Do we all have an internal compass because of the garden of eden, or from believing in Christianity? If it's just from the garden of eden and doesn't require belief, then atheists are just as moral as you are and your argument makes no sense.
If a moral compass comes from religious belief, then you are telling on yourself that you only abstain from being a shitty person because you're afraid of consequences from God.
I think it generated an interesting discussion, but that it was still trolling. You are a troll with self awareness - you should own it!
This argument always fascinates me because it makes it sound like you'd be a psychopath if you weren't afraid of the consequences. I have my own internal compass, thanks. People that don't? I'd rather stay away from them.
Isn't it textbook trolling to be intentionally abrasive to provoke conflict?
Omg I was just complaining about this in another thread. I wish it hadn't taken them so long, but I'm stoked it's happening!
I really wanted to love rain world since it seemed right up my alley. I bounced off it not because of the difficulty, but I think because the character's movement feels bad. You're slow, can't jump high, a lot of maneuvering is fiddly.
Maybe I'll try it again at some point though, because the world they made is brilliant and has interesting emergent behaviors.
I can see complaining about it if the game's design is affected by the changes. For example, the addition of compass/map markers greatly affects quest design.
It's also why imo some of elden ring's bosses suck if you try to solo them - they're designed with summons, spirits, and overleveling in consideration.
On the flipside it seems like the boss design in sekiro gets a lot of praise. I'm playing through sekiro now and don't have an opinion on it yet (though the combat does feel very good so far).
I'm not a git gud person (I'm quite the noob at souls games) though, and I hope they continue to make their games more accessible. But I understand how veteran fans of their games might be concerned about changes that may affect how they like to play.
That is a cool feature, and I do use it though in a different way. I made an alt account that I buy vr games on so that I can share them with friends. That way if a friend is playing one of my vr games through family share, it won't lock up all the games in my main account.
In the example you're talking about, say your SO is playing a game shared from your account - it locks up all the games in both accounts! Pretty annoying if you want to play a game, now.
But if it's a gog game, there's no issue at all.
I do know about that, but I want it to be as easy as clicking on a game to play it without worrying about toggling the mode. I know I could make a separate account for her too, but we share machines and again that becomes a barrier when wanting to just click a game to play it.
In this niche case, gog is just plain better.
I really like steam for its friends network and local streaming, but these are the reasons I occasionally buy on gog:
Games that my wife likes to play so that they don't tie up my steam account. I still find it weird that ALL games in steam get locked down when one is running. I understand it keeping the same game from being run more than once simultaneously, but more than that is unnecessary.
I also buy games on gog (when available) that I mod a lot, because it's really easy to stop updates on gog (updates often break mods).
It's understandable to be confused by it, I'm not sure why it makes you angry.
Even if you're familiar with the idea that some portion of the population is hierarchy/authoritarian prone, it makes you ask why. Then the answer just takes you one step deeper - that they like to see others suffer. Why? Because it makes them feel like they have it better than someone else, and that feels good. Well why does that make them feel good? Etc.
When you drill down enough you always get to "that's just the way it is", which isn't satisfying.
If someone is underpaid, that means they are working harder/longer than they should for the pay they get, right? Which means they are giving more than they are getting. That makes it the opposite of leaching.
Walmart is the one getting more than they should for the amount of pay they offer. So isn't it Walmart that is the leach in this example?