MolochAlter

Disco Elysium, which plays really well on deck even with very low TDP, great for long lazy days.

Both of your points are only partially correct.

I think we can state as a truth that they have less potential profit.

Wrong, they just take less effort and have a more constant revenue stream.

Potential for profit means nothing, when so many attempts at milkable forever games end up like Suicide Squad or Concord.

Also you can come into them half baked and pull the plug if the game doesn’t sell (because it’s half baked) like they’re doing with SS and they did with the Avengers game.

They spend more money.

They don’t, you can’t spend money you don’t have, whales are working adults.

Kids spend money for less. Better ROI, not higher payoff.

You make the 18302nd skin and troves of kids will badger their parents for fortnite bucks so they can buy it but not everyone will. The upside is that making a skin costs you single digits percent points of the profits, so even if one or two are a dud, you’re fine, the good ones will make up for it.

It’s a business model you can throw money at once the game’s got an audience base, which is very attractive to companies, because it’s uncomplicated and reliable.

Of course, just because there’s an audience doesn’t mean you’re pandering to it.

Fundamentally, integrity is an internal concept.

Only you can know if you have it, because only you can truly know your motivations.

As long as your moral choices are truly based on your own principles and you would do the same regardless of observation, then you have integrity.

External factors can only give you reasons to pretend you have integrity, but they can’t prevent you genuinely having it.

Given the fact that neither side demonized him, this may be one of the few cases of actual “mentally unstable lone wolf” with no sane or reasonable motive.

How big do you think my ass is?!

Is there a preferred metric to measure this by?

For the sake of my asscheeks’ preservation, I’d say “if in ~20 years (that’s how long it’s been, god I feel old) it’s regarded with the same high praise and fondness as Bloodlines.”

Preferred by me of course.

But honestly, I’m definitely going to at least pirate and play it, and I’m a man of principle, so I’ll own it if i think I was wrong.

Your word picture is just so funny that I want to root for the game’s success just to be the person that quotes this comment and @s you, even if I tend to agree with your assessment.

Nobody ever spares a thought for my asscheeks! Everyone just wants to see me fail! Assless and suffering! But I’ll show you!

They could be your favourite football team, too, that still doesn’t fill me with confidence on their level of preparation for this.

Bloodlines was an extremely ambitious mix of immersive sim and RPG, in the same vein as early Deus Ex, TCR’s most gameplay heavy game has an ineffective monster that takes several seconds to kill you and myst style puzzles.

There’s a mismatch in milieus here.

Don’t be, this game won’t quietly peep its way into obscurity, it will be an uproarious fart all the way across the halls of the internet.

If it even does, it will come out and literally nobody will like it because a) it has an impossibly high bar to clear even in the hands of competent devs and b) it’s been made by walking sim developers as their first attempt at a real game with gameplay beyond simple puzzles.

I will literally slice off my own asscheeks, cure them into honey glazed ham, and serve them on rye if it comes out as anything resembling the success of the first.

Worse, they’re a walking sim developer.

In reality you should be able to get an anonymized reference number to show your vote was tabulated correctly though.

The reason there is no such thing in elections, is to prevent vote buying/extortion.

In Italy it’s such an extreme problem that any ballot where the party is not marked with a cross on the party logo and (if present) a block capital name next to it on the provided line, is automatically discounted, because stuff like writing a name a specific way or using crosses, checks, dots, or other symbols was used to track vote buying/voter intimidation in mafia controlled territories.

Some vote counters and polling station overseers would be on the take and keep track of if the votes they expected to see showed up when counting ballots and report back.

If you were able in any way to prove something beyond the equivalent of an “I voted” sticker it would immediately be used to ensure people voted a certain way or to exact some sort of backlash on those who didn’t.

The fact that the scene wasn’t mocapped doesn’t mean it wasn’t in the game at all, or that they didn’t get someone else to mocap it instead.

If i had to guess it would be Little Hope. It is a horror interactive movie and the games by that team tend to be pretty edgy for a modern dev.

But it does exist; preaching is persuading or guiding others to follow your own beliefs. If no distinction existed then we would be mechanically bound to preach what we believe, and we’re not, so it’s a choice.

Let me clarify: there is no such distinction where it pertains to determining the morality of an action. Preaching a value or holding it privately only impacts the perception others have of your transgression, not whether something is a transgression.

Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree.

Everyone who doesn’t reexamine their morality to match their actual values and/or does not have a spine will inevitably become a hypocrite given enough time.

If when faced with a moral quandary you actually examine why you are finding yourself in this position of wanting to do something that, by your own moral standards at that point, would be evil, and you stick to an honest self-critique (as in, if it is indeed a moral failure you own it and correct your behaviour) you’ll rarely stay a hypocrite for long.

In OP’s case, what is happening is one such moment, and they’ve got nothing on either the re-examination nor the self-critique end. They’re like looking to a crowd of strangers for moral absolution to do something they themselves consider immoral/evil.

That is the truest most cut and dry state of moral void, where the individual ignores their own conscience because they were given a pass to do so by someone else, as if anyone has such an authority.

It comes from the fundamental principle of harm minimisation

LMAO get that consequentialist bullshit outta here.

Consequentialism is a fundamentally useless moral framework, you would need to be prescient for it to be in any way useful to you and it can be used to justify literally any action regardless of held principles.

‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a biblical commandment, not a principle.

You are high if you think any human society was ever cool with murder, (the 6th commandment is more correctly translated to ‘thou shall not murder’, which tracks given how much killing happens to be not only fine but sanctioned by god himself in the old testament) given how it’s almost definitionally wrong to murder.

Also even more ludicrous that you’d think this is somehow something introduced by the torah when we have mesopotamian written laws with explicit punishments for murder and even unjust killing regardless of motive or premeditation.

Humans simply don’t want to be killed willy-nilly, this predates the written word and possibly actual coherent language.

It’s morality for babies

You’re the one who brought in consequentialism, don’t blame me for making this conversation basic.

Morality is never that simple.

Nor did I ever state it was.

You think I am claiming it’s that simple because you seem to think I’m coming from a place of disagreement with the OP and that’s why I argue they’re a moral failure.

The problem is that OP is in a place of moral failure to themselves, which is why they’re asking for moral license to break their principles instead of doing the arduous work of self correcting, whether by shedding a moral principle they don’t actually believe in and accepting their past self being wrong, or by standing firm and accepting the inconvenience that comes from sticking to their principles, and that their present self is wrong.

Regardless of your moral framework, this is the peak of amoral behaviour, as it renders any moral framework fundamentally optional and useless when faced with outside approval.

It makes you a definitionally amoral agent because not only are you susceptible to peer pressure (which is always true to some extent) but you actually seek it out whenever sticking to your principles becomes inconvenient enough, which means you are only ever going to be moral whenever it’s convenient, which is just as good as never being moral in the first place.

OP is like an alcoholic looking for enablers, when they know they should be calling their sponsor.

Holding morals and preaching them are different things.

I fundamentally disagree that this distinction exists, and even if it did this is not a situation where it would apply.

Morals regulate your own actions, there is no point in holding a moral value that you don’t abide by. That makes you a hypocrite whether you preach that value or not.

Preaching it also makes you a public hypocrite if you get caught, but you’re still hypocritical even if you are only betraying a private value, you’re just not accountable to others.

And if that’s all that matters to you then you don’t actually hold that value.

I think there’s got to be room for some grey areas in morality.

There is room when you can draw a clear line as to why a principle ought to apply in one situation but not in another, an argument that “it feels different when I do it” is no such standard.

For instance, killing is permissible in self defense, but murder is not acceptable. Easy line to draw that makes the same practical action morally distinct depending on context (aggressor/victim).

I abhor late-stage capitalism, but I would not rather die than shop at a chain supermarket.

And if that’s your only option that is a pretty straightforward line you can draw that has nothing to do with your personal gain by ignoring an otherwise inconvenient principle.

“I won’t patronise large corporations whenever I have an alternative” is a fair line to draw, as long as you don’t immediately walk back on it as soon as it becomes inconvenient by being slightly out of your way or a bit more expensive.

OP said no such thing, however. They straight up went “when I break my own moral principles it doesn’t feel as bad as when others break them against me” which is utter horseshit.

You mean to tell me that when you try to kill someone it somehow feels less bad than when someone else tries to kill you? No fucking way, what a discovery!

So yeah, unless OP can actually provide a generalized standard by which anyone can do what they’re doing and still maintain an ethical position, they’re just finding excuses to placate their own conscience, while pretending to maintain a coherent moral standard, when really they never held anything of the sort, they just don’t like to be on the receiving end of the stick.

If you truly believe investing, and especially investing in real estate, is immoral, then you shouldn’t do it, the same way you shouldn’t eat pork if you keep kosher or halal.

Anything else, especially “it feels more like buying back my own lost value” is such a gigantic cope that I’ve seen pictures of it taken from the ISS.

Either accept that your beliefs are incorrect, and participate in the market like a normal person, or stick to your beliefs when it’s inconvenient too.

This behaviour is morally no better than that of megachurch pastors who preach the immorality of gay sex and get caught paying men to fuck them in the ass.

As I said, good for you. Play it, enjoy it.

Not once have I tried to persuade you otherwise, I just explained why I won’t and don’t.

I expressed my preference, same as you, except apparently my time could be better spent.

Make of that what you will.

I just have noticed a trend of Origins people that come into any dragon age thread just to talk smack, and I think it’d probably be better to just play a game you like instead of focusing on how much you hate ones you don’t. ya know?

Eh, there’s plenty of time to do both and the games are absolutely worthy of a good thrashing.

I am annoyed at them because they show an utter disregard for the user’s time and money. I wanted to like them, and I was exceedingly disappointed in the product.

especially considering how excited people are for the new game.

Are they? All I’ve seen is suspiciously defensive articles about BG3 comparisons not being fair (despite DA having the full might of EA and the >!soulless husk of the!< company that made BG1 and 2 at its helm) and shittons of astroturf and fluff pieces.

You are the first person who openly calls themselves a DA2 fan I run into in the wild.

I came into origins because it was in a branch I liked, so yeah, I have eaten well in the past and there’s more than enough for me to keep eating well for a good long time.

To me it’s mostly the obvious lack of care of DA2 towards the lore and even the internal consistency of the world and characters in that same game that made me acutely aware of the downfall of BioWare.

I’ve since moved on to other things. Mostly indie stuff, and stuff like BG3 which is much more in my general direction.

I’ll miss OG BioWare (Baldur’s Gate 1 & 2 BioWare, to clarify) but I’ll live.

Unironically, good for you.

Enjoy it while your taste is still where it’s at, it probably won’t stay there but more power to you in the meantime.

Dragon age as a franchise showed promise when it was an actual modern take on a CRPG.

Ever since DA2 it became worthless, casualized dreck gameplay attached to a story written by and for a very specific californian millennial crowd and, frankly, they can keep it.