Primarily0617

you need to be able to have vacations and save for retirement and do fun things from time to time

ahem actually people only need to exist and survive until they work themselves to death getting tangled in the gears of my spinning jennys

how would your reputation carry over when nobody in the universe knows who you are? it sounds like you’re just inventing a new thing you have to grind

if RPGs have done this plenty of times, then it’s not a new idea, and why are we talking about it in the context of the new ideas starfield had?

people replay games for the gameplay. bethesda wanted a game you could replay for the story, and then have it still work as a story when the player deliberately sequence breaks everything because of their omniscience

i know but i’m roleplaying a semi-informed fan

i think it’s fair to say that at least a portion of bethesda’s reputation is built off that game

I don’t even mean I wouldn’t trust Obsidian. I mean I wouldn’t trust the specific team they had working on New Vegas, which was an absurdly stacked deck that they seemingly haven’t been able to re-create since.

Films you can re-watch twice and have it be just as good the second time are rare. Bethesda wanted a film you could rewatch ten times while simultaneously larping as a cosmic god and trying to break everything you could.

Dark Souls lore seems deeper than it is because it’s less coherently presented than in TES.

All the new ideas in Starfield fall into one of two categories:

• The technology doesn’t exist to implement it.
• The talent at Bethesda is incredibly ill-suited to implement it.

The Bethesda response to fans saying their main storyline was trash was to make a game where the main storyline is the primary focus and draw of the game? That’s a bold move.

The NG+ stuff is a cool idea, but again, Bethesda just fundamentally lacks the talent to implement it. You can’t hit what they were aiming for with a handful of gimmicks. I wouldn’t even trust the team behind New Vegas, or whoever writes at Larian, to do it justice.

It feels like Skyrim was the game they’d (and by they I mean Todd) always wanted to make, and Skyrim was the first time they had the resources and technology available to make it more or less exactly as they envisaged.

Fallout 4 probably would’ve been in the exact same situation of the technology finally catching up to their ideas, except they completely botched the landing by adding in voiced characters.

• Fallout 3 releases and it’s good
• Fallout New Vegas releases and it’s great
• Fallout 4 releases and it’s disappointing but it’s okay because it’s just a blip. They had some good new ideas in there, they were just balanced out in the other direction by a lot of bad ones. Bethesda’s track record is still solid, if somewhat tarnished.
• Fallout 76 releases and it’s disappointing but that’s because they’ve never made (and shouldn’t have made) an MMO before. A lot of the coverage is centred around the shoddy launch, which doesn’t really matter for a non-MMO title.

My abiliry to read?

women are socialised to read more, so unironically yes

it’s kind of telling that in the two examples you gave one of them actually was gender-linked

the concept of gender is very interwoven in society. changing it is not easy.

so if trans people have no power within society, how can they perpetuate gender norms within it?

Because the meaningful difference is socially created.

and how much bargaining power do you think that the trans community collectively has in society?

and before you answer, i don’t mean “on twitter”. e.g., dave chappelle has been cancelled on twitter, but still gets his own netflix specials and is seemingly friends with the richest person on the planet. jk rowling is still a billionaire that lives in a literal castle.

why do i fall for “i just have a few questions” every time ;(

ideally no, in practice yes

if assumed gender isn’t meaningful, why are you a self-described feminist? if there’s already no meaningful difference between genders, surely your work is done and you can go home?

saying people shouldn’t be put into boxes is one thing

saying people shouldn’t put themselves into boxes is another

like it or not, the gender boxes are going to keep existing for our lifetimes, and railing against them isn’t a task to be undertaken lightly given how thoroughly delighted terfs are to weaponise any such instance against the trans community

if you take comfort in boxing themselves up, you do you

deleting the concept of gender would be nice but isn’t practical as solution any time soon

see the ~2 minute section from 10:22

if you’re just going to take us back in circles again this discussion is a bit pointless, isn’t it?

if you aren’t refusing to acknowledge they’re ux problems, you’re saying it’s unhelpful to call them what they are, which is obviously nonsense

and again, sane defaults are ux

or i could argue that an issue 90% of people will run into is a higher priority than one 2% of people will run into

or i could argue than the risk of accidentally opening something you didn’t want to is higher than the risk of losing unsaved work

the reason foss sucks when it comes to ux is this attitude of insisting that ux problems are somehow some “other” category of problem, rather than an engineering constraint that needs to be designed around like every other one

case in point, for some reason you’re still refusing to acknowledge that they’re both ux problems. and if you do, your original reply ceases to even make sense.

yet very different

which is why my first words to you were “it is and it isn’t”

binning them into the same category is not helpful

both are caused by people in the foss space not paying enough attention to ux

increased attention to ux could solve both

personally i think categorising all work solely through the lens of severity is unhelpful