BmeBenji (he/him)

I take it you’re part of the “most people” to which the title question is referring

Sounds like you’re part of the “most people” to which the question is referring

Lawbreakers.

I swear, people wanted that game to fail because everyone thought Cliff Blezinski was too full of himself when he was advertising it. The main gripe people seemed to have with it was that it was “too much like Overwatch.” That game had less in common with Overwatch than Titanfall has in common with Apex Legends. The other most-repeated gripe was that people were fatigued with the “hero shooter” genre. Well here we are 9 years later and every “new” FPS is some new remix of a hero shooter, so obviously that wasn’t the case.

This game single-handedly convinced me that I grew up too late to experience what would have been my favorite era of multiplayer video games - the golden era of arena shooters. This game was balls-to-the-wall fast with a ridiculously high TTK in the best way possible. To win a gunfight you had to be dead-on precise with your aim while your target was slingshotting, kicksliding, or literally jetting through the sky, and the zero-G zones of the maps meant you could never predict the path they were going to follow.

The only other game that I thought ever came close to being similarly fun was Titanfall 2, but that game suffered a little from the CoD-inspired blink-and-you’ll-miss-it TTK for the pilots.

Lawbreakers never got its chance thanks to all the misguided hate. The devs and designers were incredibly talented and deserved better than for their studio to go out with the whimper that was Radical Heights

Burnout Paradise is the first that comes to mind. In my head it’s the best racing game I’ve ever played. Whenever I see discussions of the Burnout series on the internet, everyone raves about the series but noone mentions Burnout Paradise.

I imagine it’s because they just liked the older ones more, but I never played them so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Caves of Qud. I’m still on the fence about whether or not I like the perma-death mode, but the writing is fantastically poetic and it’s clear the systems of interactivity in the game world are expansive beyond what I could ever hope to really comprehend.

Exactly. Lilith Walther loves that aesthetic so much that she animates and builds entire games in it today

New video games.

I understand the hype around a new game you’re specifically looking forward to, but people drag the Steam Deck because it’s “not powerful enough” for the latest AAAA game. Have you seen the disgustingly huge catalog of old amazing games from the 6th, 7th, and 8th console generations that are perfectly playable on the Steam Deck? How many games have gen Z and gen Alpha missed out on simply because they’re “old.”

I 100% agree. TLOU is a very basic game, however it’s magnificently well put together.

The core gameplay mechanics are very simple, but the AI of the enemies is great. The story is very derivative and unoriginal (right up until the last 5 minutes) but it’s extremely well told.

All that said, The Last of Us Part 2 more than makes up for it. EVERYTHING is improved. The story is engaging, , well-told, and gripping. The gameplay is weightier and grounded and intense. There were so many times I forgot I was playing a game with zombies in it.

If you can bare TLOU, it’s worth it for the context you get for playing the sequel.

If you ask me, playing on lower difficulties is boring. But there’s an insane rush from the challenge and chaos on the higher difficulties. Also the core mechanics mesh so well together; every action feels heavy and like a tactical decision.

I don’t believe them. They just think that lying to the public will sell more PS5s… somehow

Yeah you’re right, the main goal of science and the math we use for science is to model the universe. That model is completely subjective. The more we learn about the universe, the more the model changes. The way we learn is limited by our 5 senses and our mental models for the immediate universe around us.

That model is something of a language itself, and if a language is subjectively limited then I don’t think it can be universal

I think it’s funny to think of mathematics as a universal language because all of formal logic is built on the assumption that binary truth values are grounded in reality, but I believe that has yet to be proven. All of human communication functions based on an assumed shared context.

If I say I have an apple, and you say you have an apple, humans would say that together we have two apples but in reality we each have an estimated collection of matter that shares nothing physically in common with the other. Maybe other intelligent life forms don’t make the same assumptions that we do that lead to the statement that there are two “apples,” and maybe mathematics isn’t universal.

I guess I mean to say that formal logic and mathematics are not grounded in reality, but are grounded in the way that a human brain perceives reality.