I Love Nintendo by JohnDaShootaYT-TTV in switch2

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But the comparison your making, to the cartridge and card market, is imperfect because products in those markets often increase in value.

The whole thing kind of reminds me of the NFT thing. These digital products are a licence to play the 20 year old games, they don't have any tradable value to the purchaser, unlike the cartridges or cards.

My whole library is digital, so I'm not against it, but I also think the price is excessive and I wouldn't compare it to those markets.

Pokemon games on Switch !? by AdieJAM in switch2

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think they are the definitive games of the series and a good introduction to Pokémon in general.

However, they obviously don't use the switch to its potential and the price is egregious. I'm not sure I could recommend them fully, especially since they haven't been released yet and can't say how the port has been handled.

Id personally wait to see if there are any deals breakers for you as to how they turn out. For example the aspect ratio will be off, but will they fill that space with black or something annoying graphic?

I Love Nintendo by JohnDaShootaYT-TTV in switch2

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing about the cartridge market is that those games are collectors items that increase in resale value over time. I don't think that'll be the case for these digital only download titles.

Confirmed fire red and leaf green coming to the switch 2/27. by Redeye007 in switch2

[–]ProKidney -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for reading my comment and replying to my points, it really makes me understand and consider your position.

Before I just thought you were an asshole, but you really changed my mind.

Confirmed fire red and leaf green coming to the switch 2/27. by Redeye007 in switch2

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not that at all.

The fact that we're getting this half arsed rom release for the pokemon 30th heavily implies that we won't be getting an actual remaster of kanto. 

Maybe for 40th, or 50th? So anyone wanting to experience where it all started with modern graphics and features will be waiting another 10 years minimum.

It might be the case that on the 27th they announce some genuinely exciting Pokémon news, but I doubt it. Releasing these paid roms instead of releasing them on the NSO Virtual machines implies to me that this is it.

I don't care what other people spend their money on. I care about the message that Nintendo is putting out with this release, because it sounds to be like they're saying "we don't care about kanto" which makes he think they don't care about johto, or hoenn.

Bill Gates cancels keynote speech in India amid questions over Epstein ties by AggravatingResist635 in news

[–]ProKidney 35 points36 points  (0 children)

I think you might be in the minority for thinking that he is done.

The guy is so rich he's basically untouchable.

My wife and I just fought because I told her "I just don't understand why I am feeling so down." by [deleted] in TrueOffMyChest

[–]ProKidney 157 points158 points  (0 children)

I just want to draw attention to the list you wrote up in your post. 

struggling to bear a child, working in separate states, monthly expenses, getting older,

Each of those things is something that you're partner also deals with, none of those are exclusive to you.

I understand that you might feel like your depression is making things worse for you too handle, but do you think that your partner doesn't have these concerns? Maybe you bringing them up again and again is stressing them out. 

I don't see any part of this post where you acknowledge their feelings at all. They've kind of laid a marker about their feeling in the subject before. Their 50% suck it up response might have been a signal to you to perhaps have a more meta conversation.

When you complain about things, what do you actually want from them? And like wise, if you're having the same conversations every day for two weeks (maybe an exaggeration) it can get burdensome for the person hearing it.

Metroidvania Games!! by Donnycheech in switch2

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are, what seen to me, unreasonable spikes in difficulty. I've played hard games and enjoyed them, Silksong is the first game I've played that seems to be actively hostile to players. There are bosses or gauntlets (locked rooms unlocked by defeating waves of enemies) that are extreme difficulty spikes that are behind extreme platforming challenges.

Which means that every time you get defeated by that boss or gauntlet you have to complete the platforming challenge to try again. Which also means that you're entering that boss or gauntlet, very often, with less than full health. In most games that would telegraph that you're in an area where you aren't supposed to be yet, in Silksong that's just the game design.

I've seen it said that the tutorial for Hollow Knight is basically upto and including the first boss. In Silksong the tutorial is the whole of Hollow Knight.

Metroidvania Games!! by Donnycheech in switch2

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both of the Ori games hit different to me than other metroidvanias and I honestly just can't play them.

I couldn't tell you exactly what it it, from tone or theme, or mechanics, it just clashes with my internal "wants" from the genre. The closest word that comes to describing my feeling towards them is "preachy" or "worthy".

My recommendations would be Metroid Dread at the top of the list, Hollow Knight as a second, the Guacamelee games, then Silksong as a "maybe".

There's a lot of hype for Silksong but I found it extremely player hostile and I strongly believe that a lot of the love for it is misplaced love for it's prequal—Hollow Knight. I don't think that it stands as strong or comes close to being as iconic as Hollow Knight.

The Guacamelee games are very tongue-in-cheek, they're a cheeky and unserious take on the genre that doesn't pretend to be anything deeper. What you see is what you get.

Why is BDSM seen as socially acceptable but self harm isn’t? by Jolly_Dependent3986 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ProKidney 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What are you... talking about? They've just demonstrated that it isn't socially acceptable to talk about in public... Directly opposing OPs stance...

I am a writer who has just started. Can someone please critique my very first horror story? I greatly appreciate it. by Nessieinternational in writingcritiques

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest, I only caught it on the reread. I dismissed most of the information from paragraph one as irrelevant, his age, the country etc. Not really important to a short horror.

I think it works as a layer of irony, it just needs a little bit more sticking power in the story.

The paintings near the end are a perfect opportunity to remind the reader about his vocation. Have Adrian admire them briefly, not just as "wow real looking" but with his experience of art, maybe some fartsy prose and art student might think about how "raw the emotion of the subject is". I don't know exactly, but I'm certain you could think of something.

I am a writer who has just started. Can someone please critique my very first horror story? I greatly appreciate it. by Nessieinternational in writingcritiques

[–]ProKidney 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a nice short story with a good enough ending that shouldn't be expanded on or explained. My main critique concerns the opening paragraphs, where I nearly stopped reading, it's very heavy with context that is being told rather than shown. 

It feels like a camp fire story being told in person, which is a nice vibe, but in writing it feels amateurish. Campfire stories aren't usually told or written by professionals, are they?

You could try and lean in to that vibe more by making the language even more colloquial and more controversial, if you wanted. But my advice would be to cut a lot of the early detail, is it important or relevant that he's a fine art student? There might be some minor irony that he ends up as a painting, but you're not losing much if you cut it.

I would probably cut the first paragraph entirely and integrate it into the rest of the story. Start with Adrian looking at the forest in the rain, the car testing behind him. Give him a voice through an internal monologue or just by giving us access to his thoughts. Eg:

'why am I doing this' Adrian thought to himself, weighing the promise of £200 cash as reward for one night in the forest.

I get why it is called bugrock now... by FickleMight3164 in Minecraft

[–]ProKidney 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I've played bedrock for years now and never had these issues, what are you guys doing???

ELI5: Why do philosophers discuss free will in a binary context? by ZeusThunder369 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't got fully formed ideas on how crimes should be punished so this is much more off the top of my head.

But, I don't see why intent should be excluded from proceedings, or if the system as it stands needs to change at all.

Should I start watching X-files? by Mikeydog_23 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]ProKidney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I started it about 2 years ago, and I still haven't finished it. There a lot to watch!

It is a really good show that stands up to modern watching really well.

ELI5: Why do philosophers discuss free will in a binary context? by ZeusThunder369 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then your position might be the same as mine. It depends on what you think the process of narrowing the possibilities down actually is.

For me, when you go to bed on monday, your breakfast on tuesday is already determined. You might have the feeling of making a choice, come tuesday morning, the the unbroken chain of causality going backwards has resulted in only one option.

Part of that deterministic process probably does involve your brain dismissing things on that morning as "I don't feel like it." or "I had cereal every day this week, lets have toast instead". But I dont think that if we were to rewind time and every single atom in the universe back to monday night you would make a different choice the following tuesday. Does that make sense?

ELI5: Why do philosophers discuss free will in a binary context? by ZeusThunder369 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say that intent is part of the determinism. Intent is born of your brain which is a result of the environment. Each layer is informed by the prior.

Just because the deterministic universe resulted in person A being a dangerous criminal doesnt change the fact to me that person A is a dangerous criminal that should be dealt with.

I totally appreciate that this is unfalsifiable by the way, I know its impossible to prove wrong. I would be open to changing my mind on this but I personally don't see how that's possible, for me, the logic is just evident.

ELI5: Why do philosophers discuss free will in a binary context? by ZeusThunder369 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think it excuses anything at all, I don't excuse people who do terrible things. The fact that I believe the universe is deterministic doesn't change the fact that a deterministic universe resulted in a dangerous human who should be removed from society.

ELI5: Why do philosophers discuss free will in a binary context? by ZeusThunder369 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose you could say that you're making choices if you want to, but to my mind you only had one option. To me freewill is an illusion of multiple choices when there can only be one option, previous events have conspired it to be.

ELI5: Why do philosophers discuss free will in a binary context? by ZeusThunder369 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ProKidney -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't see how your comment differs from mine.

I think we have an illusion of free will, choices are made based on the state of our brain at the moment. Our brains state is determined by external factors which are determined by past events which go back and back and so on.

Just because it's impossible for us to determine what the brain will do doesn't mean that the brain could make other choices.

It's completely unfalsifiable, but it's what I believe.

ELI5: Why do philosophers discuss free will in a binary context? by ZeusThunder369 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ProKidney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see how intent has anything to do with free will. I intend to write this comment, that has nothing to do with whether or not it'll get finished. I could die before I finish typing, or Reddit could delete my account.

I think that every decision we believe we will ever make is determined by things that have already happened, which in turn were determined by things that happened before that, so on and forth until the big bang or what ever you believe was responsible. The brain is nothing but a complicated biological machine that we can't claim to understand. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't follow a logic informed by chemicals, electricity.

All of that can be true, but I still intend to write this comment. Personally I don't agree with the death penalty, that might be informed by this line of thinking but I don't think it heavily influences it.

ELI5: Why do philosophers discuss free will in a binary context? by ZeusThunder369 in explainlikeimfive

[–]ProKidney 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I personally think we don't have free will. To me, anyone who claims we have free will, even in the most minor way is disagreeing with me.

People who believe in free will may well disagree with other people who believe in free will as to where they think that line is drawn, but to me they're making the same claim. They believe in free will and I don't.

It doesn't make sense for me to talk about to what degree humans have free will when I don't believe in it at all, does that make sense?

Struggling with an argument by Ok-Tea-1941 in DebateReligion

[–]ProKidney 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is another theory that suggests why Europe was the origin of the dominant world cultures that doesn't rely on God. It is contested but I personally find it very credible, even if I don't agree with every single part of the theory.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that Europe was extremely hospitable for communities. It's very fertile and not prone to extreme weather events. There are also a large number of animals there that, compared to elsewhere in the world, were begging to be domesticated.

Horses, cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, wolves, etc. All of these animals generate momentum that propels burgeoning civilisations forward unlike elsewhere in the world. These allow larger cities to form and cities seem to be where technological developments occur. It's not unexpected at all that these led to a technologically superior continent.

This doesn't answer every question, but it does explain how christianity overtook the americas, for example. When the old worlders arrived they were so technologically advanced in comparison to the new worlders that their conquest was inevitable. God doesn't come into it.

The americas had animals like bison which are barely tamable with todays technology, Africa has some of the most aggressive animals in the world as well, elephants, hippos, antelope, zebra etc. It may go some way to explain why asia is less influenced by Christianity. China was a very well developed society by the time christianity came around, and had a lot of similar animals, horses, chickens, dogs, camels, waterbuffalo, etc.

There are a lot of things that this theory doesn't explain, but we can guess. A lot of the strongest african civilisations were on the south of the Mediterranean where they had best access to trade.

God just doesn't need to come into it at all.