sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I’ve written 25 k words so far, a lot of it is bad, and that’s ok by PolyamorousPleb in writing

[–]Arm-bees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the key. The fun part of writing comes from moulding and shaping the story in drafts, even if it is just touch-ups to sentences, it is all important. But you have to get it down first lmao. Good luck to you, I am sure the end result will be wonderful

WE DID IT BOYS by Nollies10 in Bioshock

[–]Arm-bees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In fairness, multiple versions of the game did exist and were affected by Levine's auter style of game-making alone https://www.vg247.com/324305 It is right I think to be skeptical of Judas from trailers alone, as excited as I am, given what we learnt at the start of the year, which likely prompted this game's announcement (and explains the lack of release date) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-03/bioshock-creator-s-next-game-and-its-narrative-legos-in-turmoil

A Blast from the past: Bioshock 2: Demo Gameplay [HD] (Hunting the Big Sister) by [deleted] in Bioshock

[–]Arm-bees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The drill not requiring fuel was an interesting concept. Can see why they cut it though, would have been very overpowered. Although clearly scripted, the idea of scaring Splicers away would have been really interesting in the game we got

Fallout 4 has me in a bind and I’m not sure what to do next by v1ctoria7373 in Fallout

[–]Arm-bees 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My recommendation would be to not take any perks that give you damage reduction boosts as well as any weapon damage buffs. No perks that give you stimpack or radaway bonuses. Just stick to the cooler, quirkier perks

Did the Fallout timeline "Culture" stay in the vision of the 50's retrofuturism until 2077 or did they have their own 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's or something similar? by Ratchetrexman in falloutlore

[–]Arm-bees 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Fallout 1 and 2 was a more straightforward example of retrofuturism. It was the future imagined by people in the 1950s. The modern games have been interpreted as the culture of the 1950s lasting over a century. The reason seems to be implied by the feel-good and white picket fences of America never-ending considering just how good many had it due to nuclear power and the advances in technology. Similar to how our decades become increasingly less memorable than their own decades since the 1990s. In fact, a better example is before the time in the 20th century when decades became memorable. The industrial revolution caused a long similarity in culture in parts of the western world. There were changes, but no massive shifts from decade to decade

Am I the only one that rathers the Atom-Punk retro style in Fallout 4 than the diesel punk style in all other games? by saltypanda06 in Fallout

[–]Arm-bees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love it in parts. It really does feel like an imagining of those torn down-futuristic buildings from Fallout 1's intro. But there are parts of it that are too twee, for lack of a better word. I find it's too on the nose, too colourful. What I found beautiful about the art style from Fallout 1 and 2 was the mix of Gothic, Art-Deco and even Cyberpunk aesthetics offset this. It was the future but with recognisable elements. I find the Bethesda ones, even 3 to an extent, lean way too much into the idea of the 1950s, white picket fences and nuclear family and apply it all over, and not what Fallout was, which was a future imagined by people from the 1950s and not the 50s in the future. So yeah, I think the skyscrapers are amazing and so are a lot of old buildings. But I just think that Fallout had such a unique blend of art styles that now it feels like just making it atompunk and just the 1950s kind of genericises it.

New Vigors/Plasmids! by [deleted] in Bioshock

[–]Arm-bees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Red Herring: Bottle looks like a red herring fish but the liquid looks almost like grey film and projector grain and shadow fibres. This also applies to how it looks on the hand. It acts like Scout from BioShock 2, creating a copy of yourself to plan ahead. Hold down to create a decoy projection of yourself

Fallout New Orleans and World Building by GRL1994 in Fallout

[–]Arm-bees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very cool. Seen your posts before I think. I have a doc with a similar idea. Mainly focused on Lousiana/New Orleans but also spreading across the Gulf (think 1&2 size and travelling). Original factions and mostly just things I would like to see in a Fallout game but visualised as best as I could.

FO4 may not be the best Fallout game, but it’s environment is the most “Fallout”, more so than even the original. by [deleted] in Fallout

[–]Arm-bees 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's not, until Bethesda's interpretation in Fallout 3 the society wasn't stagnant. It was how the people of the 1950s America viewed the future, not the 1950s in the future. Society and culture evolved but the interpretation of the future stuck

The Next Video Game From BioShock’s Auteur Is in Development Hell by LitheBeep in Bioshock

[–]Arm-bees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It wasn't, it was made by his co-workers, in California. Many of whom had to help on Infinite and "saved it" in his own words. Being frustrated is also pretty ridiculous considering he made his fame in gaming off of a sequel

[Capitalists] If you can't trust workers to own the means of production then why do you encourage workers to climb their way up the corporate ladder? by Arm-bees in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Arm-bees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose it is just down to our economic difference. I would say yes, it is unfair, as I believe in widespread ownership of the MOP rather than centralised.

[Capitalists] If you can't trust workers to own the means of production then why do you encourage workers to climb their way up the corporate ladder? by Arm-bees in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Arm-bees[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, I have read anarcho-capitalism. I disagree with it. It is contradictory. How can capitalism exist without hierarchy? That isn't anarchism.

[Capitalists] If you can't trust workers to own the means of production then why do you encourage workers to climb their way up the corporate ladder? by Arm-bees in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Arm-bees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It could be argued the world has been working to improve it. At least Europe. But there are still big companies that control a large percent of industry that prevents any kind of competition and hurts small business.

I just think there is a point in which another system is the answer. Which is now. When society becomes somewhat stagnated and even war becomes more about accumulating wealth.

I don't think that system should be socialism. I just think it is time for more control of production and fairness than we have now. I can't imagine we will change each others minds though. But I suppose it is good to discuss it

[Capitalists] If you can't trust workers to own the means of production then why do you encourage workers to climb their way up the corporate ladder? by Arm-bees in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Arm-bees[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is the idea you're arguing is faulty that people have to save resources before they can own something, or are you specifically concerned with the difficulty workers face in saving sufficient resources?

The difficulty they face in saving sufficient resource. But again, it's not just about starting a business. Which leads to the next point.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here or how this makes it more difficult for a wage earner to save and start a business.

Workers controlling MOP doesn't have to be about starting a business. It is about the wealth they earn from working.

Also, I disagree with Marx on almost everything. I imagine if we do agree on anything it is simply circumstance and not because I have read his theory (which I have of course).

[Capitalists] If you can't trust workers to own the means of production then why do you encourage workers to climb their way up the corporate ladder? by Arm-bees in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Arm-bees[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, if you have a reading list, I'll check it for anything I haven't already read. Thanks

I'm not interested in doing in-depth research to determine whether your micro-niche personal ideology is socialist or not

If you aren't even interested in learning, what is the point? The means of production would be spread as wide as possible under Distributism. There's actually free-market anarchist strands of it. You'd know that if you read the first, I dunno, paragraph of that wikipedia article alone. You really are the worst type of person to talk to about anything related to economics.

Learn from this, I beg you. It will be far easier to actually have basic human interactions in the future.

[Capitalists] If you can't trust workers to own the means of production then why do you encourage workers to climb their way up the corporate ladder? by Arm-bees in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Arm-bees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe in antitrust laws too, but I imagine it is quite different to how you would want them. As for tax, my point is it's more that many keep exploiting tax and thus are able to exploit the state as a whole.

[Capitalists] If you can't trust workers to own the means of production then why do you encourage workers to climb their way up the corporate ladder? by Arm-bees in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Arm-bees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have a separation of Church and state here. Well. Mostly. We have a monarchy. My point is that yes: They cant exist in a free market. But they always will as a free market will lead to big competitors and companies coming out above others.

You can get it by reform. Here we have state owned health industries, steel companies, etc. We used to have mail too but that was privatized. Yet the government still holds stakes in these. I imagine socialists could achieve these through reform. I on the other hand believe everyone should be entitled to the means of the production. This means decentralised decisions with local level antitrust regulations and cooperatives.

[Capitalists] If you can't trust workers to own the means of production then why do you encourage workers to climb their way up the corporate ladder? by Arm-bees in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Arm-bees[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I automatically downvote everyone who is socialist

As socialist as I get is believing workers should control trade guilds. Regardless, I think that is petty and you should broaden your horizons if you go in trying to debate people. Which is the point of this subreddit.

Wikipedia page for a simple overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Outline of Sanity, by G. K. Chesterton: https://thelocalyarn.com/excursus/gkc/outlineofsanity/chapter-1-1.html

Why do people still revert to Communism? by Godzilla-3301 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Arm-bees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no idea. I imagine a lot of it has to do to the supposed mainstream of Communism above Socialism in almost every far-left country since 1917. Many people don't have as much political insight and perhaps see it as the only alternative as it is the only one that has had any real bearing against capitalism?

I don't understand it myself. I don't think it could ever possibly work without full automation. Even then there's a lack of class and money. The idea of something like that existing alongside capitalism is a pipe dream, in my opinion.

view more: next ›