@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

What!? The movie was not in the least boring. This really is Terrible Take Tuesday, lol.

through sheer force of will, it makes the absurdity and stupidity work.

One might say it rejects common sense to make the impossible possible.

I disagree, I think both are very well written.

That's fair. The episode stories are generally quite good.

With all due respect, man, it sounds to me like you want a philosophy course, not a story. Going into the kinds of details you are demanding would be boring. I neither need nor want a meticulously thought out explanation of how the Puppet Master thinks (nor anything else you mentioned), that would just make the story a slog that very few people would want to watch/read.

Bebop and GitS are not good, they have immaculate vibes but that’s about it. I think they’re mostly carried by nostalgia.

The hell is this, the Terrible Take Tuesday thread? Cowboy Bebop and GitS are not just good, they are excellent. The plot in Cowboy Bebop isn't that special (though that isn't what it's about), but overall both are great series.

Yeah. I tried, but it just didn't click with me.

It was indeed. Garrison gets turned into a parody of Trump, and runs for president with his platform being to "fuck them all [illegal immigrants from Canada] to death".

Without spoiling anything, the series takes a turn like 12 episodes in and I suspect it is the second half which people remember it for very fondly. I myself bailed not that long after the point you are (episode 6 or 7?), then gave it another shot years later, but still couldn't get into it. If you really want to give it a full try, though, I would say watch that far and see if it changes for you.

Spoilers ahoy: basically I found the only redeeming feature of that series to be Kamina. Simon is a whiny little bitch, the plot isn't all that interesting, I don't care about anime mech fights, and Yoko is amusing but her best feature (besides her boobs) is being a foil for Kamina. Then they killed off Kamina! So literally the only thing I enjoyed about the show was gone, and I bailed. Later I tried to watch further based on encouragement from a friend who said that Simon grows and becomes the new Kamina, but... he kinda doesn't. He stops being a whiny little bitch for sure, but he didn't (as far as I got) become as interesting or as fun as Kamina was. So overall, not a great anime imo. The first 6-7 episodes are excellent, but after that... meh.

Alright, you've convinced me to give Civ 4 warfare another shot. I'm not exaggerating my experience - I really do remember combat being completely boring and without any nuance in that game - but it was my first Civ so it's certainly possible I overlooked depth to be found in it. Are there any good guides for Civ 4 tactics? I know the game has strategic depth, but something which helps to reveal any tactical depth would be welcome.

If you can't get past the ridiculous "one unit per type per hex" limit, that's understandable

That change is the best change in the game! Warfare is so boring in Civ 4 because there's no gameplay to it, if you have a stack that counters their stack you win. I am sympathetic to the argument that doom stacks were better because the AI was more competent with them, but can't really understand preferring them as a game mechanic.

Yeah, I would be astonished if random normies didn't know who Stalin was. That's not even being highly educated, that's "did you graduate high school" material.

It's a fair question. My subjective impression (i.e I have zero data for this, just a gut feeling based on the games I have played) is that there are fewer of those gems in absolute terms even though the overall number of games has increased. But that's not data, just how it has seemed to me.

I agree that good games (even great games) are still to be found, especially from indie devs. My observation is just that there has been a decrease over time in the rate of getting those great games. Early on (like in the 80s), devs were strongly limited by technology, but in the 90s they started to be unshackled from those limitations and were putting out incredible games that blew everything before them away. Doom, Fallout, the various Infinity Engine games, FF6, FF7, Deus Ex, Starcraft, Alpha Centauri, etc etc. And that torrent of classics kept up for a good long while. But at some point it slowed down - around 2010 is where the inflection point seemed to me to be. Not that we don't get classics any more (we do, some of my favorite games are from after the golden age), but that something changed and now (to make up some numbers) 20% of the games are classic instead of 60%. We can still get a lot of great games while it also being true that we get fewer than before

I suspect that the primary driver here is because AAA game development has become way too expensive and time-consuming. When it takes 5-10 years and a team of 200 people to make the game, there's always going to be pressure to play it safe so as to recoup the investment. Not to mention that long dev times hurt because games (like other software) benefit a lot from iteration. If you make a game in a year or two, you can test out your ideas and learn from your mistakes so much faster than at the current pace of AAA dev. And I bet that this is why so many of the great games in recent memory have been indie games. Free of the constraints their AAA colleagues face, they can focus more on quality for their intended audience than safe broad appeal. They can iterate faster and dial in what makes the best games. But even though the indie devs still knock it out of the park a lot, time was that all the devs were doing that! It really does strike me as a golden age that we aren't quite experiencing any more.

Yeah, I agree that those sounded good in principle. That's why I was excited for Humankind when it came out, because I thought the idea of growing your civilization over time could be a really fresh take on the genre. In practice it didn't turn out so well (at least to me, and it sounds like to you) because the lack of identity just made civs feel soulless and disconnected from any historical flavor.

Accordingly I was already skeptical with the direction for Civ 7, because they were building on ideas that I already knew I didn't like when they were in another game. And unfortunately it seems like they too have gotten things completely wrong flavor wise (seriously, why does Firaxis think that the leader is what we players care about??). Not to mention the harsh age resets, which seriously undermine the core thing people like about Civ (building stuff up over time).

I find it especially galling because according to Firaxis, this all was in service of trying to get people to finish more games of Civ, since stats show most people don't finish the game. But I do! I find the entire arc of a game of Civ fun, and while the late game isn't quite as good as the early game, it's still really fun to me. So with Civ 7 they are trying to solve a problem I don't agree that the game has, by using methods that I don't like (and which go against the core identity of the series). It's very frustrating.

I'm trying to suggest that Ada Lovelace (much as I respect her) wasn't a leader of people by any stretch of the imagination. You can at least argue for Tubman in that she was a kind of leader. It's not a very good case, but you can make it. Lovelace? There's absolutely nothing there besides pure diversity quota thinking.

I'm not arguing that gaming crack never existed before today's time

That is definitely what I understood you to be arguing when you said "All of the video game equivalents of crack cocaine have generally released within the last 15 years". If that's not the case, fair enough.

Either way I disagree with your broader point, lol. Gaming really is in a slump after the golden age of the 90s-00s imo. But I don't have any arguments you probably haven't seen before, so we can agree to disagree on that point.

Oh yeah, already played that one. It's very fun and the beavers are cute. Timberborn has actually been the reference point I've been giving friends for CoI, because both games kind of feel like someone had fun programming a physics engine (water/soil), and then came up with a game to make use of it. Which isn't a knock on either game, I think they're both great! Just a funny similarity that stood out to me.

Civ 7 looks so bad. It's not even Civ any more, just another game with Civ branding. Then on top of that you have the legion of bugs that it launched with, and... yeah it's not a good look for Firaxis. People try to defend the game by saying "oh the new Civ game is always controversial on release", but I was there for Civ 5 and 6. Neither was even close to being as negatively received as 7 has been.

And don't even get me started on the sheer level of "diversity hire" leader picks they sunk to. This problem was in 6 as well (looking at you, Catherine de Medici), but 7 takes it to the next level. It's ridiculous.

To be fair wide is perfectly viable in Civ 5, I play that way myself. You will have a harder time in the early game (pro tip: settle cities on top of new luxuries so you get the happiness bonus immediately), but it's quite doable. Unless you're playing against humans, 4-city tradition is an optimization, not a necessity.

Civ dates back to the early 90s, and Dwarf Fortress to the early 2000s. For another example, people used to get in trouble playing Doom at work because the game was just that good. There were very addictive games being made 20-30 years ago too.

@cjet79 thank you for the recommendation for Captain of Industry. Your description of "Factorio + terrain leveling simulator" really sounded fun, and I have indeed been having a blast. I started on what I think is the hardest map ("You Shall Not Pass") because I thought the name was funny + a friend declared "no balls" when I was going to go with one of the beginner friendly maps. But other than the fact I've had to spend a lot of time making level ground to work with, I haven't found it too bad. Factory game experience is helping me a lot, I imagine.

Yeah I wouldn't worry about that. Even in the third book (let alone further), it isn't a factor any more. And to be fair, I don't think it was ever much of a love triangle. I think the story was just there to show Kaladin and Shallan mistaking normal human relationships for romantic feelings because they are kind of screwed up, not to have there be a serious contention.

I actually dislike when people reflexively avoid "died" as well. I very rarely will say someone "passed away", because I think it's better to be direct about what happened. The person died, it's ok to say it.

I can't fathom Total War working well on mobile. And why not get it on PC, where you can use one of the many mods? I just don't see any upside here, get it on PC imo.