osarusan

joined 2 years ago
[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

I didn't write what you think I wrote. You seem to be defending yourself against something I didn't say.

Please reread what I said (or don't if you wish, I'm not trying to have an argument).

Either way, have a good evening.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Someone once described No Man's Sky is as "wide as the sea, deep as a puddle."

That sums it up perfectly for me. It's a gorgeous, immense game with nothing of substance to do. I've tried returning to it several times, and each time I get bored in a few hours.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Star Wars: Squadrons

This game was infuriating for the enormous wasted potential that it was. From the day of launch they said they were planning to never update it, add to it, or expand it.

It could have been the successor to X-Wing/TIE Fighter, but they starved it from the beginning. The multiplayer was bad and they only had a few servers in the US, so it was too laggy for everyone overseas.

The game could have been something great, but it was dead out the door.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

task failed successfully

Lol, indeed!

The Times could have done more to educate, like at least listing the names of the women, instead of talking only about the man there.

It's horribly ironic and hypocritical.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I understand that, but you've literally just tacked extra words onto what he said that completely twist the meaning of what he said, and then asking if he's saying that.

Even if you're only asking not saying, it's overtly cynical and borderline a strawman argument. Like "I'm not saying he beats his wife, I'm merely asking if he does!" Its' really not fair to twist someone's words like that unless you have good reason to assume he is speaking in bad faith.

What he said was "male leaders with strong enthusiasm for gender equality are still needed" -- that's not controversial at all, but tacking something on to make it cynical and nasty is.

he's sidestepping the question of why a man is in charge of/has power over a women's empowerment even

Maybe... but I think the answer to that is probably something as simple as Japan made the choice (however boneheaded it was) to send a man to the meeting as their representative, and since the meeting was in Japan, he was the chair. It's usually better to assume ignorance than malice.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's a shame that you're getting downvoted for this. You make an excellent point.

This is literally the only news article I have seen about The G7 Ministerial Meeting on Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment, and guess what? It's about a man being there. There's very little about what the meeting actually accomplished.

The optics are bad, for sure, but would Time have even written a piece about this meeting if the scandal of a man being involved wasn't there? Is this anything more than countries just making a token display by shunting some women off to Nikko for a photo op? Why is the name of the man involved mentioned in the article, but not one of the women's names is mentioned?

The entire piece seems set up like a fluff piece so that people can scoff at Japan for being such shit about gender equality, while feeling good about themselves, patting themselves on the back, and saying "Mission accomplished!" Even the media is playing along. Haha, Japan bad, other countries good, here's an article about a man!

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

is he saying these men are needed to lead women in matters of gender equality?

Is he saying that???

Because that's not what he said and it seems awfully presumptive to just twist his words into something cynical without reason.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Both of the examples you gave are not counterpoints. They are examples of the exact same issue.

When I played FO4, I couldn't enjoy the building or storylines, because the game tells you that your son is all-important and that you need to rescue him from a world that is certainly going to destroy him. I'd have loved to sit around and carefully build the perfect post-apocalyptic town, but that stupid main quest was hanging over my head, and I'd have been a terrible virtual father if I let myself idly screw around instead of spending every ounce of energy searching for him.

It doesn't matter at all that the asteroid doesn't fall until you get to the spot you need to be, or that your son will never die and never age even if you play the game for 14 years, or that V lives forever because they never show him die in the game. It's an RPG, and it's specifically designed for you to immerse yourself in the game and "become" the character. A fake death timer is in some ways worse than a real one, because it breaks the illusion and reminds you constantly that this is a game.

It's bad storytelling.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 22 points 2 years ago (14 children)

My feelings exactly.

I played for 60 hours or so, and I enjoyed it a lot. But they put a fatal design flaw into the game by forcing to you be V, and by putting a ticking time bomb in your head. That means that if you play logically, you'll follow the storyline quests in order to fix the big issue rather than spending the time slowly exploring the world they made. It also means that once you beat it, there's no fun in going back and doing it again, because you have to follow the same railroad tracks and go through the same story beats again. It cheapens the experience greatly.

Like you, the world holds no interest for me now that I have found a satisfying ending for V. The least they could have done was put in a "story mode," and a separate "open mode" where you can build any character (who isn't V) and live any life you choose, free from the main quest railroad.

I'll never understand why game designers would make an open world, and then slap on a "YOU HAVE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE HURRY UP!!! railroad quest as the main story. It's a lazy and utterly stupid design choice.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

No, but I do hear they like to put birds on things.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • birds also love to talk!

I am 1000% behind anything with a bird on it.

[–] osarusan@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Fantastic! I hope this industry takes off and is soon available everywhere.

view more: ‹ prev next ›