Cethin
@Cethin@lemmy.zip
- Comment on I've had enough shimmying along ledges and squeezing through cracks sideways to last me a lifetime 11 hours ago:
It depends on how it’s done, and what’s important to the game, if you can do this. If you can see outside the elevator, it obviously has to be really moving a fixed distance. Also, if you’re supposed to know the height you moved it needs to be fixed, so the experience conveys that. The key is to just make it as long as, or longer, than your longest expected load time, or make the door stay closed until it’s done.
For an example, Dark Souls 1 has to have fixed length elevators. The length is totally tied to the physical world. If it changed length to suit loading times, it’d throw off your sense of where you are. Dark Souls 2, many of the elevators are just trying to convey a sense of traveling, not a specific amount of it. The world is abstract, and the transitions are more about a feeling than the actual physical scale. (These two use the exact same system though obviously, but it’s a good example of different goals.)
- Comment on RuneScape's monthly membership now costs as much as a World of Warcraft subscription as Jagex announces its second price hike in less than 2 years 4 days ago:
I’m pretty sure the price increase is for OSRS also, but they just don’t get anything.
Anyway, I somewhat agree with your argument. You get what you pay for, and if you want the game to not have MTX then you’re going to pay more (possibly, increased players could counteract this). I wouldn’t use an “hours played” metric to defend this though. I think it’s a bad metric even for regular games, but especially RS where it’s a “second monitor game” much of the time. Enjoyment/$ is the metric that matters. It’s harder to measure (as it should be, as it’s subjective), but it’s actually the reason we play games.
- Comment on 5 days ago:
Eh, I’ll wait for reviews at least. It wouldn’t be the first sequell to drop the ball. I don’t have any loyalty to a company. Even though I think every game they’ve made, from Natural Selection 2 on, including Moonbreakers (even if it didn’t do well it was the best model painting simulator I’ve seen), has been worth playing, that doesn’t mean it always will.
- Comment on 5 days ago:
Hanlon’s razor applies here. It could be, but I doubt it. It’s just yet another stupid CEO who thinks he, and his AI chatbot, are smarter than everyone else.
However, internet users are also stupid. They think buying the game will hurt them. In what world does that make sense? They company made the purchase with this deal, assuming they’d pay it. They expect it to make them money. The CEO just thought he could just squeeze extra profit out of it by getting out of the deal. It doesn’t mean they’ll lose money by paying it. It just means the game is making them a ton of money, but they’ll have to give some of it back to the studio.
- Comment on 5 days ago:
But it also helps the game sell better. I’d bet, if the game does well, Kraft on will make far more than that back. They didn’t purchase the company to lose money. They just thought they could get out of paying that money and make more profit. It’s not that they’d not make a profit by avoiding this, just less.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
More of a reason to do it then. That’s scummy. I guess I’ll be avoiding them like the plague.
- Comment on 18-26 year olds, How do you plan to dodge the draft? 1 week ago:
They’re explicitly creating a database of people they don’t like. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a draft that only selected people from that list to send to die. However, I could also see that backfiring pretty bad. Training them up to use weapons and fight, and handing them rifles, probably isn’t the smartest move.
- Comment on Ray is basic. 1 week ago:
To be fair, the entire thing could be made up. This post is likely to get far more likes and comments than just stating sharks are older than trees.
- Comment on Anon introduces himself 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, but this is a specific quote from an anime. The practice still exists I’m sure, but would anyone get the reference?
- Comment on Anon introduces himself 2 weeks ago:
I don’t know about you, but my school had clubs that let me meet other people with similar interests. Ironically, that’s literally what the anime this is referencing is about.
- Comment on Nintendo Suing U.S. Government Over Tariffs 2 weeks ago:
It’s big, but it’s not really impressive. It’s just for restitution, because the tariffs were already ruled illegal. This is just suing to see how much will be returned. It’s interesting, but it doesn’t effect much. It’d be nice if the money went to the consumers that paid the increase in prices, but we know that isn’t going to happen.
- Comment on Anon plays a game 2 weeks ago:
This has always been an opinion I’ve held for most RPGs. They almost always try to balance everything, and it makes it far less interesting. In my opinion they should play quite differently. The “good” play through should be the standard path most players will take, and it’s a balanced challenge with a mix of persuasion and combat. The evil playthrough should make you overpowered, but no one wants to cooperate with you. You can steal anything and kill anyone, but you’re going to have to fight for your win. Your combat skill is going to powerspike much higher and faster, but there won’t be an alternative to combat.
- Comment on What's going to happen to gas stations as cars electrify? 2 weeks ago:
They could make for an alright brewery. Sure, it wouldn’t be the prettiest, but a pre-built covered outdoor seating area is hard to come by. The entirior would need a lot of work though.
- Comment on Xbox as a platform is officially dead 2 weeks ago:
Isn’t the whole point, since the Xbox One, that they didn’t want it to just play games? We don’t consider it dead just because it does more stuff. I guess you can have whatever definition you want for your personal view, but I don’t really think anyone else would agree with it. It’s still going to be a Microsoft controlled platform that’s typically in the living room on a TV. Most people would say it’s dead when they stop having a device in the living room, not when that device gets extra features.
- Comment on Xbox as a platform is officially dead 2 weeks ago:
Saying this is the death of the platform is stupid. Worst case, it’s at least better than current Xbox, which doesn’t have the option to play PC games. Yeah, it’s going to have all of M$'s spywhere and AI slop, but so would any MS device. I’m not buying this crap, but if you already wanted an Xbox then this is an improvement. Yeah, you’re better off with a PC, especially one running Linux. This has been the case for decades, yet the consoles still sell.
- Comment on Just one more square bro 2 weeks ago:
Even when it can’t be generalized, you still often learn something by trying. You may invent a new way to look at a set of problems that no one’s done before, or you may find a solution to something totally unrelated. There’s a lot to learn even when it looks like you’ll gain nothing.
- Comment on Pornography depicting sexual relationships between step-relatives set to be banned 2 weeks ago:
I think a lot of it is because it makes writing really easy. You don’t need to come up with a reason for these two people to be near each other in an intimate setting, which they can easily turn into something more sexual. Not many people are watching for the plot, so they just need a bare bones contrivance for it taking place.
- Comment on Why is the USA attacking Iran? 3 weeks ago:
He’s also pathetically insecure, and history has traditionally looked back fondly at wartime leaders like Churchill and the like. He’s hoping for that
A key thing to note is that it’s normally defensive leaders that are looked back on fondly. Attacking another nation usually doesn’t give this boost, or at least not as significantly. Frequently it’s negative in fact.
He’s too stupid to understand this though, if this is his reason. I don’t think it is though. At best, it’s a distraction. At worst, and more likely, it’s an excuse to implement policies that expand his powers, and maybe to prevent elections from taking place.
- Comment on 3 weeks ago:
Maybe they don’t fit under the term of “paleoartists” (they are artists of Paleolithic creatures) but the most popular modern depictions of dinosaurs are presumably the Jurrasic World movies, and I think they are almost universally lacking plumage. I’ve only seen the first, but the images I’ve seen I don’t have any feathered dinos. So, no. This is still an ongoing issue.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 3 weeks ago:
To hunt? No. I don’t even think it’s legal to hunt with it. It is the most popular rifle, but it isn’t for hunting. It’s for target shooting (in theory, if it’s for sport), or “self-defense”.
- Comment on Ron Ejaculated Loudly 💦 4 weeks ago:
The difference is that’s trying to be stupid and funny. Rowling is just, I don’t know, lazy, or uncreative, or racist. One, or multiple, of those at least.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 4 weeks ago:
How so? What was the strawman?
- Comment on Littering 🚯 4 weeks ago:
Animals don’t need to be culled, for the maintenance of the current pseudo equilibrium it’s probably a good idea, but it’s not an absolute requirement.
Literally nothing is required. What’s your point? Are you just trying to argue about nothing? The Earth can just be destroyed. It isn’t required to exist. So what? We’re talking about solutions to a problem. There is a problem with lead bullets. There’s also a problem with a lack of natural predation. We should try to solve these problems. We don’t have to solve any problem, but what’s the point in starting arguments with people online saying we don’t need to solve anything?
I never said “naturally healthy”
I literally quoted you.
I had to go back to see what was said. I didn’t say anything was special about it being natural, like what you implied by saying it was magical. I said it’s kept naturally healthy by predators, as in nature had a mechanism to keep it healthy. This isn’t an appeal to nature, as you implied. It’s a statement of fact. It isn’t saying natural is better. It’s saying there is a natural thing. Doing it without nature accomplishes the same goal. So you did “quote me” in that you used two words I also used, you didn’t include anything else surrounding it, and made it say something it didn’t.
Healthy is relative in multiple ways, there would be a new equilibrium on the other side of the shitstorm that would probably arise from us dropping our current efforts with no replacement.
As I said. We could wait for evolution to take its course. I don’t think waiting centuries with booming and crashing populations of animals is a particularly smart idea. Maybe you do, but you haven’t said anything other than “we don’t have to do anything.” Again, no shit! Stop writing these long comments saying literally nothing.
Unless there’s some sort of magic book that already has the answers to what is and isn’t viable then we very much do need to rule them out, that’s how decisions and policies are made.
No, we don’t. We don’t need to discuss magical fairies taking care of the problem. We don’t need to discuss finding a magic lamp to solve the problem. Some things can safely be ignored because they’re so unlikely to happen.
I’m not sure what the no is about given the following sentences basically say the same thing i did.
I’d be interested to see where you’re seeing an argument against hunting from me as, afaik, i haven’t said anything to that effect.
Fair enough. You aren’t making any argument besides that we should do everything but discuss how to solve these issues. Someone said hunting needed to stop. I said it’s necessary for the current state of things. You’ve argued against what I said, which implies an argument against hunting, but really it’s just an annoying “… but what about” argument making no claims and no actual arguments.
This is my last reply unless you actually want to have a discussion. If you do, discuss in good faith. We do not have to rule out things that can’t reasonably happen. We should assume that suffering is at least somewhat negative. We should assume that environmental experts saying prey populations need to be culled are correct. If you don’t agree to these, there isn’t a discussion to be had.
- Comment on We're just scanning for the bear... 4 weeks ago:
Yeah, what this data actually shows is that, in the situations tested, women tend to find darker areas of a picture more interesting and men tend to find lighter areas more interesting. Not as interesting of a headline though. I’m interested to see what the actual paper says, not some click bait pop-sci meme.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 4 weeks ago:
That works. I’m not saying you can’t hunt with other methods. I’m just saying that I can’t see much of an argument against the use of leadless firearms for hunting, besides a weak gun control one (hunting weapons aren’t a significant portion of the danger from firearms, mostly handguns or rifles like the AR-15). People can hunt however they want, or not at all, as long as it is controlled to healthy levels and doesn’t cause any other issues, and, ideally doesn’t cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 4 weeks ago:
Either you haven’t thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.
If we’re talking about gun control, fine. I’m all for reasonable gun control. I don’t think targeting hunting rifles/shotguns are the most useful though. Handguns are the issue there. Still, yeah, more good gun control would be nice. Not really part of this discussion though, but that’s the one argument I did consider, but doesn’t really apply to hunting weapons. If we can get it passed for the weapons that actually matter, then I’d agree losing hunting weapons are fine.
That’s only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which I’m sure you’ll agree is absolutely not the case.
Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.
Yes. That formal enforced regulation needs to exist, and I don’t know anywhere that it doesn’t. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and that’s all based on how many of the animals need to be culled, and it does need to be done. Equilibrium is maintained through this regulation.
This magical “naturally healthy” state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.
I never said “naturally healthy”. I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isn’t maintained by other predators, we need to do it. It’s naturally (in its current state) unhealthy. Hunting is required to keep it healthy.
we are also animals, so us dying and being eaten also fall under this, so by that rationale another effective solution could be to reintroduce more (non-human) predators and a few of us die here and there, but the animal populations now stay under control.
Sure. That’d be another solution. If we’re discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. There’s a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We don’t need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.
Until a new equilibrium is reached, because that’s how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).
No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesn’t reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isn’t true for all prey animals, but many, such as deer and rabbits, it is. Population booms, they eat all easily available food, they die off from starvation or disease, then they boom back.
A lot of your argument against hunting is that it requires regulation. No one is arguing against that. It is needed, and this is already recognized and enforced. We just need to now enforce participation in a way that doesn’t create negative externalities from lead poisoning.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 4 weeks ago:
You must be pretty rested, because you didn’t even try to make an argument. What were the leaps in logic? Can you actually explain, or are you just implying there are to sound smart, but can’t actually identify any?
- Comment on Littering 🚯 4 weeks ago:
It’s not circular, because it needs to be done. If it isn’t done we have massive problems. It doesn’t depend on any other logic. Sure, the issue was crested, in part, by hunting also (a lot just because predators won’t live near population centers though), but the argument that it needs to be done isn’t dependent on you agreeing with killing predators.
- Comment on Littering 🚯 4 weeks ago:
Sure, you can hunt without guns. I don’t really see an argument for not using them though, as long as there’s no lead. What’s really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever? I see the emotional appeal, if people have a negative view of guns. Not a logical appeal though, besides maybe making them harder to access to prevent deaths by firearms.
I didn’t make any proposals in my above comment. I don’t know what you mean by saying you don’t see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isn’t negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?
- Comment on Littering 🚯 4 weeks ago:
OK, I think this is an incredibly stupid argument.
From the ethical perspective of anti-meat, hunting animals is so much better. They get to live natural lives, and they die in a similar manner to they do in nature (maybe a little faster, which is good).
From an environmental perspective, hunting keeps pray populations in naturally healthy levels, since most of their predators are driven out of populated areas, because people don’t like to be attacked by wild animals. It also doesn’t consume many resources, as they’re just living their lives in nature.
I don’t think there’s any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. That’s fine, and you can just not do it. I’ve never hunted in my life, and I suspect I never will. It’s not really something I want to do. I can’t construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you can’t either. If you can, give it a shot, and remember animals dying and being eaten is natural, and frequently necessary to maintain an equilibrium that was evolved to be maintained by external factors. Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they aren’t hunted by humans.