Posts by Lace Sabatons

It was 20 or more alerts for sure, I actually assumed they were just old threads and ignored most of them. But I'm starting to notice you tagged me way more than I thought, and maybe I need to start digging through those alerts.

Best Mario game since 64 as far as I'm concerned.

I beat the game awhile ago, and I'm going back to get more of the moons now. Though I'm a little annoyed with the way the shops work after you finish the story, where it lets you buy moons that are out in the world, but doesn't tell you it's doing that.

Mario Odyssey is a fuckin' great game. Like, it's been 20 years since the last Mario game that was this good. I'm not very original for saying that, but I want to get it on record before I criticize what I don't like about it.

But it has got me thinking. The basic formula of a Mario game is a pretty well documented thing. A new mechanic is introduced in a safe environment, then iterated on with gradually increasing complexity. Think about the first level of the first Mario game: you jump over a lot of pipes before they ask you to jump over your first pit.

It's a simple formula, but really effective at producing fun gameplay. In the more recent titles, the formula has started to be ever more on-the-nose. At the same time, the series has started to feel more and more hollow to me, which is why I've played fewer and fewer of them as they've come out.

Part of that is just the bloat and fatigue inherent in a series that has been ongoing for 30-some years now. It's descended into self-parody, which is really the only thing you can do when you're obligated to tell the same story so many times over. But like many other problems in video games, I think the core of it is that these games "benefit" from having too much disk space to work with.

In newer Mario games--including Odyssey--each new level introduces a new mechanic. Like always, it's introduced in safety, then an element of danger is added, then a twist, then a complication, and then everything is thrown together and amped up to 10, and when you get past it, you get whatever the game's cookie is. A star, a moon, the end of the level, etc.

That's all fine, but the weird thing is that they then throw the mechanic away, and start fresh with new stuff in the next level. Once you've played that mechanic's level, it'll never show up again.

In the older games, they couldn't get away with that sort of thing. They had to stretch a lot fewer tools over a lot more space, and they had to get creative about new challenges. Mechanics got mixed and remixed together in so many different ways, that by the end of the game the player had truly mastered them.

It's certainly fun, in Mario Odyssey, to play around with a new creature to posses in each level. But I don't feel like any of them are explored as deeply as they could be. They go by too fast.

Also, while I'm on the subject of criticizing this mostly-amazing game, it's bullshit that they brought the long jump back, but nerfed it so you can't grab on to ledges at the end. I get that they want you to use cappy to reach stuff that is far away, but that's dumb. They did the same thing in Sunshine, with the goddamn F.L.U.D.D. The joy of Mario 64 was having a robust and diverse moveset that felt natural to use, and then throwing the player into environments where their mastery of that moveset would be tested. It's one thing for later games to have a gimmick, it's another for that gimmick to encroach upon the naturalness of the moveset.

Shit, I coulda started drawing a pension?

No, not at all, it just seemed like a coordinated bit between you two. =P

I'm serious about the Valentines day thing.

If I go to the Discord chat, am I going to see a conversation about how funny it would be to tag me repeatedly in a thread? =P

For Valentines day: come up with a new zelda ship. If we google the ship you submit, and other people are talking about it somewhere, you're disqualified.

Convince us your ship is fuckin hot, in whatever way you think is appropriate. Argue for it, write slash fiction for it, draw porn of it, whatever.

The hottest ship wins.

I just have too much work to do right now.

Are you thinking of the Space Quest games? They star a dude named Roger Wilco.

So, is the master sword affected by the weapon durability system?

The original contra is a favorite of mine as well. Though I actually like Contra 3 for the SNES best.

I had an NES and a Commodore 64, in that order.

Shit, are we not supposed to be saying 'fuck?'

Welcome to the forums, Eduardo.

That's friggin nutso, I love it.

Is "Divine Beasts" a BotW thing?

Can you put some foam in there?

I'm surprised to hear it scratches THAT easily.

The rest sounds pretty much like what I figured.

Yeah, the Switch seems more like a technological sidestep than an upgrade.

They didn't make a new console because they wanted to push forward. They made a new console because nobody realized the WiiU existed, and they had to abandon the sinking ship.

Quote

Planned economies are neither adaptable nor do they evolve in the selective sense. And planned economies require a great deal of centralized control, which requires... leaders with too much control.

A Communist society does not necessarily have a planned economy. It may have a managed economy, with restrictions on profit, but there's no need to have the government set the price of every good.

Quote

Having Walmart as a separate entity to CNN divides that control. This is why there is (ironically) so much left-wing protest when big corporate buy-outs happen, because they don't to see any one entity holding all the cards. Except if it's the government that is, and suddenly it's called communism and it's somehow sensible, like they wouldn't abuse that power.

Corporations only compete in the marketplace. When they're dictating how the government will function, they work together.

If two people are working cooperating while trying to kill you, it doesn't matter that they root for different sports teams.

Quote

Even if you were lucky enough to get a communist government in with a great and noble leader(s), you'd only be safe for a generation at most.

Except every few years, you just elect new leaders. Similar to how capitalist governments do it, except under communism, those leaders actually would be answerable to the people, rather than to the capitalists.

Quote

Capitalism runs itself, that's why it works.

The 21,000 people who die of starvation every day might disagree about how well capitalism is working.

So might the the growing percentage of the first world population which is living with poverty and disenfranchisement.

Quote

Description of selective evolution in capitalism:
Company A selects their CEO based on capability, Company B based on inheritance or corruption. Company A is better led and outcompetes Company B - the market has evolved through economic selection. This sort of thing is impossible without competition.

If you're arguing that the job of CEO is possible to do poorly, and that a poor performance by a CEO will (occasionally) lead to a failed business, I agree. That's fairly trivial. Of course, as I said above, nothing about the job of CEO requires that the person doing the job be propelled into the ruling class of society. They could just as easily do their job well (or poorly) if they made a modest living. And hey! There wouldn't be any incentive for corruption or nepotism if the job wasn't so lucrative.

Not that it matters either way. The company that succeeds will be whichever one was lucky enough to hire the person who has an amazing idea that their CEO will take credit for.

Steve Wozniak is a genius.
Steve Jobs was a leech, and the world is better without him.

Quote

ASIDE: I think the gradual improvement of the poor is now inevitable.

The wage gap has steadily increased for decades. Cost of living has steadily risen. The idea that that plight of the poor is improving is demonstrably, mathematically false.

Quote

Poorer countries are poor usually because of corruption, war, or simply being behind. Some of it is admittedly caused by western military adventure.

*Entirely. Entirely caused by Western military adventure.

Countries that are corrupt are often corrupt because we propped up corrupt leaders. Countries that are poor are poor because we stole their resources, then imposed capitalism upon them.

Quote from Silent Lion

Republicanism vs Monarchy is another debate.

Not really.

I'll admit that I know basically nothing about the United Kingdom, so as the initial thrust of your argument focused pretty much entirely on how things are in the UK, I was limited in how I could respond. I'm dubious of your claim that poverty is pretty much A-OK in the UK, but I'm not going to argue with someone about living conditions in the place they live, when I've never been there.

But my point wasn't that you have a queen and monarchism is bad. My point is that you have people with a criminal amount of wealth. Some of them stole their wealth from the commons of yore, and simply had it passed down generation to generation. Others stole their wealth from the working class through the capitalist machine. In the end, the wealthy capitalist and the wealthy monarchist are the same. They are criminals, hoarding stolen wealth while millions of people live in squalor.

Quote

Morality

Quote

Just to frame things, I'm a consequentialist following happiness/suffering. We may need to debate that if it turns out to be the crux of our differing views.

As an axiom, I don't find this terribly objectionable. However, I reject the moralist mindset. The structure of dividing actions into the categories of "right" and "wrong" is flawed. It exists to benefit the ruling class, who throughout history have ignored it to instead focus on whether an action is effective, or ineffective. They act within the strictures of lower class morality only insofar as necessary to maintain their power base.

I also object to happiness as a metric for pretty much anything. "Happiness" as a state of being is nonsense. It elevates a stagnant contentment to some kind of ideal. Life is struggle, and no joy exists without suffering. Rather than happiness, I would prefer to pursue ensuring that every human has as much freedom of action as possible: both as an individual, and as a partner in the various collectives that make up our lives (work, government, neighborhood, etc). Note that in order for a person to have the maximum freedom of action, they must also have the maximum number of opportunities. The "Freedom" to go to college is meaningless if a person doesn't have the means to go to college.

Quote

I do not believe in justice, punishment or reward except as tools for behavioral modification.

I more or less agree.

Quote

In short, the concept of 'deserving' is empty and dangerous.

I'm trying to find a charitable way to read this, but I can't. I don't think you actually mean what is said here. If I said "A person who does a hard day's work deserves to get paid for it," the concept you've stated here would seem to imply that it is dangerous for a person to expect recompense for their work.

Quote

Thus I have no need for equality in income. Imagining I was representative of the poorest (hypothetically), I couldn't care less how much better Mr. X has things, so long as I'm comfortable. My happiness is absolute, not relative. Bringing them down to my level does not increase my happiness, it only decreases theirs, thus it is immoral.

In your argument, you extrapolate pretty wildly from your own happiness/comfort. You seem like a pretty happy guy overall, so I don't think you're a very good metric. As you say below, you're unusual in this sense.

Assuming consequentialism following happiness/suffering, it has been scientifically demonstrated that human happiness peaks at an income of around $60k-$75k per year, USD. Any less than that, and most people will be unable to tick all boxes on the hierarchy of needs. People who make more than that do not report higher levels of happiness. And, indeed, I'm sure we're all familiar with how the wealthy can begin to lose touch with other humans because they lack any grounding in the realities of most humans' lives.

So, by your axiom, wealth redistribution is necessary. It will help all of those people below the $60k threshold to raise their happiness. Meanwhile, those who lose wealth will undoubtedly experience some unhappiness, because their baseline for how life works has been set so high (which was only possible through the suffering of others). Some of them will adjust, and find happiness again. After all, they still have enough money to meet all of their needs. Others may not find happiness again, which is unfortunate. Their minds have been poisoned by the unhealthy expectations set for them by living in a capitalist society. However, since the happiness of so many will depend upon the suffering of so few, it's a sacrifice we should be happy to make as a society. Especially since the root of that "suffering" is living what would be considered an upper-middle-class lifestyle in a first world country. The horror.

Quote

Human Need

Quote

I realize I'm unusual in this, and that it's very human to measure one's standard of living by looking at the guy next to you. But that doesn't make it any more logical (or emotionally healthy). If I've eaten a little too much, but I see the guy next to me has eaten himself into a coma, should I suddenly feel hungry by comparison and eat myself to the point of vomiting?

You seem to have been spared most of the suffering in the world. Congratulations on that.

But just because you are happy, that does not mean other people are emotionally unhealthy for being unhappy.

You seem to be framing the situation like this: "Man, I sure enjoyed that slice of pie. But hey! Billie got TWO slices of pie. I WANT TWO SLICES OF PIE!!!"

When in fact, the situation is like this: "FUCK, I'm starving to death. I'm literally dying. Hey...look at that dude over there eating 30 pies. Lets go take some of his pies so we don't FUCKING DIE."

Again...21,000 people a day.

Every. Single. Day.

Quote

My basis for saying that my comfort is absolute, not relative, is that the human body and brain provide an absolute standard. As human beings, we have a list of needs, most of which are homeostatic. A certain balance of exercise and rest, of food groups, of water, of freedom vs boundary, of creative vs intellectual pursuits, etc etc etc. Once we start getting within those ranges, we have our needs met.

Which, as stated above, costs about $60k-$75k USD per year.

Quote

Efficacy

Quote

Then there is the most beaten track of communism debates, and that is the efficacy of differing systems.

Russia went from being one of the poorest nations in the world, to being in space, in a span of 50 years.

Most Communist nations are effective. Unfortunately, the managers of the collective affairs of the bourgeoisie (otherwise known as "Capitalist Governments") bend over backwards to sabotage communism wherever it appears. You don't need to look any further than the well documented CIA assassination attempts against Fidel Castro to see proof of how far capitalists will go to prevent workers from having power.

Quote

You cannot remove the ruling class, you can only replace one ruling class with another.

We call it "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat."

I agree that any system of governance will require some level of authoritarianism. That's why I'm a Communist, not an Anarchist.

Quote

A ruling class is the social projection of the human tendency to lead or be led.

Fiction. There is no such human tendency.

Leaders are useful when collective effort is required, but leaders do not persist because humans have a "tendency to be led." Leaders persisted first because they were strong and had all the swords, then because they were strong and had all the God, then because they were strong and had all the money. Humans have learned to survive in a world where oppressors demand to be called leaders. That does not mean that humans have a "tendency to be led."

Quote

There have been centuries of tears and blood shed to forge a system of rule that continues to improve. Democracy, transparency and regulation have only increased throughout history - that is, of course, until you get some catastrophic purge and start from scratch.

And now it's long past time to improve things still further. Things are not as good as they can be just because they're better than they once were. The feudal serf may be better off than a slave, but that doesn't mean that feudalism is a good system.

Quote

The thing is, unlike in previous systems of social organisation, our ruling class no longer contributes little or nothing. Company CEOs are necessary for the organisation and efficacy of the company. Companies are necessary for the adaptable and evolve-able provision of services and goods.

Nothing about the job of a CEO requires them to be positioned within the ruling class. The job could just as easily be done by someone earning a more modest living, with an equal say in governance.

I friggin' loathe the 'cinematic style.'

Just yesterday I did this bit that was meant to be some kind of jousting match on a bridge, and at the end there was this ludicrous slow-mo shot of Lunk rearing up on Epurna. The whole thing looked like it was made by a 14 year old who was trying too hard to seem cool.