• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 6th, 2023

help-circle
  • Very much so (and there’s at least one patient gamers community around, because I’ve posted to one).

    The only advantage I can see to playing a game on release is taking part in that first rush of interest, but I’m antisocial enough that that doesn’t appeal to me anyway, so I’m not missing anything there.

    Beyond that, I think playing a game at least a year or so after release has all of the advantages. The initial flurry of absolute love vs. absolute hate has died down so it’s easier to get a broad view of the quality, the game is more stable, the price is better, dlc and expansions are out and generally packaged with the game, and best of all, in this current era, I can most likely buy it from GOG and actually have the full game, DRM-free, on my system.

    And there are a bajillion good games out there, just waiting for me to discover them.


  • Most similar to Advance Wars:

    Final Fantasy Tactics Advance

    Tactics Ogre: Knight of Lodis

    Super Robot Taisen: Original Generation

    Shining Force:Resurrection of the Dark Dragon

    Just in general:

    Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow

    Summon Night: Swordcraft Story 1 and 2

    Drill Dozer

    Golden Sun 1 and 2

    Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap

    Harvest Moon: Friends of Mineral Town

    Guru Logic Champ

    Metroid Fusion

    Metroid Zero Mission

    Medabots RPG

    Klonoa: Empire of Dreams


  • Oh wow, I really riled you up.

    Presuming, for the moment, that this laughable, trite and terribly cliched rejoinder is in any way true, how would it be relevant to anything?

    Never mind though - that was a rhetorical question. I know, and I suspect you do as well, that it’s not. It’s just a casual, and at this point entirely predictable, bit of disparagement tossed out to give yourself what you erroneously believe to be an edge.

    the real problem is the idiots who are paying.

    I mean, I think that this is contentious enough to be worth picking apart.

    Feel free. I’m more than willing to explain in as much detail as you want exactly why it is that I think that people who pay extra for early access to games are “idiots.”

    (Just, by the bye, as I think that people who don’t wear seat belts, tahe the guards off their table saws or don’t get covid vaccines are “idiots.”)

    I can’t imagine calling someone an idiot unless I thought they kind of deserved what was coming to them.

    Which is exactly what I do in fact think.

    It’s this schadenfreude you seem to feel that I take issue with.

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

    I don’t feel any sort of pleasure or sense of fulfillment at their idiocy - I simply note it.

    I’m especially curious about that one.

    Oh, that would be this, actually:

    demonstrates more contempt for one’s fellow man than decreeing that they shouldn’t even be allowed to make their own choices.

    You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that.

    In response to my statement that:

    any consumers who, in such a situation, do not say no to a bad deal have nobody to blame but themselves

    you wrote:

    Do you suppose that choosing not to wear a seatbelt, a very bad deal, should be left entirely up to individuals, um, “stupid” enough to take it?"

    Clearly, with that, you established that the point you wished to dispute was whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” That was the exact point of contention you stipulated.

    So this:

    You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that

    is blatant bullshit. In point of fact, with the example above, that’s the specific focus you introduced. Curiously, you said nothing at all about the “contentious” phrasing of my original post or my supposed “schadenfreude.” That only came along now, in this desperate bit of backing and filling in which you’re vainly engaged. Rather, your immediate and exclusive focus was on whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” The clear, and in fact only, alternative to that is that it should not be left up to individuals, so that’s the position you’ve taken, and the position in support of which I’m still waiting for you to provide an argument.

    Now - if that’s truly not what you intended to say or imply, that would be another matter. And in fact, in any other situation, I’d be willing to simply grant that that wasn’t your intent and amend my responses accordingly. We could simply cooperate to find the exact point of our disagreement and focus on that (and could both enjoy this exchange much more).

    But you blew that chance a long time ago.

    So that was in fact the position you took, whether intentionally or not. And I’m still waiting for an argument in support of it.


  • It’s amusing and revealing that at no point here have you actually directly addressed anything that I’ve actually said. Instead, you’ve just used what I’ve said as a jumping off point for a ludicrously exaggerated, barely relevant and deliberately insulting strawman.

    Here’s a challenge for you - instead of leaping from strawman to strawman in this vain effort to somehow prove that I’m a horrible person and therefore wrong, go all the way back to the beginning here and frame a positive argument for your position. Tell me exactly why and on what basis (as appears to be your position) publishers should be prohibited from charging extra for early access, and what nominal public good that would serve.

    As a bonus, you might also try to explain how the position that publishers should be allowed to charge extra for early access is in any way “a very anti-covid-vaccine argument.” I’m especially curious about that one.

    Feel free to take your time




  • It’s that population that actively makes games worse for all of us

    That’s exactly why I don’t cut them any slack. Their dumb choices don’t just harm themselves - they harm me and all other gamers, insofar as they’ve made it so that publishers can get away with putting out unfinished, buggy, unbalanced crap.

    Sure - the gamers might spend a while ineffectually bitching on forums and handing out 1 star reviews, but that’s just meaningless noise. The ONLY thing that matters to the publishers is whether or not people buy the game, and those dunderheads not only buy the game - they line right up to buy the next one too.

    Or, now, line right up to pay extra for early access to the next one.


  • Yes - it really is the customers’ fault.

    It’d be different if games were a necessity - then the idea of “predatory” behavior would be relevant, since we’d be talking about someone taking advantage of the fact that the consumer has to buy the thing in question.

    But games aren’t a necessity - not even close - so any consumer is at any time entirely free to say no to any transaction without suffering any meaningful ill effects.

    And any consumers who, in such a situation, do not say no to a bad deal have nobody to blame but themselves.






  • So… by my count, the board of directors actually outnumber the employees.

    At a “non-profit” (until that was revoked) company that gets most of its funding through Patreon.

    Years from now (and at this rate, not very many of them), when people wonder how it was that such a promising venture that championed decentralization turned into just another enshittified megacorporation squatting over a piece of internet real estate and extracting rent to pay obscene salaries to a handful of executives - this is how. We’re watching as the foundation is being laid, right now.