this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
44 points (90.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43980 readers
620 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Maybe you haven't been convinced by a good enough argument. Maybe you just don't want to admit you are wrong. Or maybe the chaos is the objective, but what are you knowingly on the wrong side of?

In my case: I don't think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode. If developers want to tailor a specific experience, they don't have to dilute it with easier or harder modes that aren't actually interesting and/or anything more than poorly done numbers adjustments. BUT I also know that for the people that need and want them, it helps a LOT. But I can't really accept making the game worse so that some people get to play it. They wouldn't actually be playing the same game after all...

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 4 points 3 hours ago

I think TTRPGs should be unbalanced. Balance is a construct of games, and the fictional worlds the players will interact with are less immersive when everything is predictably tuned and equal. I think the fiction of a rogue being about as good as a fighter at combat is stupid. I think rust monsters and undead creatures that hurt your stats are way better than dire boars and skeletons who just shoot you with bows. I think that when rocks fall, things should die. These all contribute to the fantasy world seeming more dangerous, more 'real', like a spectral hand isn't shielding you from the worst the world has to offer.

I also recognize this is my dark fantasy bias yapping away

[–] gjoel@programming.dev 6 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

Pronouns. I get that they matter a lot to some people, and of course it's super annoying (if not worse) to be referred to in the wrong way, but I find it unreasonable to demand being referred to something outside of the gender binary, simply because that's the way language works.

I am aware that English has used "they" for a person of unknown gender for ages, but for one, I don't think it's something that you should demand people call you when they actually know your gender, but also I really hate that this is making its way into other languages like my own, that has never had this convention. Inventing entirely new pronouns is just ridiculous, I have a hard enough time to remember your name.

I am also aware that language evolves, but this is not evolution, it's forced, and if one group of people can try to force a change they prefer, I'm as much in my right to resist it if I don't like it.

People are super passionate about this though and in fifty years I'm sure I'll be seen as a fossil for not getting with the times now - in fact I'm sure certain people see me like this now.

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Yeah I support trans rights. If you are consistent I'll use your preferred pronouns. I don't care what bathroom people use. Health care is between you and your doctor. I only care about what genitals you have if we are going to be doing things with each others genitals.

That said so many trans people are complete assholes about it. I'm on your side but fuck so many of you are annoying jerks.

I remember when gays started coming out of the closet and they handled it better. Polite but firm about being treated fairly. The trans community is making more foes then friends the way they are acting.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Just use 他

He = 他

She = 他

Chinese Language Supremacy!

(Disclaimer: I have Chinese Ancestry)

[–] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

I know, right? The pronoun for third-person female did not exist historically. When western culture hit China 100 years ago, they swap out the part where it means 'human' to make a new word.

Now when someone wants to refer to one in a gender-neutral way, they naturally write out the phonetic 'ta', as if the gender-neutral word is for male only.🤦

Same goes for second-person pronoun in Taiwan.

Stop these bullshits! The Chinese language does not need to address the gender! Figure that out in context! If you are writing and don't want to confuse your reader, just use the name!

[–] greedytacothief@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I know a few trans or nonbinary folks. They either go by he, she, or they. I have yet to meet someone who doesn't. Then again I live in a weird progressive rural community.

But if someone asks me to refer to them a particular way, sure what not? It means more to them than it means to me.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago

Veganism. I don't have any problems with most vegans. Most go through a phase of trying to convert you, but the ones I know and associate with have come out the other side. We all know that these positions would make the world a better place. I don't think I have the will to do it. Might be wrong though.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 22 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

OP, you've made the classic mistake of putting your opinion in the post instead of as a comment, now everyone is replying to your opinion in top level comments instead of your question.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 hours ago

This is the best practice, especially for AskLemmy but it also applies to news and other media threads. It's best to put your personal thoughts and opinions in a top-level reply, while keeping the post body to clarifications or summary of the posted question or media.

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 37 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

I’ll answer your question!

Pretty sure I’m on the wrong side of vegetarianism. I love animals, I think they’re worthy of love and consideration from us. I know becoming a vegetarian or vegan would reduce harm to animals, and I’m pretty sure it’s the morally correct thing to do. It’s also hard, it’s alienating, and I know every time I’ve attempted it in the past it’s triggered disordered eating.

My current stance is that society should embrace vegetarianism. If the government were to make a law granting animals status that protected them from being killed for food, I’d support that as a moral good. However, I’m not willing to be fully vegetarian in a carnivorous society, there are too many drawbacks. I know this is hypocritical and kinda intellectually pathetic of me but there it is :(

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 6 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

My mother does wildlife rescues, birds are mostly, then goes home and cooks a roast chicken.

She knows it's hypocritical. Cognitive dissonance is weird.

Also, it's not so alienating. I attend dinners with my family, and I'll eat roast vegies, and bring a side-dish for myself. Over time a few of my friends became vegan (I didn't convince them to) and it's exciting to share recipes.

If nothing else, reduce your meat intake over time.

As with most changes people make, the more drastic, the more unlikely it is to stick.

When I became vegan I was a slut for KFC burgers, and I "failed" a few times, but I just kept reminding myself it's not good for anyone, and mustered up the will power to drive past, and eat at home instead.

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I’ve definitely reduced my intake, I just can’t apply the principle in a strict way. And the “alienating“ comment is just my own experience, I’m glad you didn’t have that issue! This isn’t intended to dissuade anyone from trying to be vegetarian, like I said I think I’m on the wrong side of this. It just personally has been difficult to fully align my moral principles and my actions on this matter.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 2 points 8 hours ago

You're not alone in not living up to your principles, virtually nobody can.

I once tried to vet all the products I was buying to make sure I wasn't contributing to slave labour, or deforestation, or animal exploitation, and it was exhausting.

It was good to identify brands which were absolute villains, and I still avoid them like the plague, but the amount of willpower it takes to travel to multiple stores and pick only the lesser of evils is something I'm not capable of right now.

I make gradual improvements, which is sustainable.

I am dead-set on repairing what I can, and hate spending money on new things.

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours ago

Good example. I also feel like vegetarianism is probably correct, but I still haven't gone that way.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 12 hours ago

I'm all in on lab grown protein

Opinions change, but sometimes the discussion doesn’t come up a second time. There are more than a few positions I’ve taken that I’ve since changed my mind about, one of which is certifications. While not necessarily a requirement in IT, having one would be immensely helpful right now, and so would having any kind of degree. Not only would it assist with a job search, but I’ve also been looking into moving to another country, and these things are almost always listed as something they look for during approval.

I’ve also been on the wrong side of whether or not to change career paths.

I’m trying to get back into gaming, and one of the things I appreciate most is a true, authentic experience that the developer intended, not something that was trimmed down or made easier for the sake of bringing in the most money or using other gimmicks to increase player count. I used to think it was best to include an easy mode, but after experiencing it, I can see it’s really not the same game, like you said. This was a relatively recent realization, too, one that I didn’t know I was on the wrong side of until I saw it firsthand.

Distro choice is another issue. I didn’t want to admit that I’ve fallen behind on that one, but I’m trying to get into some of the gaming-specific distros now after seeing what’s available.

I’ve been doing a lot of self-reflection, and these are just a few of the things I’ve realized I was wrong about. It’s not that I needed to be convinced of anything; I just couldn’t admit it for whatever reason. I’m trying to work on a lot of things right now.

[–] NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org -1 points 8 hours ago

It's hard for me to know whether or not I'm on the wrong side of an argument. When people turn into bastards and brigade on me whenever I make an opinion on things. It's hard to tell sometimes because, maybe their asshole-ness just validates what I expressed and I' actually in the right. Who knows.

[–] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 10 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Imo, games shouldn't have an easy or a hard mode. They should progress from easy to hard. Think super mario world.

[–] averyminya@beehaw.org 3 points 16 hours ago

I generally agree, but I will say, it's damn hard to get back into games like this after time passes.

The most extreme example would be Super Mario Maker, where some custom levels need game knowledge from a wide array of the various games, so if you don't know that in SM2 you can pickup snowballs, you might get stuck for a while.

A normal example would be like Vanquish, where if you take a break near the end of the game the sheer level of technical necessity the game requires can make it very difficult to get back into it.

But those are extreme examples. Another example would be something like Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros., where everyone has their sort of muscle memory with these games. I played Melee competitively and I came back to the game and it was like riding a bike, or a Souls game, while hard, is just one boss at a time and the game itself doesn't have too much technical growth.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 18 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

I am always on the right side of any discussion. Otherwise I wouldn't be on that side.

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

I have been bashed for saying sth similar in response to "you think your opinions are better than other people's opinions". Duh, yeah? Otherwise I would hold the other opinion.

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

A lot of people seem to feel this way. Don’t let it become a tautology, however. It’s your opinion because you think it’s correct, NOT it’s correct because it’s your opinion. For example, plenty of folks justify homophobia because gay people make them feel icky and never examine whether or not their intuition is actually correct. You still have a responsibility to examine your conclusions on a topic and readjust as necessary!

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

It’s your opinion because you think it’s correct, NOT it’s correct because it’s your opinion.

Exactly this.

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 hours ago

I'm glad you are like that, but dometimes people want to be convinced of the opposite side but haven't been able to, yet.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 5 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Yep. I don't argue for things I don't believe are the side I should be on. Sometimes I make tongue-in-cheek arguments (think A Modest Proposal) but that's not in a discussion. I don't get into arguments as a sport or to make people angry, so why ever be on a side I think is 'wrong'?

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (16 children)

Adding an easy or "story" mode to a game doesn't inherently make it worse. You can still play it with difficulty cranked up to "Dark Souls" or whatever. The fact that there is a separate mode that others can use does not affect you; you need not use it yourself.

"Story mode" is actually an accessibility option in disguise: it can let people who have difficulty with fine motor control, reaction times, or understanding visual and auditory prompts to enjoy the art alongside everyone else. Instead of cheapening the game, it actually expands its influence on the world.

All that being said, no, no game is strictly obligated to be accessible, but why cheapen your art by not making it so?

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago

“Story mode” is actually an accessibility option in disguise: it can let people who have difficulty with fine motor control, reaction times, or understanding visual and auditory prompts to enjoy the art alongside everyone else.

This is very insightful.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 hours ago

I have an experience relating to game difficulty and accessibility that you would probably appreciate.

I was playing Rimworld for the first time, and because I was aware of how huge disasters that wipe out most of your work (that you can sometimes build back from) is a part of the game, I felt bad about playing the game on the mode that allows you to load earlier saves; I would find losing progress in this way more stressful than fun, so I wanted the ability to reverse poor fortune or choices, even if it felt like I was "dishonouring the intended experience".

However, a friend (who was the reason I had bought Rimworld in the first place, and who enjoyed the chaos of no-save mode) pointed out that whilst the no-save mode may be presented as the default, the mode with saves enabled is presented as a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game. This made me feel immensely better about it, and I was able to dispel the silly guilt I was feeling. It highlighted to me the power of how we label difficulty settings and other accessibility settings.

Games are a funny medium.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 10 points 20 hours ago

I don’t think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode.

That's a valid stance. It's ok to make art which is not intended for everyone, or even the majority.

However, if you're charging people money for it and they are surprised by the difficulty and can't enjoy it as a result, I think that could be a potential ethical issue. But if you make it clear it's a difficult, challenging game, then I see no problem.

[–] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 6 points 19 hours ago

The right way to comment on this post is not to answer OPs question, but rather offer your take on their take.

I did all the things at once!

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Asking (paraphrasing) "hey what are you wrong about but unwilling to admit?" and then sticking a (metaphorical) "I think Nickleback is a pretty good band" opinion in the middle of it feels like a harder challenge than the designers of AskLemmy were intending

[–] MagisterSieran@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 13 hours ago

That is why askreddit banned "I'll start", half the comments were replies to the OP instead of sharing their own experiences.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There isn’t really a “right” side to that one. If developers want to disappoint some potential customers and leave money on the table by not creating an easy mode, that’s their prerogative.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›