Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Asmongold TV "
channel.
-
40
-
@entelin
I'm also a programmer, and I've actually read how the systems work (in addition to playing actively for quite some time). The things that happen to the health system effectively have material ballast, arms and legs, musculature, bones and cartilage, all these things are real entities in the world of DF, and they are subject to being affected. I don't know if you consider this a "gameplay factor", I consider it an important storytelling factor that the game effectively brings to the user that literally no other game has ever done (not RimWorld, not Oxygen Not Included, not even CDDA - although the latter is quite advanced). In RimWorld the health system is also interesting and advanced, but ultimately based on a much smaller and less detailed compositionality than DF, you literally haven't played enough of the two games to know that they have stark differences from each other.
Of course, to be fair to you, some things are just decorations yes, the way to describe many things for example, and some logs that happen, really many things are just randomly generated texts to entertain the player, however, even they have their importance in the ability to create an emergent narrative (which is the goal of DF). In all other things, either you understand their importance in the game simulation world, or you're just spitting on someone else's nearly 20 years' work, as a programmer you should be more responsible with the things you say out there (and no, you don't know what happens, because you clearly haven't seen all of Tarn's talks, let alone read the game's source code, I've seen a fair amount of the talks and articles and unless he's lying radically, a lot of that verbosity is heavily tied to simulating the full complexity of game interactions).
Of course, maybe DF just isn't your type of game, it's a game made for your brain to interpret things that occur in a narrative and consistent way (although they are not so consistent, even if simulated, as an example the memories of the dwarves), but that's about it.
17
-
@entelin
If you really want to know, the dwarf with the finger cut off is probably going to be incredibly damaged in the process of creating a work of art, and this can completely influence how he sees the world (and yes, they can commit suicide or they can go crazy, think of the dwarf who has a dream of creating a work of art and cannot do it).
I think at one point you're right, the depth of reading all those texts and little things in DF is incredibly broad and it goes without saying, there are simpler ways to do all of this.
However, I think that one thing you did not understand, this game does not have an end, and its success factor is precisely its complexity. Tarn didn't want to create something simple, he wanted to create something extremely complex, he wanted to simulate as many existing things as possible. If you think you've "mastered the game" then you probably haven't played it enough (the game is still being actively developed, even the economy system Tarn intends to come back with in the future), it's all the complexity of the interactions between the different little ones. systems that create this narrative depth.
If DF wasn't so complex, if it was "as simple as RimWorld", I just wouldn't play it, and it wouldn't have such a pertinent fandom. It's the same with Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead, it's an absurdly complex game that only has the fans it has because of its complexity, otherwise it would be just another survival game in an apocalypse.
DF is a generator of stories, a generator of immersive narratives, it is that even before being a colony sim, in that it beats any currently existing game.
It's like I said, this game is not for you. I've been playing for a long time and I've never felt "bored" with anything in the game, recently a dwarf of mine committed suicide in a tree and I was incredibly blown away by the situation, it's always these interesting things that you just have to watch out for worrying that they make everything so interesting and fun, I wouldn't trade a single feature of the game for a comparative equivalent in RimWorld or elsewhere. Of course, the game needs to be simplified in a lot of things, things that can be done, and that will probably be done, the Steam release is what will make all of this possible over time. A complex and immersive torytelling is the word.
I also don't find RimWorld's combat more interesting, it's certainly very good, but it doesn't compare to DF, really. I think it's more fluid, in that sense it's better, yes, but the details matter to me more than the fluidity in that sense.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let me correct some problems here.
["The root of these words is basically "discrimination". You can only be discriminated (or, in simpler terms, "bullied") when you're a minority. If you're part of a majority, you'll have more people around that will jump into the defense. Think about it like a schoolyard, where some guys are being bullied. If they'd try to bully back, they'd be beaten up by a majority of people, since they're fewer. If a bully is attacking one of these people in the minority on the other hand, they don't have to fear too much about the consequences, since they're being backed up by a majority of people on the schoolyard."]
This is simply false. Even in your own analogy it does not make sense, because at the end of the day the kid that is being bullied (and no, being bullied is not the same as being "discriminated") is a minority on its own, and even if as a whole other people can sympathize with that children it does not makes that children less a minority in this own scope. You being "backed" or punished by other people also do not mean that the bullying did not happened, if the whole school goes against a bully in a moment this does not make the bully act disappear, if the whole society comes to defend a minority that was offended (and surprise, this happens many times, the situation is not discrimination in these cases then?) this does not removes the discrimination that had happened. When a woke discriminates other person, even if that person has defenders (which in many cases it is simply not true, people being cancelled and harassed as a minority in places like twitter is a common place) it does not remove that status of discrimination. You are only applying this conveniently to your own case, because at the end of the day people that are being discriminated are a minority on their own in their own context does not matter what abstract collective entity you think is "backing them up".
["You can apply this concept of discrimination to real life situations, where for example a person with a non-caucasion name is being denied from a job (this is probably a bigger issue in Europe), or a woman is being denied a job. The reason this works and no one cares too much about this is because they're a minority, they can be bullied, since fewer people can step in and defend them, and more people will step in and defend whoever caused this situation (fortunately things are changing in these obvious examples, but they're still far from solved)."]
The thing is, it does not "work" because "nobody cares". It works because nobody notices, and nobody notices because these people usually don't complain about it. When people complain about it, when people see what is happening, people usually respond to this kind of situation. And the other reason of why most people don't complain about these things is that even for the minorities that are suffering from it, it is not a majority thing, the minority of the minority is who usually suffers from the discrimination in a society, simply because it's also usually a minority of the population who is actually discriminative in many of the given situations (and of course this also varies in a case-by-case basis and depending on the surrounding culture). People like you see a woman being denied a job and think it was "because she was woman", reasonable people think on the problems of contracting a woman, the bureaucracy, the needs she would have that a man would not, objective and measurable costs that can affect the judging more of just "because she's a woman and I hate women", and many of the times it would be because of other objective reasons like "lack of competency", the fact that the job is not even suitable for a woman to do (like heavy physical work) or even the personality of that person. And even after all that, is what makes me the most intrigued there, is that woman are not a minority in society. In fact, for Europa Commision we have a demographic data of 2022 that there is "Almost 5% more women than men in the EU", so your own argument does not make sense here.
["Having established that, we can simplify this rule. If you're talking shit about a majority of people, you're not discriminating. You're the bullied kid who's throwing rocks at the bullies, knowing that you're getting beaten up over it, but you're able to do this (now) because you're prepared, the other minority people have also prepared to fight alongside you, giving you the edge to actually win this fight or to at least de-escalate it. That's why saying "I hate straight people" isn't discriminating, as straight people are the majority, and non-straight people the minority. It might hurt (as a rock will do), but it won't hurt as much, as straight people don't have to be afraid of being beaten up. If a bully throws a rock at a minority (someone saying "I hate gay people"), this will hurt, since the gay person can't really fight back."]
Well, you should first respond to my points to try arguing this here. You should also argue agains the own definition of "discrimination" (which is almost an universal word and have not only the negative connotation but also a positive one, of discriminating people that are bad for example, which is a good thing). This whole "oppressed violence" does not work against someone with minimal neurons working in his head, that can see violence is also contextual and if you kill a straight men because he was a straight men it does indeed makes you a discriminator in the same exact sense of killing a gay man because he was gay.
The other obvious flaw of this is that, even if we where taking this seriously, it is still a logical flaw by itself, a violent act is not less of a violent act because "other people can de-escalate it" or "because you have the edge on winning thisf fight", just as same as being a thief (and thiefes are the absolute minority of population) does not makes you a victim because people will spank you if you try to rob someone in the daylight in the center of a big population. This literally does not make any sense <at all>.
["Yeah, it does sound complicated, and I hate that progressive thinking isn't too easy to grasp at first. To understand these things involves a long process of inner thoughts and reflection about situations in live, and often times can only happen if you've been the target of discrimination in some way or form."]
It is not easy because it is wrong, it is simple as that, and trying to bring place of speech to here does not make things better. You do not, literally, need to be robbed to think it is wrong and it is bad, you do not need to be killed to think killing is bad and being killed is bad, you also do not need to be a victim of discrimination to know it is bad, you can literally see a video of it happening and your own heart will tell you "this is wrong", this is literally how morality work. When you start bringing in things like "you need to suffer to know this is wrong" is when you understand this is dogshit without any meaning, and even worse, when one victim of discrimination themself says "it can happen to anyone" (and I can find you many examples of this) progressive people start saying they are "alienated" and start putting their own ideas on top of these people, you only care of this "being target of discrimination to understand" thing when it conveys with your own agenda.
So no, you are wrong, but at least you tried to argue for it and I think this is respectable, so cheers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AkiRa22084
Yeah, I'm against copyright in general. Copyright actually limits human criativity, not potentialize it, because you cannot iterate on existing things (and human criativity is defined by arranging existing ideas into novel ways), you will never be sure that something you created can be sued because some crazy man created a patent 5 years ago just to sue someone when that one have the idea and make it practical (and yes, this happens). Patents are also part of the reason why U.S. healthcare system is so damn expensive in relative terms, and it is the reason of why many times we just have some common sources of medicine that share the same roots and needs to pay for their production.
Humans where creative way before the notion of intellectual property/copyright ever existed, and they will be creative without it as well, we are not robots, our minds are naturally creative and this creativity should not be cerceated and treated as property. It is also clear that intellectual property is something bizarre and strange when you need to say to people "you would not steal a car" when they are pirating, because nobody really think on pirating things (or copying them) as "theft" in any meaningful sense, so you need to fabricate it by bringing real theft into their minds (like actually stealing a car). The fundamental difference is that nobody loses when you copy some idea, when you use it against the "IP owner" will, nobody is losing nothing, nobody is being really violated, the idea of the "IP owner" is still on his head. But when you actually steal something, somebody <will lose> that same thing. When you recover a car that was stealed, it is obvious that you are making justice, but when Nintendo sues a mod maker because he used "their" characters in his mod your natural morality will tell you that this is wrong, that's why you can agree that some kinds of copyright are "draconic" (as you said) but you would hardly say someone protecting his property against a trespasser of any kind is "draconic".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1