r1veRRR @ r1veRRR @feddit.de

Posts

1

Comments

129

Joined

2 yr. ago

While I understand the idea behind using CSS "correctly", I have, in my 15 years of professional experience, never ever seen even one project where the hypothetical promises of CSS were actually realized. It ALWAYS ends up with a fuckton of importants, or hunting for ages for the one class fifteen levels of abstraction up that changes your one element, coming up with more and more absurd class names, until they are literally no different from just some random name. Tailwind might seem horrible in a theoretical sense, but in an actually using it sense it's a heaven sent. I want to change the padding on THIS ONE SINGLE ELEMENT, I change it EXACTLY RIGHT THERE where the element is defined, and i can be absolutely sure that I haven't accidentally cascaded someone else's work to death.

#CSS, in practice, is the insane idea of every single element on your website sharing global, mutable state, and thinking that's in anyway smart.

With the second hand market, Dota 2 (and CSGO) are LITERALLY excatly like trading card games. Noone gave a fuck for years about those. Hell, of all "predatory" systems, Dota 2 is the absolute most fair, most tame one. The only realistic alternative are 20 dollar skins, like with Overwatch 2.

I mean, there's also nothing to gain for the developer by continuing development. Most f2p games only survive so long because of those microtransactions. Think about how long these games are supported, how much new content they get constantly. The "good old games" were one and done. If you got lucky, they might patch some bugs, but often that was left to the community.

Which is what 90% of day 1 DLC is for most other games. It would be fine, but it's the mightier than thou attitude and the blind exceptionalism from rabid fans that makes this so hypocritical.

So in the end, there's zero principle involved here, and it's all just picking and choosing which DLC YOU happen to think is totally fine. For reference, what you just described is like 90% of the day one DLC ever. Some basic skins, some inconsequential ingame items/things, maybe some art or music.

This all would be fine, but it's the insane vitriol everyone else is throwing at microtransactions AND the mightier than thou attitude of the game devs that makes this horrendously hypocritical. I don't have a problem with this DAY ONE DLC FOR BG3, but I'm also sane enough to not pretend that all microtransactions are evil, categorically.

Considering that everyone in this thread is acting like ANY kind of microtransaction is the spawn of Satan, I really don't think it's a wrong equivalence.

The obvious, boring answer on both sides is, of course, nuance. Microtransactions and DLCs are not categorically evil. And also, this little bit of launch DLC ain't gonna kill anyone (just like 99% of launch DLC). It's always just some small, inconsequential cosmetic or truly mediocre micro-mini-sidequest.

A lot of games are only possible because of microtransactions. Love 'em or hate 'em, MOBAs would've long died without microtransactions.

I've definitely often said "You know what makes this game possible, alive and updated regularly even years after release? Microtransactions!" They don't just make (some) games better, they make (some) games even possible at all.

This is just demonstrably false. Half of the most played games might not even exist (anymore) if they were pay to play. Especially for multiplayer games, the barrier to entry means less people playing, which can mean the death of a game. The funding also means longer lasting updates, and the business model means the developers actually have a good reason to keep the game alive.

The prime example of a f2p game is Dota 2. No characters to buy, just cosmetics. Cosmetics you can get randomly by just playing, AND you can buy and sell on the second hand market for super cheap. That money has meant that the game kept getting updates and changes, all of which cost a fuckton of money.

Now, are many f2p concepts predatory? Sure, but so are trading card games marketed towards children, and nobody cared. And again, most games simply wouldn't exist without F2P, DLC and/or microtransactions. People pretend like games "back in the day" lived forever without any DLC. That's just not true.

Since the classics have been mentioned already (vinegar, MSG), I'll go with tofu. It's like a blank sheet of paper, ready for your creativity. There's no form of cooking or kind of food that tofu doesn't fit into. You could have crunchy tofu cubes, but you can go sweet with silken tofu. Or make a creamy sauce with way less fat. Or honestly just be lazy and crumble in raw tofu into whatever your cooking to add easy protein.

To get annoyingly serious on a funny post, the one huge danger of GUIs that I've personally witnessed in many of my juniors is that they abstract away the need to understand the tool you're using.

I regularly use a Git GUI, and I might have to google the rebase command for more complex tasks, but I know how Git works. I know what I can do with rebase, even if I don't exactly know how to. If you only live in the GUI, you can get far never understanding the system. Until one day, when you fuck up a commit or a push, and you're totally hosed because there isn't a pretty button with the exact feature you want in your GUI.

I mean, we're rewriting everything in Rust, so there's no need to learn cmake anymore /s

To conter your comment a little bit, I think anyone doing coding for a living should absolutely use an editor that supports LSPs. They're an insanely helpful tool with zero downsides.

I disagree somewhat with their take, but there's definitely languages that cmoe with features built-in that reduce the need for a fancy IDE. For example, instead of null checks via annotations that the IDE has to parse and warn about, just have nullable types. Or instead of IDE features to generate a bunch of boilerplate, just don't require that boilerplate.

That being said, on the other side of the spectrum, anyone writing code without using an LSP is just throwing away productivity by the handfull.

The worst thing is that it's often just that one specific mission that has shitty checkpoints. The rest is generally fine, but then you hit that wall and you want to do PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. At least that's been my experience.

I often find mechanics that only exist to waste time incredibly annoying. In the case of loot, a limited inventory is kind of that. You could absolutely just portal/teleport to town, sell your stuff, and then get back to playing. There's no challenge involved, EXCEPT that it wastes your real-world time.

I liked the pets in Torchlight for this reason. You could send them off to sell loot, while you kept playing the part of the game that's actually fun.

One exception is something like Resident Evil, where the choice is relevant to the gameplay directly. But even then, I would've preferred limits on individual elements (Only X weapons, only X healing items, etc.) and having extras automatically stored.

But some people play them with just a Dance pad. Doesn't that, by your logic, mean they are too easy? Shouldn't they be even harder? Maybe they'd be even more famous. The point is that difficulty is relative, therefore there OBJECTIVELY isn't a correct difficulty. You're just lucky enough to fit into their "difficulty demographic".

But it's moot anyway. Games with easy modes will still get played with high difficulty by people that actually enjoy it. Your own enjoyment of a game should not depend on other peoples difficulty levels.

This is one big reason why I liked Fenyx way better than Breath of the Wild. The Fenyx world is far smaller, but also more dense with actually interesting things to do. You have a horse in both, but the distances in BotW are still just pointlessly big, esp. when 90% of the things you can find are just the same two things: shrines and koroks.

I personally find the most important part of those choices isn't the actual effect, but whether the game managed to immerse me enough so that I care.

For example, in Life is Strange, there's a string of choices you can make that will get someone killed (or save them). The game invests enough time in the character before hand so when you come to the crossroads, the decisions FEEL very important. Do those choices have any big effects on the game? Not really. The character isn't part of the main story line anymore after that, you only get some people referencing the difference. But if FELT important.

Think about the polar opposite: Choices that change the entire game, but you aren't invested in. Would those be interesting choices, or would that just be 2 games in the form of one, and the choice is just a kind of "game select screen".

Hey! The first half was actually really good. The second half didn't happen.

Seriously, I remember replaying Fahrenheit like 2 or 3 times and always stopping at the halfway mark. That very first level in the diner promised soooo much, and the game never delivered.

While I don't mind openworld games, they definitely feel off, esp. with regards to the main quest. Can't save the world, gotta get this granny laid.

One of the only games with a open world that actually REQUIRED it for the game to make sense is Paradise Killers. It's a detective open world game on an island. The open world makes a lot of sense, because a detective has to find their clues. It's not a detective game if there's a counter of "clues found" or there's a linear progression. The game never tells you that you're done finding clues. Like a real detective in a real open world, you have to decide whether you've seen enough.