and I feel pretty limited in lockpicks and don't really know where to reliably buy than a few at a time. And you never, ever, find anything surprising or compelling, and if you did it would be reduced to a quest checkbox.

So to summarize: I don't know who I'm stealing from, I don't know why I would care to steal anything, it's not obvious how stealthy anyway I am unless I skill into it, it's not worth using my lockpicks, I'll never be caught, and their door is always open. There's zero motivation to actually engage with the world in a way that makes it feel alive. But it's critical to note: all those systems are still there! You can do all this stuff in the game! But because of how things are structured, even though the game on a fundamental level is extremely similar, the way you interact with it is totally removed from the kind of emergent fun that makes exploring those worlds so fun. It's just a smooth path of monotony to the next thing. The systems often amount to less than the sum of their parts.

Now I'll admit, some of this could be on me. Maybe I've changed. It's possible. But man, I tried. Hey, what's that cool cave on this planet? I'll go check it out! Oh uhh, it's nothing? There's... a dead crab and a box with some old glue? Okay I guess?

This is an interesting perspective, and gave me something to think about!

I don't think the Steam Deck is quite there in terms of adoption to justify an across the board tax. The order of operations is kind of reversed, where Steam is reinvesting money made from previous sales towards R&D and Hardware ambitions, rather than using the Steam Deck to bring in users. But if you're developer that benefits from the Steam Deck's existence, or saw a sales bump from Steam Deck sales, or some other benefit like that, I agree it's a pretty good trade-off in that case.

Nintendo is a bit different because they sort of focus on their own thing and everyone else is secondary. Something like 80% of software sales for Nintendo platforms are first party, so it's mostly a Nintendo machine. Frankly, I think they should take less of a cut. Indies do really well on Nintendo though. They have a kind of pseudo-monopoly of a younger casual gamer demographic, and they maintain that user base by putting out great software. It is an interesting counterpoint though.