BougieBirdie

This sounds like analysis paralysis. If you have 5 games, it’s easy to select one. If you have 416, it’s difficult to select one.

I’ve often found that the more options I have, the more difficult it is to come to a decision. And when you think about “what game should I play,” it sounds like a silly problem to have. But when you extend it to other problems in life, like “what should I have for dinner,” then you see it start to cause some pretty serious problems.

Lately I think I spend more time trying to decide what to play than I do playing games. Then I’m not always successful in making a decision, or might run out of time, and then I don’t play any games. Following the same reasoning, sometimes I don’t eat dinner.

If you start to notice this is becoming an actual problem, the good news is there are tools and techniques that can help you make a decision. About a thousand of them. Good luck picking one.

In this case, you could upload it to YouTube where it will be taken down and seen by a whole no people

Tax breaks for tech bros

My pet theory: Radicalize the disenfranchised to incite domestic terrorism and further OpenAI’s political goals.

Bad person, probably not. That’s a harsh descriptor to apply for a single transgression.

I’d call this behaviour to avoid though. Most people don’t like being lied to or ghosted

Sometimes you can’t really avoid it, like if safety is a concern. But if you lie and ghost because feelings are messy then it causes other people to have messy feelings

My interpretation is that people hate AI, but an individual’s rage against the machine isn’t enough to hurt it. Something I agree with.

Then it goes on to say that AI is just here to help, which I think is supposed to evoke sympathy for something that was unfairly demonized. Something I don’t agree with.

If you try to distill it further, I read this as dissatisfaction against AI is futile and unjustified. It reads as though AI was a benevolent force designed to help people, which unfortunately just isn’t true

Credit where it’s due, around the time Dying Light 1 came out, Roger Craig Smith was lending his voice to Chris Redfield, one of the more iconic zombie guys from Resident Evil.

My favorite Redfield moment was when, without a shred of irony, he talks smack about the villain acting like a comic book villain. Then in the same breath, he punches a six-ton boulder into submission.

Dying Light also really kinda shook up the zombie slaying dynamic with parkour. It seems like a fairly minor thing now, but that freedom of movement was a pretty big deal at the time, even if it was pretty janky.

Narratively, I agree that Crane isn’t a very strong character. He’s a dime-a-dozen government goon turned idealist. I don’t even remember how the story ends, or even most of the major beats except for a couple of major characters.

But at the time, to kick zombie butt while scooting around the rooftops and listening to Chris Redfield quip one-liners: those were special times even if it was a decade ago. They’re probably trying to recapture that magic, but I don’t know. It was lightning in a bottle and you can’t always get that back

If you’re clumsy, you might be described as all thumbs.

Unless you’re clumsy enough to get into a thumb-separating accident, then I guess you’re no thumbs

I bet “grognard” is only used by grognards now

For the uninitiated, a grognard is a person who likes older style wargaming. The usage suggests a person who is older, set in their ways, and somewhat curmudgeonly. Often preferring how things used to be in the systems they grew up playing.

Generally speaking, they prefer a crunchy game with high mortality and grit, as opposed to a looser system with a narrative or character-driven focus.

For a term in more active use, I submit “crunchy” since I just used it. A game’s crunchiness describes how complex the rules are - essentially how much number-crunching players have to do in order to play.

Satan’s not kidding around