site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 3 of 3 results for

domain:kvetch.substack.com

On that note, the problem with "evil" runs in video games is that it basically just handicaps you, removes content from the game, and slowly makes your experience worse with very little to actually show for it and very little external motivation other than "for the evilz".

Yes. Most games get this wrong. They try to make good and evil completely equivalent options that only differ in flavour, rather than recognising the nature of evil as a temptation. The evil options need to be the ones that provide the most immediate material gain to the player, not just "you can be a jerk if you want to, I guess." Bioshock almost manages it, and then walks it back at the last moment; the per-choice resource reward for good vs evil has a difference of double the rate, 80 for good vs 160 for evil. This would be great, making the player make do with less resources for the satisfaction of doing the right thing, or forcing the player to commit evil acts if they are struggling... only the game then undermines its own choice system by having the good route provide the player with additional resource gifts such that the overall difference between playthroughs is a mere 280 as opposed to the 1680 it would otherwise have been. Plus some other (exclusive to good route!) goodies on top that more than account for that difference. Now there's basically no reason not to be good all the time.

To make evil options worth taking, imo, they need to provide immediate and overwhelmingly lucrative rewards that you can't get any other way. Taking the Megaton example, I struggle to think of what could be offered that would be enough to make me blow up the town; maybe something on the level of New Vegas' Euclid's C-Finder, plus ten thousand caps and a unique companion who is extremely good. But that would also undermine the point of the Tenpenny quest; he's destroying an entire town for a trivial reason, doesn't think it's a big deal, and therefore probably shouldn't reward you so highly. So one can argue that the point of the quest is not to be able to complete it in an evil way at all; you're supposed to refuse, it's all a vehicle to make you hate Tenpenny.

Yes, Kierkegaard mentions that asterisk and notes that it doesn't significantly change the conclusions one should draw. It's rather hard to get a high sample size for white on black rape if it doesn't exist.

I think you meant rape is largely intraracial, which it is.

This is coarse, and based on racism. The nuanced argument is that IQ is > 50% determined by genetics, and that distributions between groups differ.

Maybe we have different methods of thinking about things but when I hear the statement

different races have different IQs

I immediately think that it's the distribution for the two things which is different, not that all people from the first group are smarter/dumber than all people from the second group. It's the same sort of statement as "men and women have different heights" and nobody sensible would ever take that to mean all men are taller than all women, they'd correctly see it as a claim about distributions. So why why should they interpret the IQ statement in this way?