How so? The system of patriarchy is beyond any one individual to solve. Yet I’m damn certain you believe every man should still do their best not to contribute. Why should the system of animal exploitation (and environmental destruction, while we’re at it) be any different?
Is it because one of these requires actual work on your side? You are the one measuring the same thing by two different standards.
Proton seems on the wrong side of the usability - privacy spectrum. Every last feature I’d want from an online provider is impossible or massively neutered by the overly strict security.
I wish there was a similar service in a trustworthy country with a more sane level of safety, like opt-in encryption for example.
Just in general: More sane defaults, less RTFM. Sure, you can configure everything, but MUST you? A lot of opensource developers seem to believe that configurability is a get-out-of-jail-free card for having to provide a good user experience out of the box.
Nier Automata. I really hated the replaying it part. The combat gets incredibly boring after the first two playthroughs. I also found the supposedly “deep” story to be extremely lacking, very on the nose and, like way too much japanese entertainment, bipolar when it comes to emotions.
Ubisoft open-world games typically take place across a map that’s filled with quest markers, and players are often guided with a compass or arrow that directs them to their next objective....
Honestly, Immortals: Fenyx Rising was superior to Breath of the Wild in every way (for me at least). The world wasn’t “stretched” in size needlessly, “shrines” integrated directly into the overworld, instead of being seperate, the collectibles were sometimes fun (compared to Koroks, which were always bad), there were far more interesting characters and side quests, the world was more alive, the combat was better (if we ignore BotWs weird physics stuff, which has fuckall to do with an action RPG), exploration had an actual point, because you might actually find something nice that doesn’t break five swings in, the story was superior, and the humor was great (to me).
TL;DR: Ubisoft cancels a sequel to their best game in some time, no suprise here.
I love hearing about unique takes on game mechanics. Someone recently convinced me that limited inventories are kind of abused currently and that unlimited inventory systems would give more player choices.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, are actively working on this? Is your work on it so horrendously demanding of all your attention of every single day, that you couldn’t ALSO go vegan, or vegetarian, or just eat less meat? Eat the rich is just a fun day dream and a lazy excuse to not do what you can (like going vegan).
Eating the rich would also vastly reduce racism, sexism, classism, and worker exploitation. Can I therefore ignore my negligible personal impact, and keep being racist, sexist, classist, and buy only the cheapest clothes crafted by the most exploited third world toddlers?
We could absolutely regulate veganism. Hell, it’s the other way around at the moment. For pretty much every animal rights law, there’s an exception specifically for farm animals. Just removing those exceptions would make factory farming (and therefore like 90% of meat production) illegal.
And in a more general sense, we absolutely can regulate carnism (aka the opposite of veganism), exactly how we regulate a million other moral questions.
Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Proton Mail Finally Releases Desktop Apps With a Linux Beta Version (news.itsfoss.com)
What would you change about your favorite Linux distribution?
Examples could be things like specific configuration defaults or general decision-making in leadership....
What games have you played due to FOMO?
FOMO stands for Fear Of Missing Out....
Sources: Ubisoft’s canceled Immortals 2 was a big break from the company’s formula (www.axios.com)
Ubisoft open-world games typically take place across a map that’s filled with quest markers, and players are often guided with a compass or arrow that directs them to their next objective....
What game mechanics do you love and hate?
I love hearing about unique takes on game mechanics. Someone recently convinced me that limited inventories are kind of abused currently and that unlimited inventory systems would give more player choices.
Eating meat creates four times more greenhouse gases than being vegan, landmark study finds (www.independent.co.uk)