Lurker > adjl

papercup posted...

The new snapshot build nerfed crafters, making them work slower. Everyone is complaining so this change probably wont last

From what I've seen, people are kind of ambivalent about the crafter nerf (faster crafting would be nice, but slowing crafting down for balance purposes is understandable), but the nerf to copper bulbs has pretty much everyone that cares about redstone up in arms. The one-tick delay bulbs used to have was a massive paradigm shift for redstone contraptions that opened up a huge range of options for streamlining builds and creating new ones. Getting rid of that delay makes the new block pretty much useless, and as far as anyone can tell the only actual reason for the nerf was because they couldn't figure out how to give it a 1-tick delay in Bedrock and they wanted to maintain parity. Redstone people are, understandably, pretty pissed that the biggest thing to happen to redstone in years was turned into something mostly useless for the sake of parity with a version they don't care about.

That's fair. It's been a very long time since I've played vanilla, with my last foray being Botania, which at the time only worked up to 1.10 (iirc. This was like 3-4 years ago now).

Does anyone have any experience with the Create Mod? I've seen it brought up on a couple occasions as trying to make Minecraft more similar to Factorio (which is fun because Factorio started out as an effort to expand on what tech-modded Minecraft could do), and the couple trailers I've watched look pretty interesting. I might give it a try some time.

IqarP15 posted...

Seems most vids on youtube are about making crazy contraptions to torture the denizens of Hyrule. While that does give me a laugh or two it quickly loses its luster. Guess that is why I never finished the previous game.

The game is still fun when you aren't making crazy contraptions. Crazy contraptions just draw more views than "hey look I climbed a cool mountain."

I actually just did that shrine yesterday, but I landed without issue. Gliders are surprisingly good at staying in the air, though, so going down is often a little trickier than I expect.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

would argue that ww og is one of the best zelda in general, wwhd just improves on it, but i don't think it moves it, since the only thing higher is greatest, and i don't think ww is greatest

I liked the original well enough, but it never really hooked me like others did and I would have ranked it with TP toward the bottom of the 3D pile. It took playing the HD version to realize why, though: It's a game focused on exploring the ocean, but exploring the ocean is too slow and tedious for the fun of finding an island with something new to do on it to outweigh the boredom of waiting several minutes for the boat to arrive and having to pause the game every time I wanted to check the map to correct my course. WWHD, though, sped up ocean travel significantly and let me check the map at any time without breaking the pace of the game because it was just right there on the gamepad. Those two changes single-handedly made exploring fun, solving the biggest issue that was holding the original game back and turning it into something really phenomenal.

As much as a lot of people dismissed it as a gimmick, I really, really enjoyed having games put their maps on the WiiU gamepad (and the bottom screen of the DS/3DS, for the same reasons). WWHD and Xenoblade X are the only two examples I can think of off-hand where I really noticed the difference, but where both are heavily exploration-centric (Xenoblade X being even more so than WW), being able to glance down at the map at any time helped so much for maintaining the immersion of that exploration. Pausing to check maps is just so disruptive. I expect I'd also have really enjoyed it in BotW if I'd gotten the WiiU version, and TotK would similarly benefit from a second screen for seamless map and item management, but that's unfortunately not something the Switch can do.

papercup posted...

BotW/TotK are closer to the structure of the original LoZ game than any of the other 3D Zeldas.

They are, but after 25-30 years of redefining the formula to something most people liked better than LoZ, LoZ isn't really what most people think of when they think of "Zelda" anymore.

papercup posted...

You guys have like 14 "traditional" Zelda games that you claim to love but then when they get rereleased/remade you don't play them

That's 100% because I still have my copies of the traditional Zelda games and most of those remakes/remasters don't change enough to warrant a second purchase. I got WWHD because it was free with MK8 (and an amazing remake that took WW from being alright to being a serious contender for the best 3D Zelda) and I got OoT 3D because I wanted the 3DS model that was bundled with it, but that's about it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see a new game more in line with the traditional formula than TotK.

papercup posted...

And as someone that is a huge Zelda fan, and has been for 30 years, and have played all of them multiple times, I think TotK is freaking awesome.

I'm also really enjoying it, but I can understand why it's not what some series fans are looking for and why some people are disappointed that this represents the series' direction moving forward. TotK is definitely more like traditional Zelda games than BotW in that the main story progression is significantly more robust, but it still lacks the gameplay progression that has characterized every other game since LttP. Some people (myself included) quite enjoy the metroidvania-style loop of "see stuff you can't reach-->get new item-->reach stuff," and while the execution of that concept can certainly be a little hit-or-miss (TP was a particular offender there in that it had several really cool items that pretty much never got used outside of their respective dungeons), not having it at all as a matter of core design philosophy (gated progression and open-world design are largely mutually exclusive) is a little disappointing.

That's fair. Also, fire is definitely a bigger "take that, stupid trees" move than an axe is.

Bartenders hate him! Click here to find out why!

LinkPizza posted...

I did use an axe at one point. BU since the fire could spread easily, I started using that. Plus, it gave me time to run while they were freaking out because they were in fire

I generally didn't have much need to run. Their one attack is super telegraphed and easy to dodge, so it's just a matter of sidestepping and bonking them twice.

papercup posted...

The nice thing about getting lost in the depths is that it's showing me where shrines are on the surface

That is handy, though I've encountered a couple where I guess the shrine is hiding in a cave that I can't find because there's nothing on the top level of the surface.

LinkPizza posted...

The first one got me, too At first, I thought I hit it insanely hard with my horse. But when I turned around, I saw it getting closer Then realized the forest was basically alive Fire arrows were shot

As soon as I saw the first couple, I assumed axes would make quick work of them. I was right.

LinkPizza posted...

I thought of ALBW But the difference is that world wasnt open You needed items to get to a lot places

It's not truly open, but it does offer a similar degree of freedom while preserving the item-based progression that has characterized the Zelda series for so much of its existence. Balancing freedom with meaningful progression is always a bit tricky, and BotW leaned a little too far in the freedom direction, I found. Past the Plateau, nothing new you found ever really enabled anything you couldn't already have done some other way, aside from a couple specific examples (like the gerudo disguise letting you into the town). The extent of progression there was pretty much limited to "now I have enough stamina to climb this cliff," which doesn't exactly feel exciting. TotK does a bit more in that regard by letting you find new devices to use, even if you can already solve most of the problems those devices might help with by sticking more logs together or abusing Ultrahand+Recall, so that's nice, but it's still a very different experience from, say, Adult Link the first time he walks out of the Temple of Time in OoT and Adult Link walking into Ganon's Castle.

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is it makes I much less open world When you have items you need to get to places, it feel way more linear But I think they want to leave it fully open Go anywhere and do anything from the start. If you start adding items, it can make it harder to keep it fully open. With something like BotW and TotK, after the tutorial areas, you can go anywhere, and have all your tools at your disposal (Though you still need more heart and stamina) Adding items either makes then needed for certain areas, or they feel useless if their only real use is in the one dungeon it came from So, maybe theyre having trouble finding a happy medium because of that

ALBW managed to strike a pretty happy medium there, in that you had ready access to different items that opened up different parts of the world/dungeons, and could pick and choose which ones you wanted. It fell short in that each item was gated behind rupees and the only thing you had to do to just take all of them was farm a bit, kind of making the choice pointless, but I could get behind bringing that concept back with some tweaks. Maybe stick with rupees for the initial rental, but only allow one to be rented at a time, and have a sidequest unlock after that item's dungeon that enhances the item and allows you to keep it permanently.

SilentSeph posted...

I tried taking a picture of a bunch of evil hands and was promptly jerked off to death

Could be worse. You could have successfully killed the evil hands.

To be fair, it is coming from space, and even the shot on the left is probably a small piece of a much larger picture. Rovers and other extraterrestrial cameras tend to prioritize field of view over close-ups, particularly in early explorations like this, since bandwidth limitations mean they have to be strategic about how many high-res pictures they send.

SinisterSlay posted...

It's 2.4km. You could walk to it.

Quite easily. That's like a half-hour walk (at least on Earth; it'd be much slower on the moon).

SinisterSlay posted...

So either that thing is crazy tall and really far away, or the Chinese rover camera is worse than an early flip phone camera.

I think the most likely explanation is that they've got other science to do before driving over to check out the weird thing, and they're just trying to keep public interest in the mission by sharing weird teasers like that.

Ah yes, the stage that they built on the moon to fabricate a trip to the moon.

Also, how slow is that rover that it's going to take 2-3 months to move closer to the object and take a better picture? I don't know off-hand what the curvature of the moon is, but I can't imagine that the horizon is more than 100 km away, and taking 2-3 months to travel that far would be like 0.07 km/h, or about 60% faster than a garden snail.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it's more handy than you could ever imagine

I don't know about that. I can already imagine how handy it'll be to just create things out of thin air. I do really need to head back up to the sky to grab some extra capsules, though, particularly the control platform thingies. Not being able to steer my shenanigans is a pretty major limitation.

I did some more exploring in the depths today and unlocked blueprinting. This is going to come in handy.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Also I don't mean to get political but if rito evolved from zoras why are there still zoras

A wizard did it.

It's also just really fun. I've been quite enjoying wandering around there, even without having any immediate reason to do so.

Well, I was just wandering around the depths, minding my own business, and a glowing red Lynel came charging out of the darkness and one-shot me. So you can get killed.

Otherwise, it's the main place to get Zonaite to upgrade your charge, so there's that.

papercup posted...

Also I like how all my threads just descend into people arguing lol

No they don't.

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://youtu.be/3XXLUqc3-M8

Now I'm going to have to try fusing a shield with one of those powered Zonai device wheels to see if that works. Also a fan.

Blightzkrieg posted...

I just need to know if the fish waifus and husbandos are back. I want to dive into the salmon canyon.

Sidon was in the most recent trailer, among other Zora. Go forth, flounder pounder.

Yeah, I full-on stayed off of youtube between XB3's DLC release and when I beat it. I'll probably do the same with TotK. People like to post obvious spoilers as clickbait.

Granted, it's a Zelda game and "spoilers" is therefore a pretty generous term, but still.

papercup posted...

https://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/ask-the-developer-vol-9-the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-part-3/

What a weird way to announce that there are dungeons in this game. It feels like some marketing person at Nintendo either isn't doing their job, or the dev team is just doing their own thing and ignoring the advice from the marketing people.

The marketing for TotK has been kind of weird all around. They've tried to be so strict about what does and does not get revealed, in a way that almost seems like they're tying not to hype people up too far in advance. I know that in the last year or so they've tended toward shorter windows between announcing and releasing a game (like Xenoblade 3's announcement coming out of absolutely nowhere last February with a September release date), and with TotK they seem to be following that trend extra-strictly. The release date was only announced in September, trailers up until the last one and the fusion showcase were very limited in what they showed beyond "it's Zelda again and also there are sky islands," and they've been even more uppity than usual about leaks (not uncommon in the games industry, but this seems like a particularly egregious example).

It's possible that they're trying to keep hype to a minimum until the last minute so that it hasn't worn off by the time the game launches. I imagine there are quite a few fence-sitters that have been holding out to see what the dungeon situation is, and finding out this close to release may excite them enough to push them into buying it before they have a chance to reconsider or incorporate other new information that comes out post-launch. It's also pretty common to see long-anticipated games get hyped up so much pre-release that there's no chance that the game will live up to it and everyone ends up disappointed, so maybe they're trying to avoid it.

Either way, Nintendo's gonna Nintendo. They've never given us any particular reason to believe that they're in touch with what their customers want. They just keep doing their own thing and we happen to like it most of the time, which is honestly kind of refreshing in an industry plagued with so much manipulative marketing and monetization even if it does lead to a whole lot of questionable decisions.

It's like the doppler effect, but for light.

VampireCoyote posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/7/5/AAfSRzAAEdin.jpg

Unfortunately, "MILD" is already a word of its own and trying to use the acronym is just going to make people think you're particularly passionate about weak flavours.

wpot posted...

That would work well for a while. The problem is that, without breakage, you'll hit a limit where they stop being interesting fairly quickly even with a gradation and gates.

You would, but it would introduce the question of trading off better defense from higher-tier armour for bonus effects from lower-tier stuff, and allow a lot of flexibility to adjust how you play based on what you find first (vaguely roguelike-like, in that regard), more so than I think weapons do (you get access to all four main types pretty much immediately and can change that up any time you want because drops of all kinds are so plentiful). The system that exists now allows for armour customization based on what you choose to upgrade first, gated behind having to find certain materials, and I just think that putting weapons in that position (since there are fewer broad weapon types with more room for upgrade paths) and making armour the thing that's randomly found in the world (because there's greater variety and therefore potential to make every exploration reward unique) makes more sense.

wpot posted...

I'm not saying I liked BotW's durability partial "solution" to their "what to put in the world" problem, but I do appreciate what they were trying to do.

Yeah, whatever my opinion on the system, I do understand why they went with it. As I've said on other occasions, I did actually like the durability system in the very early game (and, by extension, on Eventide Isle), since it does contribute well to the theme of "you're helpless, good luck scavenging the things you need to fight your way out of here." It just grows out of that relatively quickly and becomes a simple maintenance task instead of a really interesting mechanic. That's why I'm optimistic about fusion: It turns that maintenance task into an opportunity to try something new based on what you can improvise from the environment. Is it going to be better than doing away with durability and coming up with a better way to incentivize exploration? I honestly kind of doubt it, but I am definitely interested in trying it out myself and I expect there to be some fun there.

wpot posted...

Of course I play differently also: I don't go in with a set build in mind. I like to keep exploring and building my character to be better and better...so long as that's fun to do. BotW allowed for that mindset better than Skyrim/Souls IMO.

That's very true. Of course, it managed that by simply not having any sort of meaningful "build" system beyond "do you want health or stamina first?", which isn't necessarily the same as allowing flexible build creation, but there is something to be said for games that don't require forethought to avoid screwing up your character.

Revelation34 posted...

Morality is subjective.

Doesn't mean there isn't room or need to defend your opinions on it.

Revelation34 posted...

Everybody use to pirate so it would definitely be hypocritical of me to denounce it.

Denouncing something that you have done isn't necessarily hypocritical, provided you recognize that it was harmful and have committed to not doing it anymore. There's also plenty of room for nuance in piracy: pirating a brand new game that isn't out yet because you don't want to pay for it but feel entitled to play it anyway is very different from pirating a 20-year-old game that isn't officially for sale anymore. Denouncing some piracy while being okay with other piracy isn't hypocritical, provided you've put some thought into the distinction and are able to explain and justify it.

wpot posted...

Could armors be fun enough to find? Maybe, but without some sort of armor durability...I rather doubt it. There are only so many gimmicks that could be added to keep them interesting, or it would be the Dark Souls result like you said.

The easiest solution to that problem would be to randomize them to a certain extent, dividing them into a few different tiers to allow them to scale as you progress through the game (similar to how enemies and the weapons they drop scale with your character already in BotW). Armours would probably need to have multiple effects for that to work, along with a pity system and/or guaranteed spawns for certain effects that are particularly essential for game progress (like cold/heat resistance, though with the option to use food to work around that it's not the end of the world if you don't have the armour). That way, beelining the drop location for the "best" armour isn't an option, you get rewarded for exploring by getting something potentially useful, and that reward remains relevant through the whole game. That does potentially hurt speedrunning, though, since it creates a chance that you simply won't find something build-enabling quickly enough to have a competitive run. But nothing's perfect.

Of course, the Dark Souls "problem" isn't necessarily that much of a problem. I usually go into Soulslikes with a definite build in mind and rarely make any gear changes once I complete that build, but I still enjoy exploring every corner of the world and finding everything I can, often for the sake of learning what's there and experimenting with it so I can get some ideas of new builds I might like to try for future runs. Even if it's not something that's immediately useful, finding things when I explore is still fun enough to make that exploration feel worthwhile. As such, trying to artificially forcing those things to be useful by making the things I already have run out isn't really necessary and honestly just makes the exploration feel less rewarding. Whatever I find will run out in the not-too-distant future, my inventory is too limited for hoarding it indefinitely to be a real option, and in virtually every case it's just another copy of a weapon I can already get (or will soon be able to get) somewhere else. It only has value because the game's been designed to give it value, which is technically true of all in-game rewards, but in this case it's really obviously contrived in a way that just feels "gamey," for lack of a better word.

wpot posted...

The main problem with doing something like that is that they added durability to BotW primarily such that you would want/need to find weapons in the world. There are many fewer interesting things to find in that big world if you don't need new weapons constantly. Can fusion materials be exciting enough to fill that the void? Something else?

As much as that's apparently the reason for adding durability (and it works well in the very early stages of the game when it functions as a survival mechanic, though that quickly falls off because it stops being a resource that needs serious management), I don't know that simply taking it away would actually be that much of a problem. Plenty of RPGs have duplicate or inferior equipment drop from enemies or show up in chests you find. The weapon power scale would need to be adjusted so that you could still find upgrades frequently enough to be satisfying, without getting to the point of there being nor more meaningful upgrades too quickly, but there's also plenty of precedent for that in other RPG's.

Alternatively, the weapon and armour systems could have been swapped: Craft and upgrade weapons using materials you find around the world (possibly including weapons that drop from enemies), while armour pieces (most of which have some kind of unique effect, and all of which have fashion value) could be found in chests, drop from unique enemies, or be awarded from sidequests. That way, you're always getting something meaningful (not necessarily something you will use, but something that has a use) as a reward for exploring, but nothing has to end up depleting (creating a chore to upkeep it) to generate a need to keep finding new armour.

In practice, a system like that will often mean looking up the armour sets on a wiki, beelining to the one you want most, and not caring about the rest, but that's basically how Dark Souls et al already work (people will grab the gear they want to use for that run and maybe replace them with upgrades once or twice, but otherwise ignore every other drop/find), and it works great there.

LinkPizza posted...

Idk Even without durability, I feel it would be an issue Many weapons had many different uses Especially since many of them acted differently Unless unless they were going to expand the inventory enough for you to carry one of each type of weapon

For the most part, there were only like 5-6 different weapon types (I can actually only think of 4 off-hand, counting bows), with most weapons just being reskins of those types with different stats. There were a few versions that had some kind of special gimmick to them, like the elemental weapons or the boomerangs, but all in all I don't think you'd need more than about 15-20 slots to hold one of everything, and if memory serves that's quite attainable. You could even cut down that number by quite a bit by offering elemental enchantment options for weapons instead of having a fire/ice/electric version of each one, which would probably be the most sensible option if they were going that route.

Revelation34 posted...

There is no context that would make calling it theft accurate. It's is just flat out wrong.

See, you're saying this because you're thinking strictly in terms of of the exact, rigid definition of "theft" that you've chosen to work with and not about the practical implications, feelings/rationale involved, or anything to do with questions of morality. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you're responding only to a tiny part of the things people say while ignoring the broader context.

papercup posted...

Ill be honest, my issue with the weapons in BotW wasnt the durability. It was having to pick and choose which weapons to leave and take. The inventory simply wasnt big enough

Arguably, that was because of the durability system. If not for the durability system, there wouldn't need to be so many different weapon drops to consider picking up and the inventory limit generally wouldn't have been a problem.

Revelation34 posted...

I was only responding to the theft part.

Responding only to a tiny part of the things people say while ignoring the broader context is almost always going to be utterly useless and contribute nothing of value to the conversation. You should really stop doing that.

Tora_Sami posted...

If it was just other weapons I would be fine, but the fact the master sword has durability as well is dumb to me and I refuse to play it because of it.

I kind of agree, or at least feel that trying to shoehorn the durability system into working with the legendary blade that is a series staple was stupid and contrived, but it's also really not enough to be worth avoiding the entire game over it. It never actually breaks, just has to "recharge" periodically, during which there's no shortage of other weapons you can use (some of which are actually stronger anyway, since against regular enemies the Master Sword is pretty unremarkable). It's definitely dumb, but it doesn't stop the game from being fun.

Nade_Duck posted...

lmao yeah that's pretty fucked, i'm not gonna defend it. still don't think i'd put it on the same level, though.

I'd agree. It's a disproportionate response purely meant to send a message instead of being a suitable punishment for the crime, but it's at least a response to an actual crime being committed. A company-wide culture of being rapey douchebags is definitely worse.

Although there are way too many combat shrines and more enemy variety would have been nice.

Tora_Sami posted...

As someone who has never played BotW because of the broken weapon system

Honestly, the durability issue is grossly overblown. I'd call it a mistake to include it, since it doesn't really add anything of value to the game and is more annoying than anything else (to say nothing of how thematically out of place it is for Zelda), but it ultimately doesn't really hurt the game. It's definitely not enough to avoid the game entirely over it.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

botw has a massive world that is woefully barren

I've never really understood this criticism, as often as it comes up. Sure, it didn't pepper the landscape with dozens of events, sidequests, and setting-appropriate "bandit camps" like Ubisoft has established as the standard for open-world games, but I don't really see that as a bad thing. The world was scenic enough to be worth exploring on its own merits, and exploration was routinely rewarded with shrines, environmental puzzles, and other fun little things that helped to scratch that operant conditioning itch (though that is one area where the durability system held the game back, since finding a cool new weapon loses a lot of its lustre when you know you'll only be able to use it for like an hour tops). I honestly wouldn't really want more than that, since trying to cram in more content like an Ubisoft open-world game tends to just result in a bunch of busywork to pad out the game.

OhhhJa posted...

It will be a while before they can replace live performance though.

Do they actually have to? With scalping running so rampant, it's not like fans can reliably get tickets to concerts anymore. Within a year or two, producers could easily just launch fake ticket sales that look like they got gobbled up by scalpers, make fake listings for scalped tickets at ridiculous prices that almost nobody will pay, outbid anyone that does try to buy them with some fake, bot-run accounts, and end up with a sold-out show that they don't actually have to produce. From there, sell "livestream" tickets to orders of magnitude more people than could have fit in any stadium, throw a simulated pop star with a simulated voice on a simulated stage, and make bank off of nothing.

That obviously won't work for established artists, but major venues are likely to be on board with the AI-driven strategy (they get paid a fee for using their stage's appearance in the simulation, without having to pay to clean, maintain, or otherwise manage the property for the concert). Fake concerts fill up their bookings and price out real artists, progressively making live music less and less financially sustainable for the artists. That won't necessarily outright kill them, but that will push their art into the position of being something they do as a hobby, with little room for commercial success. That's also not necessarily limited to pop: Pop will make up the majority of it because it always makes up the majority of what the soulless, profit-driven music industry tries to promote, but there's nothing stopping AI from taking over the markets for other genres as it improves and gets better at hiding how formulaic its output is.

Now, that's an extreme, dystopian hypothetical, but I don't think it's actually all that implausible.

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/8/7/AAFUswAAEdOf.jpg

Followed shortly by "Now we've automated all the boring jobs, so we don't need you anymore and you can all just starve to death."

papercup posted...

Nintendo DMCA'd tools to extract validation keys from Switch hardware to use in emulators, and people are losing their minds over it. You people have been openly bragging about illegally pirating a game that hasn't even officially released yet, streaming it, rubbing it in people's faces, dumping spoilers at every opportunity, and you act fucking shocked when Nintendo slaps back. And this is fresh off the heels of Nintendo turning Gary Bowser into a wage slave for doing exactly what you're doing. No, pirating TotK is not "game preservation", it's not "sticking it to the man", it's not "morally right", it's theft. You can *maybe* make the argument that older Nintendo games that they don't sell anymore are okay to emulate, that's *possibly* preservation, but anyway you slice it, it's still theft.

Yeah, as much as Nintendo's definitely been excessive about trying to clamp down on leaks, there's absolutely zero room to complain about them wanting to stop people from straight-up pirating a game that isn't even out yet. Old games that aren't sold anymore are fair game (and in fact should outright be public domain, but that's beside the point), but in this case they're just being entitled pricks who don't want to have to pay for something they want.

Revelation34 posted...

Copyright infringement is copying. Theft is taking.

It's availing yourself of a service without paying for it. It's not as clear-cut as theft because there aren't concrete losses, but it's no less entitled and on a broad scale it does have financial consequences for the producer (at least for current products).

Lokarin posted...

it's not the rest of his life, it's only until the 25 million or whatever the judgment is paid, so if he wins the lotto or whatever he can pay out...

Winning the lottery isn't overly likely, though.

Lokarin posted...

and also that wasn't a nintendo employee, that was a pirate... ... which IMHO shouldn't have been punished anyways, but dems the breaks

Dems is, but the strategy of giving him an exorbitant punishment for the sake of sending a message to anyone else that might consider following in his footsteps (the judge explicitly acknowledged that that was the reason for the sentence) is decidedly not fair at all.

Nade_Duck posted...

nintendo employees don't kill themselves because they got molested.

The guy from whom they're taking 25-30% of his income for the rest of his life might, though.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the headline is

Everything Were Learning About Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom

later they changed it to

Everything Were Learning About Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom From The Leaks

That's a good change, then. The former is indeed inadequate spoiler warning.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

by undoubtedly ruining the game for, probably, several thousand people?

Did they publish the leak contents under a misleading headline? Or did they publish it as the contents of the leak, allowing those who wanted to avoid spoilers to avoid reading the article?

Blightzkrieg posted...

Video game publishers have such an obscene amount of control over games media it's impossible to feel bad for them

Indeed. Games media is widely treated as a marketing department by publishers and are pretty much entirely dependent on keeping their favour. I'm not too broken up by the occasional story of an outlet biting back.

Lokarin posted...

yaknow, any weapon with three barrels in a triangular formation would beat a jedi since a lightsaber can only deflect any two simultaneous shots

The real reason Kylo Ren had that silly crossbar.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

then you should use the full name

activision-blizzard-king

At which point you can reasonably start using the acronym ABK and save yourself so many keystrokes. It's win-win-win, in my books.

papercup posted...

Fucking youtube recommending videos with spoilers in the thumbnail. Why the fuck would you make this your thumbnail, ffs.

To bait people into clicking on it to leave angry comments. From the channel's perspective, views and comments are views and comments, no matter what the nature of those views and comments are. It all counts as "engagement," which they need for Youtube to keep supporting them.

redline65 posted...

I'm a Texas resident and agree with many of these bills. For example, housing prison inmates according to their biological sex. Putting inmates together who have different sex organs will, of course, result in pregnancy.

Meanwhile, putting trans women in men's prisons puts them at an extremely high risk of being assaulted, raped, and/or killed. Personally, I see that as being a worse outcome than possibly having two consenting adults make a baby together because apparently it's 1784 and the mere existence of an unsupervised penis and vagina in the same room will inevitably lead to pregnancy and scandal. Even more so where that risk can be pretty much entirely eliminated by offering an IUD to the uterus-haver, mitigated even further by ensuring ready access to abortions, and it's likely low in the first place because hormone therapy tends to have pretty adverse effects on fertility. And if the uterus-haver wants to get pregnant in jail, conjugal visits are already a thing without having to bring trans people into the equation, so acting like it's only a problem when trans people are involved means you're either disingenuously hiding behind a flimsy excuse and hoping nobody will notice, or you genuinely didn't think the issue through at all. Neither possibility reflects particularly well on you, so maybe consider a different opinion.

potdnewb posted...

on that note a man who trained to be the best at a sport or event for most their lives who then decides they are a woman should not be allowed to compete against natural born women that trained in the same sport or event since its unfair

Which is why regulations around trans athletes have certain requirements that must be met, including testing hormone levels. Trans athletes have been permitted in the Olympics since 2004. Since then, I believe there have been like three that even qualified to attend and only one that earned a medal (and that was as part of a team, and I don't believe they were considered the MVP). It's not a matter of "a man decides to be a woman and then wins women's sports" for pretty much any meaningful sports organization, and even at other levels pretty much the only time that ever happens is when some alt-right troll decides he wants to make a point (in which case they comprise the full extent of the problem). For those that are actually transitioning, hormone therapy tends to have enough adverse health effects that excelling at sports is a challenge.

The sports issue is one that, hypothetically considering it at face value, seems like it's going to be a real problem, but the fact of the matter is that there's a ton of precedent available to examine, and the supposed domination of trans women in women's sports simply hasn't happened. It still warrants scrutiny to make sure the regulations employed are doing their job properly, and I'm sure further adjustments will be needed moving forward, but the fact of the matter is that categorically banning trans girls and women from girls' and women's sports isn't actually necessary to maintain a level playing field (not that the playing field is ever truly level, because genetic advantages that aren't sex-based get a free pass more often than not).