Starfield on my Xbox Series S. I just love it. It’s finally the perfect No Man’s Sky. Kind of. With more story, even better graphics, a fantastic score and so on and so on. Just waiting for 60fps
The Crew Motorfest Demo on my Xbox Series S. It’s okay. Would be waaaay better without the Tearing problems. Waiting for patch. If they get rid of the Tearing problem I’ll buy it.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nr, nr, nr.” By 1968 you can’t say “nr”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nr, nr.”
Republican strategist Lee Atwater.
Atwater’s point here is that dogwhistles work, and they’ve been a core strategy of regressive bigots for decades.
Today’s hateful bigots understand that they can’t openly say “I want to legislate trans people out of existence, even if that means they all die.” So they engage in layers of abstraction, and wrap their abstractions up in leftist talking points. They claim to be defenders of “free speech” even as they support laws that empty out libraries of books, remove shows from television or make discussion of anything LGBTQ related impossible online.
So to you, the innocent rube, removing a pronoun selection from a game might not sound like an attack on trans people, but it very much is. The mod was a rallying cry, a call to fellow bigots to express themselves while pointedly saying to every trans person watching “You are not safe. We are here, we hate you, and we want to erase your existence.”
The existence of the pronoun selector impacted them in absolutely no way, shape, or form. There was nothing to be gained from its removal other than the statement it made, the proud declaration of their hatred encoded in a language of abstraction that made it visible only to their allies and their targets.
And the fact that they can get away with this; the fact that they can openly torment their chosen victims while the average idiot pats them on the head and calls them a “victim of censorship”… That’s their favourite part.
I understand the concept of dog whistles and the historical usage of coded language to advance certain agendas. My primary concern here is not the mod itself, but rather how moderation decisions are made and the criteria used. If we can’t openly discuss these topics, it’s hard to determine what is or isn’t acceptable. I’m not advocating for intolerance; I’m advocating for clarity in community guidelines.
Jaki kraj taki pirat. Mistrz MBA, zarządza, w radach nadzorczych zasiada i zarządach też NGO tajemnymi, “społecznik”. Okazuje się, że niektórzy posłowie Konfederacji są lobbystami rządu chińskiego a tu Pan jest lobbystą Polskiego Holdingu Nieruchomości. Nic nadzwyczajnego, taki mamy klimat. Wiele innych osób poselskich, tylko lepiej się kryje.
There cannot and should not be balanced and open discussion on this issue. You cannot “polite” your way into finding a way to say that non-binary people are not legitimate.
This is paradox-of-tolerance stuff. Maintaining an inclusive community requires being intolerant of intolerance.
The existence of non-binary people does not hurt you.
Insisting on finding ways to deny that they exist hurts them.
While the concerns you’ve raised resonate with many, it’s worth remembering JFK’s words, ‘Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.’ As a society, we must consider the nuance that exists in any debate, even one as sensitive as this. Open discussion should serve as a mechanism to understand what defines intolerance and how to appropriately combat it, rather than shutting down dialogue altogether.
There’s very little constructive discussion to be had about this, if any.
Civility is one thing, but there’s not really anything to debate here. What complexities?
The mod’s only function was to hide an options menu. Its only purpose is to hide the fact that other people might wanna choose something else than the default, it literally did nothing else.
It didn’t add any option.
If it added any option at all, like to replace pronouns in dialogues with your character’s name or anything that’d be something else but it’s not.
I doubt that mod was made in good faith, but I don’t really care either way to be honest.
I’m not triggered by that mod’s existence, nor by its removal because it’s all mostly outage bait.
That other poster knew that was going to be a dumpster fire before they hit the button to post.
I honestly doubt this one is meant to do any better.
I understand your perspective on the mod and its likely intent. My original aim was not to discuss the mod per se, but to explore how moderation decisions are made. If we can’t have an open debate, it becomes difficult to understand where we draw the line on what is or isn’t acceptable content.
Shouldn’t users have the liberty to tailor their gaming experiences according to their personal preferences, especially in a game known for its moddability? It’s also important to note that not everyone who might use such a mod is necessarily doing so with the intent of exclusion.
“Why should it be removed?”
Because it hurts real people.
“But shouldn’t people be able to modify the game as they want?”
Sure, they can do it themselves, but no one has to host content that causes real-world harm.
“But why draw the line at this mod?”
See answer 1.
Ya know, I love it when people like you use “civil discussion” as a mask, because it’s always the most transparent thing ever. Your real goals are always on your sleeve, but you just keep pushing the same things over and over again so that, in the end, you can say “Look, I was civil, they weren’t!”
Do you know what gives you away? It’s the way no answer you ever receive is satisfactory. It’s never enough. And it’s usually cyclical, too, which is exactly the behavior you’ve displayed here.
First, the mod in question is not adding a new feature to the game but removing an existing one, a fundamental difference when discussing user agency in customization. If someone finds this feature unappealing or unnecessary, they might opt for its removal via the mod, thus tailoring the game to their preferences. This is in the spirit of game moddability, which celebrates personalization.
Second, the concept that ‘no answer I ever receive is satisfactory’ misconstrues the purpose of engaging in discourse. Discussion is not a box to be checked off but a mechanism for deeper understanding. If the answers received were universally satisfactory, the discourse would be stagnant, wouldn’t it?
Lastly, if a mod does not align with one’s values, the solution is straightforward: do not download it. The presence of such a mod doesn’t mandate its use. Assigning a single motive to all users of a mod is not just an oversimplification but also an assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, as we engage in this dialogue, let’s not make broad generalizations but aim for a nuanced understanding.
Claim whatever motivations you want, but reading through this series of comments does a great job of showing everyone your real motivation. You are not here for rational discussion of moderation policy. Your trying to argue that bigoted materials should be allowed.
I can’t stop looking at this train wreck. But ima try.
i’ve only played the demo of it when it came out, but it felt like a blend of bloodborne/sekiro where you’ll mix up the dodge or parry tactic depending on the enemy you come across.
i will say that it’d be best to upgrade your dodge ability as soon as possible (i think you can after the second or third boss), since the default dodge is basically useless
If BB had too many RPG elements for you then you might want to skip LoP. To answer your question though, just pick Bastard at the beginning and never look at another weapon other than the rapier you start with. Don’t change your Legion Arm, just use the starter one for damage and poise breaking. Only put levels into Vigor, Vitality, and Technique when leveling for stamina, HP, and damage respectively. Eventually you will be able to buy an item called a “Technique Crank” from a guy whose name rhymes with panini. Put that on your rapier when you get it. That’s it.
Parrying is geared towards Strength builds (Strength is called Motivity in LoP). If you want to do strength pick Sweeper instead of Bastard and level Motivity instead of Technique. Put a Motivity Crank on your weapon instead of Technique.
This is exactly what I was after, thank you! I will probably parry too much coming from Sekiro so the Strength route sounds good - is the Sweeper as viable as the Bastard all the way through (with motivity levelling)?
I think if I’d asked a similar question for BB I would have loved it, but I was stubborn and tried to learn all of it by myself. Instead I learned that I just want to be mastering a few mechanics rather than having open ended options to dozens
No worries, happy to help. Yeah strength is totally viable. Just be aware that in LoP, parrying is just blocking. When you block, you take less damage and you get “rally” like in BB and get that HP back by hitting things. You can do a “perfect block” with good timing and take no damage. There is no Dark Souls or Sekiro-style parry mechanic.
Oh damn. I thought from some gameplay I’ve seen that perfect blocks also worked towards staggering an enemy? Which made me think of Sekiro, just not as pronounced / focused on
I believe perfect blocks do count towards staggering the enemy. I’ve put several larger enemies into the stagger state from perfect blocks. I’m running the Motivity build described above and it works great. I will say that dodging and blocking are both very important. Some enemies are better to dodge and some are better to block.
I’ve just beaten the scrapped watchman and I’m really enjoying it, and having the decisions streamlined by you is helping for sure. The only thing I’ve done differently is change the handle to the baton handle, as it’s a bit faster to deliver the charged hit (which is crucial when I’m going for stagger as often as I can).
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.
Personally, I think it’s absurd to remove a mod that harms nobody. As a nonbinary person, I was ecstatic to see “they/them” as a pronoun choice, but I understand that having to choose pronouns can be triggering for some people, just as much as not having the option can be triggering for others. Why not let people play the game the way they want? Isn’t that the appeal of a Bethesda game, after all?
I’m pretty sure Nexus Mods admins have the ability to lock comments on a mod - why not just do that for controversial mods like this one? People who want it could still use it, just without the hatred and vitriol that might otherwise be in the comments.
I completely agree with your perspective. The essence of a Bethesda game, and many other sandbox-style games, is the freedom to tailor the experience to one’s own preferences. Removing a mod that is essentially harmless takes away from that freedom and raises questions about the influence of ideological stances in the moderation process.
As you suggested, locking the comments could serve as a reasonable compromise. It would allow those who wish to use the mod to do so, while mitigating the potential for inflammatory discussions. This way, the community retains its diversity of choice without being subjected to a single viewpoint.
From what people who had seen the mod page were saying when this all started blowing up, was that it was removed not for what the mod did, but for what the author of the mod put in the mod description page (basically full of racist, sexist, homo and transphobic bullshit), which was a violation of their rules. Plenty of other mods that remove the pronouns option still exist on Nexus, but without the bigotry clearly laid down in their descriptions.
If it’s indeed the case that the mod was removed due to the author’s statements in the mod description, then the removal is justifiable based on those grounds. This would then be less about the content of the mod itself and more about adherence to platform guidelines. It also highlights the importance of understanding the complete context behind moderation decisions, rather than focusing solely on the mod’s functionality.
When I’m researching things about the game even when I’m not playing.
Starfield is definitely doing that for me. Before that Distant Worlds 2, X4 Foundations, Elite Dangerous, Skyrim, Space Engineers, Empyrion, GTA V, and Minecraft have all done that.
I really enjoyed the base game, I just waited a little after launch (like always) to play with some bug fixes updates.
I was just coming back from a gigantic period in my life where I didn’t game much, and never on PC - Cyberpunk was the first AAA I played right after coming back. This meant I wasn’t following the game for years and building a lot of expectations, and it didn’t disappoint me because “mechanic X was missing!” because I never knew I could expect X anyways.
I also wanted something a bit more linear, but still an open world, which is something this game balances pretty well.
The end result is that I really liked it. In fact, I prefer it to GTA V, which is a game that, in my opinion, struggles with balancing it’s mission structure with the actual game world.
At the end of the day, Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty DLC probably won’t change your mind if you just disliked the base game
so, no. but if you were okay with how it was before you’ll probably like it more now. it’s still not the game they marketed but it’s unlikely it ever would be.
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze