harmonea

Lol, instead of addressing what argument? Your argument is entirely “nuh-uh, you are frustrated. I know you are because my argument would fall apart if you weren’t, so you are. It’s just that you like being frustrated.”

It’s just not the case. There are rare good ones out there, and if that frustrates you into claiming I’m some masochist and therefore my enjoyment is somehow invalid, that’s your own whole subscription of issues.

So I’ve heard

You’re writing all live service games as being based on frustration when that absolutely isn’t the case, so I have to think you have too many preconceived notions on this subject to actually be open to a conversation about it.

Oh well. No game is for everyone and sometimes the pay content is worth it just because it’s damn awesome.

“Clobber” implies violence, which is somehow even less elegant than the standard phrase that the haphazard “cobble” implies. Given the shitshow of X so far, clobber probably works better even if it’s not the usual way to phrase this at all.

While absolutely too many things are charged for in gaming today (exp boosts? skip potions? cheat armor that was already fully developed at launch? all ways to get your company on my high seas list)… in the specific case where (1) new content is continuously being developed AND (2) the game is not asking for mandatory spending to continue playing (e.g. no expansion pack to purchase, no subscription fees), I don’t think the concept of charging for in-game content at all is abusive.

If I buy once and then a year later some optional paid cosmetics or other goodies are added, I think that’s permissible. And if I’m in a free to play live service game, I recognize the ongoing dev costs need to get covered somewhere.

I do vastly prefer those companies that give their games TLC and updates for free, and I’m not saying the standard pricing for optional purchases in the modern market are reasonable. But I think the existence of in-game purchases, if not their current state, can make sense sometimes.

I didn’t say they should cave to fans save give them what they want. I just think there was a way to say this without being mean about wanting it.

Anyway, I don’t have a horse in this race, I still haven’t played this. Just commenting on how I think I’d feel if that were me. I’ve played a fair few games where the ending left me wanting a lot more, and not always because the game was just that good.

I feel like this is an overly negative light to paint something fans of your game seem to want. There’s an undercurrent of “your wish is bad and you should feel bad” to this.

I appreciate that CDPR has a strong vision for what they want their game to be, but I think if I were one of those fans who wanted to see more of the post-ending setting, I would feel a bit gut-punched by how thoroughly dissed and dismissed my kind of love for the game was.

Maybe CDPR is okay with that though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just pick a good frame and wiggle the parts in Live2D or something.

The hilarious part is that hoyo is constantly pushing the boundaries of what can be done with live2d; it’s heavily used in Genshin character teasers, and their otome game uses it extensively. They’re really good at this. Why get AI involved?

You said you want good faith discussions, but you preemptively dismissed one of the biggest answers because you don’t think it’s a good solution. Then you have people here disagreeing with you, explaining why, and pointing to examples of it being done successfully, and you continue to completely dismiss a donation as nothing more than a “thank you” - how is this in any way a good faith discussion if any opposing viewpoint is immediately met with this kind of “YOU’RE the problem” response?

I do understand your frustration in those cases in which donations fail, but it seems like you’re not willing to meet us halfway and acknowledge that sometimes, donations succeed, and not by accident or luck. There’s data there - test cases we could be picking apart and seeing what critical mass needs to be reached before an instance can reliably secure donations and what we can do for admins until their instances reach that threshold. But you’re just dismissing it as nonviable even though it clearly works for a lot of places.

That is not good faith.

The same Neuralink whose primate test cases all had to be euthanized after their procedures due to a whole host of problems that were claimed to have nothing to do with the implants? That Neuralink?

I think I’ll stick with my PC, Bob.

People are clamoring around you in a huge chorus of it’s fine just roll with it but frankly, I think your point of view is totally valid. While Larian did a great job making every path a valid way to the ending, you can really only ever lock yourself out of content with your choices.

Go too far down one of two branching paths? Hope you can pass a big fat skill check or two, or that one companion will bail. Hope you didn’t like that character or want to see more of that content. (Oh, and if you do pass the skill checks, 10 minutes later the companion is like “ugh no it’s fine you were right, forget I ever wanted to go that way even though I’ve been obsessed with it for the last 20 hours” in the name of railroading the character back in line.)

Get interested in the wrong quest too early? Hope you didn’t want to finish the main side objective in that one area. No no, even though all the characters are still present, you don’t get to finish it. Because we said so. Shoo along to the next place. Go. Get.

And here’s hoping you don’t get curious about the “evil” path - you lose multiple companions and a whole-ass cast of side characters that are meant to follow you through the game and gain one (1) bit of interesting new content to replace them. Is it still interesting? Absolutely, but it’s a consolation prize compared to how much you lose.

It took me 3 playthroughs or so before I finally felt like I was on a save where I was having a good 80%+ of the intended experience. And yeah, you can replay it for what you missed, but not everyone has time for that, especially in a game this immense. I know I’ve started it up to make my fourth character about half a dozen times and Alt-F4ed during character creation as soon as I think about going through the parts I’ve thoroughly combed already.

BG3 is my GOTY by a long shot, but people should have more sympathy for this outlook. There are definitely right paths and wrong paths, and while they all lead to the end, the wrong paths have a lot less to look at and a healthy amount of rubbing your face in the fact that you did stuff in the wrong order (“Perhaps you could have…” ok thanks, narrator).

Analogies are tools to assist understanding, and having opposition debate the analogies themselves instead of the actual points they’re used to make is a sign of a weak rebuttal.

So let’s ignore all the haggling over the analogy and bring it back to the broader point: People should not be in jobs which their personal beliefs prevent doing significant or important aspects of. And equality between genders is objectively an important aspect of health care. These “professionals” should not be in the health care field at all, save perhaps male-focused care fields like prostate or testicular health.

I don’t understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods – shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever – that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter’s side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.

Doctors are held to a different standard because… the mental gymnastics say it’s totally fine when it’s a woman being denied service I guess?

If these healthcare “professionals” only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.

Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.

Idk man, I was just continuing the chain of references.

No way. Why should OP change? He’s not the one who sucks.

It’s really not my problem that you viewed me pointing out 53 < 60 as “unloading.”

And “normalizing” having a serious disorder is dangerous. This is not behavior that should be applauded. It dilutes the experience of those who do have it and saps the available resources. Again, not “unloading,” just facts that can be verified with any professional in the field. None of this is coming from emotion.

Going to therapy is good. Absolutely, yes, 90% should go. At no point did I shame therapy, I just pointed out the numbers don’t line up and it proves there is definitely self-diagnosis going on.

I’m aware. That was the point of me pointing out that you’d have to assume all 53% had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. It’s incredibly unrealistic. And yet 60% have a disorder? There is absolutely self-diagnosis happening.

I was only discussing the definition of a disorder. But if you want to get into sophistry and impotent political venting, sure. If 60% of people can’t make connections with others or hold down a job because of their mental health, I question anyone who would call that anything but a disordered society, and that includes you saying it’s “the order of things.”

That said, this is an informal self-reported poll with a possibly exaggerated headline. It’s entirely possible the actual disorder most of GenZ has is self-diagnosis and identity culture, in which if one doesn’t have a disorder or three, one becomes the weirdo in a group.

I found this line from the article especially telling:

The survey also showed that 2 out of 5 go to therapy and 53 percent have gotten professional help for mental health at some point.

Notice how 53% is less than 60? And we’d have to assume each and every one of the 53% was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder on those “at some point” visits to come close to supporting the headline’s claim.

I think if measurable socioeconomic markers supported the 60% number, it would be bigger news. Are they more anxious, sure. But again… anxiety does not imply anxiety disorder. As it stands, publishing inaccurate headlines like this makes people take the real issues – and there ARE a lot of big, pervasive societal issues at play – less seriously.

(And because I know y’all need to hear it: if you, dear reader, have a professional diagnosis, none of this is talking about you.)

You interpreted the word “prevent” more strictly than I meant it I think, but you’re not wrong.

The key word is “disorder” though.

Everyone experiences anxiety from time to time, just like everyone has minor bouts of depression or invasive compulsions. Some non-disordered might even still experience them often.

Not everyone experiences these feelings pervasively to a degree it prevents them from socioeconomic success (making friends, going outside, finding and keeping a job, etc).