I really love the game desing behind this system. The game is on a timer, but instead of time going foward all the time, the quest “cost” time.

Way of the samurai games did this kind of trick back in the day. In those games the day was divided in to four parts, morning, noon, evening and night. Player had unlimited time to wander the game world, but once they did something big, the time would go foward and depending on what you did the story would go in to different direction. After 5 full days the game would come to a finale, but how you acted, effected who was alive and wich side of the final conflict you would be.

The game ending and story coming to a finale does not necessarily mean you win.

If the game is fun to play and one play trough does not take forever to finish, i can see my self playing the game multible times trough and trying to find the way to make everything end the way i want.

Bruh! Im with you on this for sure! Its that weird feeling when someone ridin the exact same wave as you, but they’re just flappin around on their board.

Its like Im ridin this clean, glassy idea-barrel, feelin all enlightened and tubular, and suddenly this dude drops in behind me on their moms foam board and suddenly starts shouting the same thing, but in the like most uncoolest way possible. And Im just sittin there like, “Dude… why you gotta make our shared thought like that?”

Honestly, it does feel like they just catchin my swell instead of finding their own. Whole thing just tastes like sunscreen and feels like sand in the wetsuit, right my man.

Good job!

I played the odds with my comment because statistically people who donate anything are the vast minority.

Honest question. Not an attack. Do you get anything from donating? Like some merch or tax deductions or even a thank you note or something?

Do you think that getting something would invalitade the whole charity?

Most if not all exotic big game hunts are marked animals that are either dying or harmfull for the ecosystem, so they are going to shortly die to malnutrion, by being hunted by other animals or if necessary by the park ranger.

I dont generally like trophy hunting, but i also understand that without the money it generates, places that offer it would not exist and that would mean the people running those places would not protect the animals from things like poaching or unsustainable hunting.

Some places can make do with only charity and tourism, but many places would cease to be without the additional money.

If trophy hunting would stop, the money rich people are spending would go somewhere else like ski trip on the alps or new yacht.

Well eastern europe did try to concquer eastern europe in the 1990’s

It has little more nyance than that.

Most phones now days have camera set up so your fingers dont obfuscate the camera lences or smudge them when you hold it on your hand. Same with the front camera. If it it would be on the bottom part the navigation buttons would go over it --> more smudge on thr lense.

With buttons there is the design principle that buttons should work always similarry. Flipping the phone would flip volume settings, buttons and any ports. (Its a minor thing, but i think everyone has somepoint in their life used a software where buttons chance places depending what you are doing and its annoying. This is basically hardware version of that).

No reason here is not really hard to circumvent or even a real problem, but in the end, so small percentage of people need that feature, so why spend time doing it. Especially when it indroduces one new thing that needs to be debugged.

Well you can see my patio furniture from satellite images too. Generaly when something is big enough “to see from space” it means its visible to astronauts without any additional equipment.

So yes. I doubt this too.

Maybe a little doomer view.

I wanna point that we did listenen the right people after 1970’s and we pretty much fixed the ozone hole and mitigated acidic rains. Shame we have decited to stop it for some reason.

Also ironically to your statement AMOC effects most the northern europe and there is problem with small birthrate so in this particular catasrophe most people suffering will be white and children will be minority.

Edit; small edit to make the text harder to misunderstand.

Hunting old or sick animal that cant reproduct does not effect that.

Hunting unstable animal that kills younglins of other males only helps with this.

When was the last time you donated money for animal sanctuary?

And you could volunteer at the homeles shelter.

The way these things work, is that the people working in these places identify problem animals, like infertile males that prevent the herd, or pack or pride or what ever growing, unusually agressive animals, animals with genetic faults that could be hereditary etc etc. Basically anything that could hinder the the population of the endangered or vulnerable species. These animals are hard or impossible to relocate because most places dont want to take these problem animals in, because they generaly are bad where ever they are. I mean what zoo wants lion that kills anything they see or what animal sanctuary wants rhino that kills anything it can catch?

The park rangers could very easily kill the animals them self, but running these animal sanctuarys is very expensive so its better if they find some rich dude that is willing to pay ridicilous amount of money to do it for them.

The rich dude them self isint necessary a philantropist, but the money they spend goes to local economy and is often used for things like security against poachers, vetenarians and infrastructure.

Its easy to think that killing any exotic big game is always bad, but in reality the targets are always chosen carefully.

1. I don’t think we should try to re-introduce those games to new audiences

Well if we disagree on this deep fundamental level i dont think we can have real discussion about this, as my personal opinion is that stories i love should be made as easy as possible for people to reach. Like i would love people to read book Kalevala, but its written in old Finnish so i think its completelly fine for make the book more easily approachable for the masses by translating it to todays English, even if it looses a lot by turning the writing to prose.

2. A remake by definition I just want to say there is no real definition for remake.

if we spend resources on remakes (and sequels) then we are robbing the current generation from having their own formative experiences. I want to see new IPs come out that try new and different things and move the medium forward.

This goes more to the business end too. Its not zero sum game and making remakes dont mean companies stop making new games.

Like activision tasked Vicarious vision to make Crash remakes and because those did allright they were comfortable to let Toys for Bob make comoletelly new Crash game. The remake indruduced the Crash games to new audience. Without that push the new game would most definedly did worse than it did. (It was profitable, but not as much as investors wished).

Same with resident evils. Both remakes and new installations are being produced at the same time and they help to make the engine better everytime.

I must disagree.

Like while i can still fully enjoy old resident evil games, because i have nostalgia for the i fully understand why people who are born after they have been made would be put of by them.

By remaking those games they could indruduce the game to whole new audience who would never play the yanky outdated versions.

More extreme example. I would love to have modernised version of Betrayal at Krondor. It had good story. The core gameplay and world was great and there was intresting mechanics, but it was released 1993, so it by modern standards it looks like garbage and the ui is very unintuitive.

Most gamers now will never experience that story and those who do, will not get the same experience i got, because they will look everything in the game as a product of its time and the focus will be on the retro aspect, not on the game it self.

Oh i love this conversation.

So do I asses right that you think all hunting is unethical?

So lets imagine situation:

You own a animal sactuary in Africa. There is population of lions living in there is lets say one lion pride and few solidary males roaming the area. Great job! Lions are listed as vulnerable species. They are not quite endangered, but very close. Everything is fine and dandy.

Then one day you notice that the dominant male of the pride has grown old and infertile, but he is still strong enough to ward off the younger males of so they cant copulate with the lionesses and there is very real change the pride will go few years without cubs. Is it ethical to let the male lion live, even when there is chance it will effect the prides abilibity to grow and survive?

Or what if one of the males outside of the pride starts to show excessive agression towards cubs and other adults? Would it be ethical to let it kill or maim other animals?

Or if one of the lions start to kill other animals more than it can eat. Would it be ethical to just let it keep doing that and leave tens of carcasses behind?

While i understand that licenced hunting of big game is good for the local economy and it funds the reservations so they can fight against more descrutive things like poachers and it keeps the wildlife refuges alive so nobody turns the area into highway…

…I also find it somewhat beatifull that the hunt thats purpose is to cull unwanted elements, like for example older males that cant reproduce anymore, but are strong enough to keep younger generation from procreating, ends up removing old male, that hoards recources from younger generations in a completelly differend ecosystem.

Well they got what they wanted and Russian Oil Flows Again through the Druzhba Pipeline…

I must missread something somewhere. I put much more weight on the terror side than the accident side.

If i was a civic engineer and a law maker and i would need to start making infra for flying cars, cities would be no fly zones, outside of dedicate “roads” that can be designed in so there is minimal danger to others in the case of crash. There would need to be dedicated flight height. These could be enforced similiarry than rentable electricscooters are now, so if driver would drive on a no fly zone or at wrong height the car would slow down. These would need to be build in things from the manufactorer. These no flight zones would also be near anything dangerous like energy plants, airports, military instalations etc etc.

We have allready things like automatic braking because pedestrians or deer or other cars. These would need to be supercharged so the vehicles do not let people drive to close other people or buildings.

Then things like harhers punishments for breaking the traffic law, more strict inspections for the vechicles and own permint for driving flying cars, that is prerequisite to buy a car and if you loose it, you cant keep the car, or there needs to be a mechanism where the car is made earhbound only.

A lot of responcilibity for the manufactores in case there are malfunctions.

Own mandatory insurance for flying, that pays to the victims in case of anything happening.

Mandatory breath analyzier for starting the vehicle, or in more scifi world blood test for any substances.

Drivers licence should have strict health inspection and it would need to be renewd often.

Mandatory flight plan system, where you need to mark where you are leaving from and where you are going, and the system could caluculate current traffic and give you the flight path, height and landing spot. So in a way automatic flight control that can open new “roads” if needed and there would be information on all traffic all the time so collision risk is small and traffic flows.

Clear idea that flying is not a right, it is a responsibility.

Edit: added few points.

1. Nobody
2. I just wanted to calculate stuff for fun.

Talking about the danger. Cars can allready be driven to masses and many houses or businesess dont have any guard railings protecting them from normal cars, but we dont see those happening that much. Why it would suddenly change, by adding additional dimension.

Also small planes are not really that hard to come by. Why we dont have those driving in to buildings now?

Also doing “mini-9/11” would most certainly kill or atleast hospitialize the driver. I can somehow understand giving your live for cause you support and cause the enemy lot of pain, but i think there would be much higher treshold to give a life for something that is very unlikely to do anything but structural damage and hurt your self.

More likelly would be crashing while driving under influence, but i would imagine there would be higher treshold for anybody to fly drunk than drive drunk.

Oh i did not know we are adding new requirments to the conversation.

Well your comment does not count because you did not write it while standing on your hands. Bucko.

Hmm. This sounds like maths.

Quick google search say that averag plane weights are about 40 000 kg for small jets, 70 000kg for narrow-body planes and up to 570 000 kg for large wide-body planes.

While average car weight is somewhere in the 2000 kg mark.

If the dreams of flying cars come to trough the way most scifi/cyperpunk depicts them and the flight speeds would be at the similiar range than driving on the street.

So lets be generous and say flying cars would be much hevyer and weight 3000kg and the flight speed would max 175 km/h wich is pretty much the max speed for regular cars.

Lets go with the average plane so Weight is 70 000kg and flight speed is 930km/h

So maths:

E = 0.0386 * m * v^2

Car: E = 0.0386 * 3 000 * 175^2 ≈ 3.5MJ

Plane: E = 0.0386 * 70 000 * 930^2 ≈ 2.3GJ

So you would need about 670 cars to get same impact as one plane.

*all the numbers came from google-fu and from my ass. Also all the maths was done while sitting on a toilet, so there is large margin for error.

Isint “good game” little vague description? Are you the president what is good?

And the point is that there are thousands of games to choose from, but you bitch that there are only live service shit on the market.

Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon (2023) Remnant 2 (2023) Rise of the Ronin (2024) Hades II (2025) Pragmata (2026)