• 1 Post
  • 136 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle


  • The issue is, as a kid, you had lots and lots of time, and also little access to Internet forums for general game info.

    Back then, you got a game and that became your whole focus for a few days instead of a few weeks/months.

    Games in general were less complex and less forgiving so you were more used to playing simple platformers in which you could die and lose 20 mins of progress.

    So overall, the attitude was to put effort, invest and challenge yourself (not with online play) when it came to gaming.

    So given all these factors, your attitude towards games and the type of games were difference, hence why a simple platformer without much story and repetitive gameplay was the shit back then.









  • I think the next couple jumps were very good too.

    Ps1 was just polygons, you could see all the edges and the games were not complex.

    Then ps2 happened, now you get games like gta 3 and gran turismo. San Andreas was one of the longest and most in depth games in terms of all the mini games inside.

    After that, came imo the peak of game graphics. Sure, some today might be technically better, but at the time, Crysis on very good hardware looked almost indistinguishable from reality. I remember seeing some highly detailed renders of people’s faces and thinking how it was just like real life.

    After Crysis, there wasn’t really any other “big jump” unless you count the hard drive space requirements.

    Having said that, bf3 and red dead 2 felt like milestones.






  • This is a pretty common challenge in philosophy with a very obvious solution:

    Define the controversial word (or words) at the top. It’s done all the time in science articles or legal documents.

    You can even compound it to point out it’s your version (like calling it Lefty-woke).

    By avoiding it, imo, you let them win and “claim” the word, since in their worldview, everyone is now using it like them.

    Having said that, this is just my approach, I think the issue with politics is that people assume everyone is using the same language. You got to affirm or confirm that first.

    Also, ironically, I think we are talking about the same thing, just using different words lol.


  • How can we reach understanding when we don’t even agree on the definition of words?

    I actually think this is the reason why there is so much polarization, we are literally talking different languages.

    I’m not saying both sides are the same, the opposite actually, one side is willing to use standardized definitions or just use new ones specific to the discussion/debate.

    The other side realized they can make people believe in a fascist fantasy by changing the meaning and more importantly, the emotional response behind the meaning.

    And it’s not new, this is what it always comes down to. I argue for socialism because I am arguing for cooperating and equal ownership, others argue against it because they (for whatever fucking reason) hear tyranny cause you know, regulations means less freedom.