dreadgoat

I'm a bloodsucking corpo dev and honestly my read of this was very sympathetic to the FOSS dev.

Pretty much all of my FOSS contributions have been to software that I've integrated into my for-profit projects. I will find a nice helpful tool, see it doesn't have all the flexibility or functionality that I need, I'll improve it, write tests, submit a PR, and do my best to fulfill the requests of the maintainer.

INEVITABLY I will start getting messages from MY COMPETITORS saying "hey we saw you added this feature to this tool, that's great but doesn't quite integrate with our software, can u plz fix?" It's comical. Like, I'm already leveling the playing field by making my improvements to the FOSS tool freely available to you, and now you want to pay me zero dollars to improve your competing product? This happens all the time, it's a funny nuisance to me, and I expect a massive headache for popular maintainers. Nobody is under any obligation to help you with integration problems - you can ask, but you aren't entitled. Fix it yourself, adhere to the maintainer's standards, and put it out for everyone to benefit from.

I've already said that I appreciate your efforts. I'm not going to block you, your work is valuable. I'm just explaining that you ARE going to be criticized for what you choose to post, and you shouldn't act surprised. If you really don't care about whether or not the stories you are propagating have merit, then just ignore anyone who pushes you on it. Consider attacks on "OP" to be the original author of the article, not you.

Or, be more selective about what you post, if the approval matters to you. Consider it constructive feedback.

You post a lot. I see your name come up non-stop. That is great! It is really appreciated. I'm certainly not doing that work.

You also post quite a bit of inflammatory clickbait without having any personal knowledge to back it up. That's a bit confounding. At the bare minimum, you need to be prepared to accept criticism for that.

I can personally say this is the second time you've posted a FF16 ragebait article and gotten offended when prodded about the fact that you yourself haven't even played it. Why are you spreading information that you don't even have the ability to evaluate?

As a fan of souls games and mech games, I wouldn't be TOO worried. OP is overstating the problem. I sympathize, because this is indeed a different Armored Core, but it's nothing at all like a souls game. It's still a mech game and a good one, but it's not as technically deep as previous AC games while also being dramatically more difficult.

I would say in older AC games having a terrible build vs a great build meant the mission was either literally impossible or braindead easy. In AC6 a terrible build means the mission will be much harder, but still perfectly doable, and having a great build means the mission will run smoother but may still be quite challenging since threats are generally a lot more deadly than they were in previous titles.

I can totally understand how that can kill the vibe for someone who wants to seek victory in the build screen and enjoy the rewarding power fantasy during the mission, but it's still a great mech game with a lot of meaningful variety.

Proof of this is that while, yes, AC purists are upset that this game is more action-y, there are just as many Souls fans who are mad that the mech building game they bought is - get this - actually a mech game and not just Robo Souls.

AC6 is both more and less accessible along the same lines. It's a simpler game. The space given to customize your make is smaller, you can't go into debt by making stupid builds, and in exchange bosses will wombo-combo you from full AP to dead even with a heavy build if you get stunned at the wrong time. There's a person who experiences that wombo-combo, says, "this is bullshit" and puts the game down forever. But there is also a person who tries AC2, fails a mission with an expensive loadout, realizes they can't afford to make the build that failure inspired them to make, and say "no THIS is bullshit" and put the game down forever.

Likewise, Elden Ring is both easy and hard because it gives you a ton of freedom. There are more solutions than just "git gud" which is refreshing for someone who can't tolerate banging their head against Iudex Gundyr for a couple hours. But it's obnoxious to someone who sees Tree Sentinel and doesn't want to "have to explore" to find level appropriate content.

In practice, employment contracts are always good for employees and usually bad for employers. You don't want to be locked into a job? Then don't sign a contract that locks you in. Just refuse, as just about any sane person would.

Employers WOULD refuse to be locked in, except sane governments force them to. Sane governments do not force regular citizens into indentured servitude.

Nah, they are an avid gamer, too. A German themselves, in your analogy.

This is just what Twitter poisoning looks like. Full visibility and obsession of the negative, completely blind to growth, improvement, and positivity.

Some of the top eSports representatives in the world today include people like SonicFox, a gay black furry, and Scarlett, a trans woman. Still operating at the peak of their arenas and with huge fanbases of their own. And that's only two examples; the FGC in particular has recently seen an almost comical amount of LGBT+ folks getting comfortable enough to finally reveal themselves. But instead of celebrating that, or even just celebrating any incident in which Musk gets booed, we're still talking about that one time a journalist was slut-shamed a decade ago.

This boils down to "bad people are everywhere" which is universally true, to the point that it's barely worth mentioning. You will find shitty takes and hateful people everywhere if you go out looking for it.

The question is whether the bad people are running the show, or if the bad is endemic to the culture. I don't think you can say that of every fandom, or of gaming enthusiasts in general in 2023. And specifically I don't think it's fair to compare to the Valorant fanbase to something like the 2004 Smash Bros Melee fanbase.

There's still progress to be made and bad eggs to be found in every basket, but I think there's been enough mainstream attention and a hot enough crucible of scrutiny that we are for the most part beyond the era of "this tournament brought to you by actual rapists and chomos, don't forget to bring your racist slurs, misogyny, and homophobic taunts to the stage for everyone to enjoy"

I agree that most species surviving mass extinction events were just lucky, but I think that also says something special about the ones that survived MULTIPLE events (ants), or those that effectively re evolved into existence after extinction events (crabs)

I think that's been narrowed down to about 2 million years. But that got cut short by a mass extinction event, so it's hard to say how long they would have lasted otherwise.

There are no capital-G Gamers following Valorant.

Remember that video games are now the largest media industry in the world. Remember that gamergate happened almost 10 years ago now, and that Valorant is only 3 years old.

The kids playing and watching Valorant probably don't even know enough about the controversy to make the connection. They just know an asshole when they see one.

Honestly I don't even think capital-G Gamers play games anymore. It's an aging demographic that is too bitter and stupid to keep up.

Also what's the definition of "passing?" The dinos we are talking about are extinct, they didn't "pass" for long. A+ creatures things like alligators, ants, and crabs. On average a given species survives around a million years before going extinct. How long do you have to exist before you're considered a successful species?