I mean, besides FFXIV’s famous layout, I think it’s not so unreasonable to attach a keyboard to a console for things like chat or the game interface. A few Xbox games even do just that.
Of course, no game can require a keyboard plugged in to play. But given the age of Guitar Hero attachments, a few extras make sense.
I absolutely cannot stomach the newer Trails games; it feels like they fully leaned in to every anime trope hitting the millennium. But Trails in the Sky 1 and 2 are some of my favorite JRPGs, and I played them well past the age they came out in.
Something about the sense of adventure, the heart-wrenching emotional faults of the leads, as well as the maturity they take towards roles of leadership and governance, made it especially memorable to me.
Going from the next game on, they start repeating a lot of unnecessary patterns and get into Dragonball style “power escalations” that get really tiring. While the trope of getting an early forced loss to a powerful big bad is a common one, they start doing it multiple times in one game and it gets very annoying.
I’d argue part of this is true because of minimum wage and wealth disparity.
When you have a healthy disposable income, it feels more reasonable to give out some donations for good online content. But that’s not the case for a lot of people now.
It sucks because monetization models definitely influence the types of content we get. For instance, freemium video game models with cash shops are better for our current wealth gap, while a large set of consumers having extra cash through the year is much better for expensive, well-produced singleplayer games.
Part of me once wished for a utopia of only getting ads for things I have a reasonable interest in - working to inform me about options to spend my money on a service or product I need. It was based on Steam, which shows ads for games I like. No repeating ads to harass a particular message, no convincing people they need Brand X.
I don’t imagine we’ll ever get close to that.
Part of the issue is, a lot of intersections don’t have great visibility at the original stop position. People pull forward to make sure their turn will be safe.
Certainly plenty of them are doing it out of impatience, and they deserve some flak.
This isn’t a case of fighting moral codes. This is a case of battles of safety.
There are many issues of safety that affect all people, including food safety, mental safety, economic safety. All of those have resulted in court battles, as well as court failures. Safety from violence is the basic one, and people will often need to make their decisions around it on a faster basis than courts can proceed.
That’s the practical analysis, rather than the idealistic view where every single disagreement of any kind would receive a protracted court debate with all evidence present.
People are all capable of in-the-moment vigilantism (heck, most murderers feel this way). Society can still evaluate their cases afterwards to say whether they were warranted or not. I argue people should feel some safety from repercussions if society can agree their actions demanded some form of immediacy beyond what courts could provide, and did something good for society or were necessary for their own safety.
A zealot would get no such votes unless they were given a jury of their fellow zealots, and if that’s possible then I can think of no fair justice system in such a society.
There's still answers out there that are "more right" than others.
Jill, what do you think the price of this bag of rice is? $8.50? Unfortunately, not correct at all. Bob? The 1950s Hall of Rock and Roll on VHS? That's a thoroughly nonsensical answer that barely even respects the question! The answer was $11.
Sentencing judge, what do you think this man's punishment for rape should be? Nothing? Oh, wow, that's a very obviously wrong answer! Vigilante, your go. Well, we were looking for "A life sentence with chance of parole after 30 years", but I will say, "Shoot him in the head" is closer to correct.
I feel like some people there's a "magic light" applied to courtrooms with judges, that makes their judgments more fair by implication. But it's absolutely possible for three people in lawnchairs discussing matters over beer to make a more fair judgment than some judges.
Man, if I went around shooting all the people that raped and imprisoned me for years, the streets would be awash with a whole 0 gallons of blood.
I don't know how easily I'd agree that it wasn't self defense. If it were me, knowing someone is out there that feels vengeful towards me, and that the law has failed to challenge, does not feel like a safe situation, even if I'm not physically locked at their address.
It doesn't seem like a very reliable plan to wait until he's broken into your house and disabled your alarm before vigilantly grabbing your gun in time and defending yourself from him. The element of surprise is a far safer approach.
Your summary seems to imply that whatever happens to currently be written into law is considered "justice". But we've always known that the law is not perfect and needs constant corrections for true fairness.
Jurors, laws, judges, witnesses, none of them are perfect. Each has stoked fears that they will overpower the rights of the others. Courts do their best to have each balancing the power of the other.
If somebody goes to the zoo, jumps in the lion pit, and throws rocks at a lion, I imagine a lot of people wouldn't "wish the death penalty on him for his sheer offence" when he's pulled out of the enclosure. However, I also imagine many people would feel unsympathetic if said person happened to die at the lion's jaws, nor wish for the lion to be punished.
I guarantee you they've only ported over about half of the Control Panel's features. The common stuff, sure. The rest...