A turn-based, tactical, squad-centered action title where a collective of vicious aliens invade the planet and you as the leader of a group of brave if vulnerable heroes have to save the world from the strange new threat. Except this time the world the aliens have picked to invade is a fantasy realm.
Guiding mages, warriors and rogues against the threat from outer space, combining XCOMesque battles with traditional fantasy game combat and levelling mechanics. Advance through the map taking regions back in control rather than zigzagging around the globe. Both the dwarven and elven capitals are under attack, which one do you go to rescue first and gain the help a new race to pick your pool of heroes from? Manage your kingdom and choose which deities you build a temple for, determining whether you unlock paladins or warlocks as a sub-class. Beat the aliens to reach the dragon before its captured and converted to their side. And as you encounter more armoured enemies, let your blacksmiths experiment with slapping together scavenged items from the battlefield to form high -tier magitech armour of your own.
It’s a fever dream combination of effectively XCOM and Majesty that’s been in my head for years because I love quirky mashups like this. Not necessarily anything new under the sun but I feel like with some work put into it, you could really forge something unique by embracing the combination of styles and genre conventions.
I wanted to like this game but the story was just so uninteresting to me that I had to put it down. I know not everyone is like me but as someone who adored the stories in oot and majoras mask, I couldn’t do it man.
Yeah TOTK story was better in that you’re unraveling a mystery instead of just seeing stuff that already happened. Technically the stuff in TOTK also “already happened”, and mechanically it’s pretty much identical, but imo the way it’s framed makes it much more interesting and compelling. I think the key is you’re seeing these events in order to uncover new information, whereas BOTWs flashbacks didn’t really give you any useful information, just filled in the details of a story you already had the cliff notes for.
Agreed fully that TotK story is much much better that BotW.
I went straight from BotW to Elden Ring though, so they took my score down. Elden’s gameplay, story, and world are unmatched by any other open-world game. The world is so full and flush and ALIVE. There’s oodles of empty space in the open-world Zelda games, and there’s so few enemy types. I still love the games, but as a late late Elden Ring adopter, I have a new impossible standard for a world… that’s open.
This is such a stupid ass post. Nobody has to put up with the shitty viewpoints pushed by the mod or from people that would use the mod. Nobody owes you civility if you reveal you hold similar views or are okay with those views being pushed. Do not tolerate intolerance.
Fuck off, the topic has been hot in politics for ages, if you’re still against trans people and fighting back against “pronouns” you’ve made your choice and know where you stand.
I understand that the topic at hand is emotionally charged and has been the subject of intense political debate. However, it appears that my original intent might have been misunderstood. I’m not advocating for or against the mod in question.
Instead, my focus is on the criteria that platform moderators use to decide what content should or should not be allowed. This discussion is not about endorsing intolerance but about understanding how these moderation decisions are made. I believe that it is possible to discuss this aspect without necessarily taking a stance on the mod’s content itself.
The topic begins and ends at “Intolerance is not tolerated”, further discussion would be a thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance.
I appreciate your input, but I’m puzzled as to why you chose to comment on a post explicitly seeking constructive dialogue if you’re not interested in having a nuanced discussion. My original question aimed to understand the criteria behind platform moderation decisions. I believe it’s an issue that can be discussed without necessarily endorsing or disavowing the content of the mod in question. Would you be open to discussing that aspect?
Gross dude, the criteria is whatever the site says it is, in this case it was a mod with bigoted intention. What nuance is there to this discussion? Do you want to discuss what level of bigotry should be accepted? Homosexuals are off limits but trans people are fair game? Is that the nuance you want to address?
further discussion would be a thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance.
While I’ve already acknowledged that the mod in question was rightly removed due to bigoted comments in its description, that’s not the focal point of my inquiry. What I’m driving at is the more general issue of content moderation and what warrants removal. I’m not asking for any form of bigotry to be permitted; I’m questioning how we, as a community, decide what crosses the line. It’s curious that you label my pursuit of a nuanced dialogue as ‘gross,’ especially given the content you freely share. It seems our standards for what is acceptable differ considerably.
Your accusation of a ‘thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance’ ignores my stated objective: to foster a conversation about how platforms decide what content to remove. I’ve already acknowledged the mod’s removal was warranted due to its author’s bigoted comments. My interest lies in examining the broader principles behind such decisions.
However, as Mark Twain once said, ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’ It seems we’re unlikely to engage in the meaningful dialogue I was hoping for, so perhaps it’s best to leave it at that.
Calling people the things they literally are is not name-calling. For example, conservatives tried to overthrow our government, tried to overthrow our democracy, and have been sending elementary schools in my town bomb threats for weeks. It’s not name calling to say they’re terrorists.
Edit: To clarify, the bomb threats are because a librarian joked about having a “woke agenda.” These are the same types of people.
Not at all. I believe that people should have freedom of choice for how they want to play their games. Everyone has a different escape from reality.
I understand that Nexus Mods have the right to choose what they want to host, that’s not the point. I believe that the moderators of the site need to choose what really crosses the line. The mod itself is harmless. Do you agree with hosting the Kill All Children mod for Skyrim still? If so, why?
If the reality you want to escape from is that “sometimes people use pronouns that are different from the ones I think they should use”, you’re an intolerant bigot.
If someone made a mod to remove black people from the game because “sometimes I want to escape from the reality that black people exist” it would be entirely justified to call that person a racist. This is no different.
I’d like to clarify that my argument is centered around the role of platform moderation and how they determine what content crosses ethical or moral lines. While you’ve offered an extreme example with the hypothetical mod that removes black people, the comparison doesn’t precisely align with the mod under discussion.
I used the ‘Kill All Children’ mod for Skyrim as an example to point out inconsistencies in moderation decisions. The objective is to question where the line should be drawn and who gets to draw it, not to endorse intolerant or bigoted views.
No, I haven’t offered an extreme example. I’ve offered an identical example. Escaping from the reality that black people exist, and escaping from the reality that people can in fact just choose their own pronouns are not meaningfully different in any way. In both cases someone is trying to erase from their personal reality the existence of an entire group of people, in a way that is targeted on specific lines of bigotry.
If you’re not willing to acknowledge that simple fact then you’re not ready to have this conservation.
That’s why there is a meaningful difference between this and the kill all children mod. While tasteless and gross, there’s never been any meaningful indication that the people installing kill all children actually want to see children, as a class of people, erased from existence. They’re engaged in some extremely unpleasant roleplaying, but barring the rare exceptions that will exist in any sufficient sample size they’re not actively expressing views about the real world through this choice. OTOH the pronoun removal mod is very much about expressing a desire to, at best, refuse to acknowledge the existence of a group of people, and far more likely a desire that said group not exist at all. And if you don’t believe that desire exists in a not insignificant number of people then I beg you to look outside your window for once in your life.
We can draw a moral line between these two things by applying Popper’s paradox of tolerance; the only thing a tolerant society cannot tolerate is intolerance. There is a clear moral justification for the suppression of expression when it is an expression of intolerance. That is the moral principle that Nexus are applying here (whether they are conscious of it or not).
Not only can you be a defender of free speech and still support the suppression of intolerant speech; it is in fact absolutely necessary to do so. If tolerated, the intolerant will use their freedom of speech to destroy everyone else’s while pushing their intolerant ideals. It is therefore - paradoxically - impossible to support free speech while supporting the free speech of bigots. To be true champions of free speech we must be intolerant of the intolerant.
In response to the point you’ve raised, the issue of platform moderation does involve a complex balance between allowing diversity of opinion and restricting what is considered harmful or intolerant. However, it’s crucial to note that not all forms of censorship or moderation are created equal.
Your argument posits that the ‘Kill All Children’ mod and the pronoun-removal mod are qualitatively different, based on the intent or impact behind them. The latter, you say, has real-world implications, as it aims to negate the existence of a specific group, while the former is seen as “extremely unpleasant role-playing” that isn’t necessarily a call for real-world action against children.
Yet, the stance seems to be rooted in the assumption that everyone who would use the pronoun-removal mod does so with malicious intent to deny the existence of non-binary or transgender people. While that might be true for some, it could also simply be a matter of personal preference for others, without carrying any ideological baggage.
The use of Popper’s paradox of tolerance in this discussion is intriguing but might oversimplify the complexities involved in moderating a digital platform. While intolerance shouldn’t be tolerated, determining what constitutes ‘intolerance’ is often subjective and open to interpretation. Therefore, it’s crucial for platform moderators to engage in transparent and reasoned decision-making processes when determining what is allowed and what is not.
Your last point suggests that it’s not just permissible but necessary to restrict the free speech of those considered intolerant to protect free speech for all. However, this approach can easily lead to a slippery slope where the definition of ‘intolerance’ becomes malleable, potentially leading to an erosion of the very free speech rights that the policy aims to protect.
The issue is not straightforward, and the boundaries of what should or shouldn’t be tolerated in an online community are often fluid. Thus, there remains a need for a nuanced conversation around these topics, which goes beyond labelling something as intolerant and calling for its suppression.
While that might be true for some, it could also simply be a matter of personal preference for others, without carrying any ideological baggage.
Give me one single scenario in which a person needs to remove the option to select your characters pronouns, without that decision carrying, as you put it, ideological baggage.
A scenario that comes to mind is one where a player simply wants to streamline their game experience, eliminating any elements they perceive as non-essential to their gameplay. This wouldn’t necessarily imply ideological baggage; it could simply be an attempt to customize the game to better suit their individual preferences. However, I acknowledge that the topic is complex and there’s a lot to consider in the broader conversation about platform moderation.
Fair point about the default option being prefilled. However, the idea of what ‘streamlining’ means can differ among individuals. Some might want to remove elements they find non-essential, even if those elements are prefilled. It’s about catering to one’s own idea of what the game should be. Why should the interpretation of ‘streamlining’ be limited to your understanding?
Oh, now I see. It was never about the pronouns, it’s just about streamlining the user experience. How could I have been so stupid, thinking that the only intent behind this mod was bigoty, when in reality it was innocent streamlining.
…
Dude, the dog whistle isn’t subtle. Could you stop?
My aim is to discuss what types of content should be removed and why. The mod’s creator did include comments that violate guidelines, so its removal is justified on that basis. However, dismissing the topic as a ‘dog whistle’ doesn’t help us explore the larger questions around platform moderation and community standards.
If you wanted to discuss that, your first step would be to look for Nexusmods moderation policy and read it. Or if they don’t have one published to note that fact.
Then start a post discussing that moderation policy and asking how moderation should be done.
Instead you started your post by focusing on the removal of a particular bigoted mod, which of course makes it a needlessly charged discussion if you’re looking for purely rational discussion about how moderation decisions are made. Then you keep making these absurd arguments — like claiming this mod may have just been about streamlining. This looks like trolling. And it talks like trolling. You claim I’m missing the point. I don’t think I am. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… it’s probably a maga troll that’s “just asking questions”.
While I acknowledge that the discussion started with the example of a specific mod, the intent was to use that as a jumping-off point for broader questions about moderation. However, I concede that the charged nature of that particular mod has perhaps overshadowed the broader discussion I was aiming for. I did review Nexus Mods guidelines, and the mod in question was rightly removed based on them. The idea was to prompt thought about how these policies are crafted and applied across a range of content. The mention of ‘streamlining’ was intended to explore the various motivations behind mod creation, not to justify this specific mod’s existence. I assure you, this is not an attempt at trolling but rather an effort to foster a meaningful conversation about platform governance.
Original video assets from a studio has multiple audio tracks, but they are transcoded down to a single audio track before distribution to the end user. Sorry.
You could do some fancy editing, or maybe you can use machine learning somehow.
But removing the laugh track really messes with the comedic timing.
Kenshi. Though usually that means that your corpse was found by slavers, nursed back to health, and its up to you to find replacement limbs and then crawl/hobble/run away from the camp when no one is looking
Huh, is there an option for being immortal in Kenshi but in the "you are immortal but not invincible" way, so characters never die but they still need someone to come along to save them and fix them up before they can move again? I used to simulate this in Rimworld with the bleeding out mod that kept pawns from dying upon losing most vital organs for a very short time combined with a mod that made them regenerate lost parts at 10% efficiency until it fully regenerated, leaving them unable to do anything but still alive until recovery.
No. But it’s actually kind of hard to straight up die in Kenshi, most of the time you’re just knocked unconscious for a while, sometimes you enter a coma while you heal back up and that can be dangerous as wild animals or slavers might find you and if you’re bleeding out that could be a death sentence. The only real way to just straight up die is to get beat up so hard you get fatally wounded on either your torso or head, but that’s incredibly rare.
It’s not quite what you’re getting at, but in Bubble Bobble Revolution you can’t pass level 30 because the boss doesn’t spawn. It’s a soft lock but there’s nothing you can do to avoid it, and the game is on the DS so there’s no updates to fix it :D
You should be able to, ahem, find some convinent ROM collections on most torrent indexers. A standard NES game is only ~128kb, so the whole library of games is only like 750mb. It scales exponentially with every generation as data storage improved, so the SNES library is 2gb, the N64’s is 5gb, and the PS3’s is 20tb. I find that I really don’t need the full library of a consoles releases available, so I usually only choose maybe a hundred or two that I’m interested in, there’s only so much time in the day. If you don’t need a handheld device I can recommend modding your ps3, it can emulate most anything, the hombrew scene is active and there’s been a lot of support for it, plus for the majority of consoles it’s a full custom firmware solution, so it’s a pretty seemless experience once you set it up. Plus with the internal hdd there’s plenty of space for stuff. Pretty much everything up to last gen is easily pirateable, so have fun with it, it’s easy once you get the hang of it.
I definitely recommend Control, since a lot of games you like have big epic set pieces as well as an engaging story. That game is insanely rewarding if you’re willing to put the time and effort into looking for “collectibles” and piecing the game together. Very cool atmosphere and fun to play as well. You really get out of this one what you put into it.
Bioshock Infinite got shit on by both racists and leftists who completely missed the point of the game, but the ending is the best of the Bioshock series IMO and stuck with me longer than most anything else I’ve played. Lots of big cinematic moments, too.
Guardians of the Galaxy is slept on imo and has some amazing moments, and while the story is a retread of things the GotG comic has done, if you’re not a big comic reader, you won’t know, and if you are, you’ll be jazzed about how things are represented.
BG3 is incredible and the hype is well-deserved. The replayability is genuinely off the charts. Ive begun 4 playthroughs and beat it once and have not played the same game twice. Main story is the same but the variability in motivation, drive, and interactions is simply incredible. It is THE CRPG, and this is coming from someone for whom BG2 is my favorite game of all time.
New Vegas is New Vegas. It’s a shining example of what gaming can be for a reason. Needs no explanation (other than “don’t go north at the start”).
I came here to say Guardians of the Galaxy. The gameplay is fine, but the story and music in the game are awesome! I keep trying to get people to play it.
bin.pol.social
Ważne