- Are you AI/bot?
- Wall of text = incomprehensible, would not read/5.
- It’s rarely about how good the devices are, but how much they cost + Apple’s two-faced moral model that makes people oppose/reject it.
Ah, I see. You’d want more diversity or substance to the dungeons, not length, or puzzles.
Would you exchange it for less dungeons? I mean, smaller number of them, but each distinctive?
And if so, how would you predict it’d change the dynamics of the game? Because now dungeons are pretty much “loot trips”, or locations required to solve some quests only. You know, "Oh, I need me some good weaponry, I’m gonna raid a few tombs and see where it’s going to get me.
(Asking as a worldbuilder).
What would you require of plain, simple dungeons?
I honestly don’t get it.
What we’re seeing in Bethesda’s design are more and more vibrant worlds - modern NPCs walk around, sit on whatever benches they see, react to day/night cycles, use the objects around them, comment on how you’re looking, what you’re wearing (or not), hear about your exploits. Not every NPC is ready to break to you his sad story worth a doctorate in psychology, but which one does?
Even in games one may consider deep you will still find shopkeepers with same lines, or NPCs standing there, in the same spot, no matter whether it rains or not, ready to give you what is essentially a FedEx quest, no matter how many sentences they are going to express it with. You can break a fight in many deep games, and nobody around will mind it - attack a villager in Skyrim and guards and other denizens won’t take this shit kindly.
Heck, the lore is vast, even since Daggerfall or Morrowind you had in-game books to find and read, stories to pursue, myths and legends to learn.
The style, the tone, the predictability are things that definitely might use more attention, but I definitely wouldn’t call it a shallow design.
Only one hour?
HEATHEN! PHILISTINE! 😉
OSIRIS is pretty much what you described, Starbourne 2 I know only from gameplays on YT, but I’m planning to try it “later”. 😉
In the meantime, I already think about spaceships I’m gonna build in Starfield.
A game shouldn’t be considered “rock-solid” because a ton of dedicated and skilled fans make the game fun to play.
Why not?
Also, not “fun to play”. FUNNIER…
The game isn’t rock-solid, the modders are.
Do their mods run without the game? And while at that, are all mods good, stable, logical, lore-friendly, etc, etc?
I prefer Fallout: Tactics to vanilla F:NV.
If not for DLCs that offer something wildly different in their own separate maps, I’d call it the worst Fallout game I’ve been playing…
I don’t get that “shallow” part.
In Bethesda’s worlds there’s always something going on, something new to discover, something new to learn… Providing you put an effort to pursue that. These games don’t force themselves upon the player, they leave helluva room for breathing, caring about whatever small goals you may set upon yourself, but that’s not “bad”, isn’t it?
I never understood the hate Bethesda’s open world sandboxes get. Give them a few months of time for patching & modding and they become rock-solid games to enjoy for decades. I don’t expect Starfield to be anything less and I hope it will be far more than that.
By the way… OSIRIS: New Dawn and SpaceBourne 2 - have you tried either?
There are no relevant studies concerning the topic. What might seem like a widespread trend, might as well be merely a local peculiarity.
Oh, I wouldn’t ever suggest that the method does everything its author says it does - the claims of helping in cancer cases and such are wee bit too “optimistic”.
But the question was concerning the possibility to build up cold immunity. And the answer is “yes”. The method I mentioned absolutely will build up cold’s immunity (or resistance, or tolerance if language purism is a factor) in everyone who will attempt it.
There’s no magic hocus-pocus in it. It’s very simple concept used in many “methods” - Buteyko comes to mind, so does Russian Siberia.
I have no idea whom I’m talking to in the 'Net.
Neither have you. Nor anybody else…
Can you give me an example?
Of course, but bear in mind it’s going to be a crude, primitive example.
Imagine me talking to - unknown fact to me - a pedophile over the Internet. For reasons unknown I made him angry. Angry enough to stalk me, invade the privacy of my home and steal my child, just to make me suffer because he felt I did him wrong.
My anonymity protects me against such an occurrence.
Advertisement. Malware. Scams. Abuse of trust. Current and future exploits that I have no knowledge, or understanding of.
No. I don’t enjoy being anonymous, but the problem lies in bodies, organizations, and people abusing the non-anonymity.
It’s like
Do you understand the difference?
Because we do not enjoy the invasion on our privacy.
That’s well said, but I think you’re forgetting about something: it’s one thing to judge a guy based on his beliefs. But it’s his attitude, how he explains his position, how he discusses it is entirely another pair of galoshes, so to speak.
Imagine a guy, who calmly explains that he was doing some research and based on sources he finds credible, he rejects the theory of evolution. You’d probably find such a discussant, and a discussion with him enjoyable, possibly fun, perhaps even enough to revise a few ideas of yours.
Now imagine a guy, who, with fiery eyes and in semi-coherent manner calls you names and insults you the moment you observe that the evolution is real. “Okkkkkkkkk…”
The fact is, that whether we come from the world of pure faith, or follow cold scientific model, at some point we all have to put our trust that some axioms given to us by other people are, well, “axioms” - things we don’t question, that we take for granted. In reality, there are no axioms. Just some approximations we can’t deny. Yet.