Supposedly, a meltdown at sea is pretty low risk because you have the perfect heatsink literally everywhere around you, and its a molten salt design, which I think(?) (source: my ass) means that the fuel would at worst leak into the sea and immediately solidify back into some inert state.

Doesn’t really seem spoilery to me at all. Alan Wake - and Remedy in general - is very into surreal weirdness and world fuckery. He’s mostly talking about audiences being receptive to pushing creative boundaries.

I don’t know if there’s a service that provides both functions. I’m sure there’s a way to do it - Lemmy posts are already accessible through Mastodon. Currently, I assume you would need the instance itself to offer both services under one account.

I would just write the world in a way that is interesting to you, and add to it as players show interest. “Hey, I want to play a Tabaxi” -> “oh okay, let me think about what that means and I’ll get back to you.” This also gives you more latitude for using their ideas to inform the world. “I want to play a Tabaxi Wizard” -> “oh interesting, maybe there’s a clan of them that…”

You’ll be able to focus on what you care about, which will make the world more interesting, and allow players to incorporate things they care about if they wish, which will make it more fun for them too. Framing it in terms of “up for deletion” implies you need to answer everything about the world from the start, which is not only inefficient but an impossible standard. Just because you haven’t considered something doesn’t mean it can’t exist.

If you want, you can view science as a system of organization. A way of making sense of facts. If I give you a file of seemingly random ones and zeroes, it is useless. If I give you an algorithm to decode those ones and zeroes into a message, that has utility. However, somebody else could produce an algorithm to decode those same ones and zeroes into an entirely different message. So, which algorithm is correct? Neither.

But say I give you another file, and Algorithm B doesn’t produce anything useful for this message, so now Algorithm A is more useful. But I also provide a new Algorithm C which also finds messages in both files. Now which is more correct, A or C? And on and on. We continue to refine our models of the data, and we hope that those models will have predictive utility until proven otherwise, but it is always possible (in fact, almost guaranteed) that there is a model of the universe that is more accurate than the one we have.

Consider the utility of a map. A map is an obviously useful thing, but it is also incomplete. A perfect map, a “true” map, would perfectly reproduce every single minute detail of the thing it is mapping. But to do so, it would need to be built at the same scale as the thing it is mapping, which would be far too cumbersome to actually use as, you know, a map. So, we abstract details to identify patterns to maximize utility. Science, likewise, is a tool of prediction, which is useful, but is also not true, because our model of the universe can never be complete.

I don’t really know what this post is on about, but science is not truth. It’s a system of prediction. The closest you can get to “truth” would be observation and data. Science is the process of interpreting these facts to better understand what things will look like in the future. It is obvious that science is not ‘true’, because by its nature it requires change over time as our models of the world improve.

Backpack Battles, basically.

If you try to just use the characters and setting to tell a different story, it’s also going to be soulless because those characters aren’t made to tell that story. Make your own characters and tell your own story if you don’t want to stick to the spirit of the original work.

I don’t exactly agree with this. If the creator has a vision, I say let them try. They should be able to stretch and change and rework things however they want. Of course, the farther they stray, the more it begs the question “Why?” but I don’t think it’s impossible if they have ideas.

or played the game

I would argue it’s actually a detriment to experience anything other than the source material when adapting a work. Especially with books, different people are going to have wildly different interpretations of the world. The character that exists in your mind is going to be different from somebody else who read the same book. But once it is adapted to a visual medium, you lose a bit of that magic. Which sucks, because all of those previous interpretations are still valid! More valid even, than anything that was put to screen, because they were yours.

I think the argument for accuracy is kind of bullshit anyway (not that you said this, but others have). Is The Shining (the film) worse for the changes it made to the original text? Stephen King might think so; he would also be wrong. You don’t want something accurate, you want something that’s good. You want somebody with passion and artistic vision to create something new and uniquely amazing. The recent Last Of Us show, to my knowledge, tread pretty closely to the source material. “Aha!” you might say. But what is also true, is that the best episode of that first season was also the probably the biggest deviation from the source material. I probably don’t even need to say which one if you’ve seen the show.

Anyway, companies should hire people who are both passionate about the source material, and want to make something cool and new in that world - not robots who are just going to recreate the original work beat for beat. If I wanted that, why wouldn’t I myself just, you know, read the book?

A couple years old, hopefully most of the websites on here are still alive:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NO-05LM-SakbwqNajBXgIO4HuCSkBd6n/view https://alinachin.github.io/onlineboardgames.html

It might be because they are part of the Order ‘carnivora’, so in that sense they are carnivores even though they are omnivorous.

Managed it in 5 somehow. Very cool.

Yes, but presumably the order of magnitude (waiting substantially longer) would be worse but you’re arguing the opposite… Why is waiting longer for a price cut better?

You know this is fucked up.

I don’t see the issue to be honest. It’s three days… How is it substantially different from somebody waiting 3 months for the price to go down even more? What are you protecting against?

I’ve read similar things about the development of Morrowind, about creative decisions needing to get past Todd, in this excellent article about its development.

Here are some quotes from Michael Kirkbride:

The game was originally set in the Summerset Isles. And then we got bored and decided, “Man, this is really boring. How about we put it in a volcano with like giant bugs everywhere?” And people were like, “What?” So Todd Howard — the easiest way to get anything past Todd, at that time, was you basically just had to say “Star Wars.” Which was true for me and anybody then. So I was like, “The game should be like Dark Crystal meets Star Wars.” And he was immediately hooked. I got all the bug creatures I ever needed, we moved it from Summerset Isles to this weird dark-elf place on the map, and we just went from there.

I used to have this thing with Todd, because he was one of the ones that’s like, “Let’s not make it too weird.” So I’d bamboozle him. There was a period where I would actually draw two different versions of a monster — the one that was weird and that I wanted to be in the game, and then one that was fucking crazy. And so I’d go to Todd, and I’m like, “OK, I think I’ve got the mid-level creature set.” And I’d show him a picture. He’d be like, “Nah, dude, that’s crazy.” Then I’d go back to my office and I would act like I was drawing something new, and I’d just come back with the original drawing of what I really wanted to be in there. Like, “Hey, is this what you were thinking?” And he’d be all, “Oh, yeah, that’s much better. That’s great.”

I can definitely believe his influence has become immense following the studio’s success - though it definitely feels like he needs to hand the reins over to somebody else.

Maybe you’ve read it before and you want to skip to the good parts. Maybe it’s non-fiction and you’re only interested in something specific. Maybe there are parts of the story that make you uncomfortable, but you’re enjoying it overall. Maybe a page is missing. Maybe it’s an abridged version and it’s not up to you, that’s just what was available.

And to the original point, what of translations? Maybe the original author is dead, and somebody translated their book. Are you ‘circumventing’ the author’s original intent to ‘gain an advantage’? I mean, yes. Does that mean you’re ‘cheating’?

What about audio books? Was the book intended to be read on a page? Are you cheating by having the book read to you?

Calling these things ‘cheating’ is silly and unnecessarily loaded, and they assume that the goal of a work is completion. That the only reason you would start a thing is to finish it. I don’t believe that’s the case for any art. One might say that the challenge in a game is the point, but that’s only sometimes true, and challenge is relative. If something comes naturally easier to you, is it ‘cheating’ to use mods to make the game more difficult, because you’re gaining the advantage of improving your experience, against the original intent of the game? I don’t think so, so I don’t see why it is any different the other way around.

To think about it another way: if you subtract that paragraph from that book, does it cease to be a book? No, it’s just a different book, and that can still have value to people. You’re not ‘cheating’, you are making a new experience for yourself.

I could go on and on so I’m gonna stop myself here.

Is it cheating to skip a paragraph in a book?

Feel like the inverse is more apt: where old people go, the young run the fuck away from.

An “Everything App” is just an operating system.

Worth noting it is “infused with” i.e. probably a very small ratio of blood to water.