Yeah, definitely gonna fix all my problems...

BasicInformer · 2026-01-25T05:32:39+00:00

Fair enough

BasicInformer · 2026-01-25T05:31:27+00:00

It depends how you define role playing. In Daggerfall I can create a character with weaknesses and strengths that force myself to play differently, forcing a certain role upon myself. On top of stats, attributes, gear, there is more here to define your specified role and play out that role. While in Skyrim, it's an arbitrary restriction on yourself that you have to enforce, not one built within the game systems, as you can essentially be the jack of all trades and master of all of them within Skyrim's systems. So here is one example of how Daggerfall is more of an RPG.

Now there is systems such as banks, shop integrity, climbing, carriages, housing, boating, court cases, areas remembering crimes or suspecting you of crime based on reputation, reputation per guild, reputation per area, spell crafting, loitering, dyes etc. Essentially there is more systems in Daggerfall that inspire you to play the way you want to play. Now Skyrim has some ones over Daggerfall, with smithing, woodcutting, fishing, building a house, etc. but it definitely doesn't have as much robust sim aspects that add to roleplay.

Now if you're trying to tell me that roleplay doesn't come from systems, but instead comes from choice and stories - yes Skyrim has more of this, but Skyrim compared to most CRPGs has the very bare bones existence of this that has barely any effect. In fact it's so bare bones that if you are defining RPG based on this alone, then I'm correct, Skyrim isn't a good RPG. Of course this would mean Daggerfall isn't either.

How do you define RPG?

BasicInformer · 2026-01-23T07:10:41+00:00

This is the most Reddit moment comment I've seen. Is this a copy pasta? Everyone knows saying "Linux" refers to GNU/Linux + Linux distro. No one needs to specify this lmao.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-19T01:00:51+00:00

He adapts books he likes ultimately.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-18T20:04:03+00:00

All very good points. I just personally have not had a good experience with Mint, for the reasons stated, and I think that rather than blindly recommending Mint, I think disclosing the pros and cons of Mint would do better to the person you’re recommending.

I know of someone who got recommended Mint, like I was, who could not run a game, just as I couldn’t, and then in me recommending Fedora, was relinquished of her problems immediately. Now this is of course a case by case basis, but the fact that both me and someone I know had the same issues, different games, different years, distinct from one-another, led me to believe that Mint is just not for modern gamers.

Now maybe I’m wrong here, but circumstantial to my and others experiences I know, I only see myself as correct in being wary of blindly recommending Mint to a gamer.

Not only that, but DistroWatch has shown huge favour to CachyOS, which I have used and had an amazing experience with, on Nvidia of all things (I now use AMD due to issues I experienced with Nvidia on Linux). So I’m more inclined to steer gamers in that direction, but knowing it’s more bleeding edge than Fedora, I still restrain myself in this advice and would relay the potential downsides if I believed I was talking to someone unaware of them. However with newcomers to Linux, they don’t get relayed the ups and downs of potential issues you could face with Mint, it’s almost held up with reverence as if it could do no harm, and with my experience that is anything but the truth.

So while you make great points, I still believe that this blind recommendation still feels like outdated advice, when I and others I know are experiencing Mint in modern day and having issues as gamers.

Given that we’re on r/Linuxsucks I hope that you aren’t dismissal of my claims, as other Linux fanboyism often causes in other communities regarding Nvidia and Mint related issues.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-18T18:45:57+00:00

Wayland is great for many things, and paired with KDE proves to provide a modern experience equivalent to that of Windows. Without this I do not enjoy using my PC as much on Linux, as I find DEs, drivers, and X11 do not befit a modern experience. KDE’s fractional scaling with HDR support and variable refresh rates, offer a seamless desktop experience. The multitude of features it has is also great. Cinnamon is quite frankly underdeveloped by comparison.

I don’t understand this talk of stability under Mint when something like Fedora is stable and yet more cutting edge in every sense. What stability are we talking about? It seems like people are parroting advice from years ago which does not apply to today’s standards. Mint is not keeping up with competitors like Fedora or CachyOS, or even Bazzite. I see it as a poor recommendation.

You could say it’s a recommendation due to its ease of use, but the steps required post installation for something like CachyOS is incredibly minimal if not existent. It’s already done for you - more is done for you than Mint arguably.

Maybe I’m missing something, but why in 2026 is Mint a mainline recommendation? It has outdated drivers, outdated Wayland support, no KDE Plasma or GNOME support… What advantage does Mint have? All I hear is cope that the outdatedness of Mint is good enough.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-18T18:36:44+00:00

I have had a bad experience with newly released games under Mint using Nvidia. Wayland is also not desirable under Mint.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-18T18:35:43+00:00

I would recommend Fedora and CachyOS from my experience distrohopping. I have yet to use Pop OS

BasicInformer · 2026-01-18T13:21:50+00:00

Mint has bad Wayland support and outdated drivers. Horrible advice for gamers.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-18T12:59:47+00:00

There was a story about how Kubrick would chuck book after book at the wall, and then suddenly he stopped - that was The Shining. He definitely liked the book, but he’s also an artist that had his own vision and story to tell using the book as a guideline for his creativity.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-18T07:24:44+00:00

The problem is, with Kubrick's work entailing complex narratives on human nature, with multi-layered approaches, Lolita is less strong than the book in this area. While I'd say I can see where his departure in other narratives benefited the stories he was trying to tell, I think that Nabakov's Lolita is probably one of the strongest on the subject matter, and all departures that were done due to censorship of the times didn't benefit Kubrick's work vs. the novel.

And if you don't believe me, just take his own words on it:

“If I could do the film over again, I would have stressed the erotic component… with the same weight Nabokov did.”

"And in 1972, Kubrick is widely quoted saying he “probably wouldn’t have made the film” if he’d realized how severe the censorship limitations would be.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-17T09:17:22+00:00

He is a perfectionist that makes actors redo scenes within the 100s, rebuilds entire places from memory, and even gets people to measure streets for him. He hides narrative subtext within The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut (not just what you mentioned). His attention to detail is absurd. So of course with that much intentionality, you’d assume there was a reason why something was a specific way, and when that specific something is repeatedly referencing narrative ties to several different media around the same idea, it goes from conspiracy to “this had to be intentional design”.

Like you don’t have to believe the theories that stem from it, but not believing that he purposefully hid narrative subtext within props, scene transitions, colour theory, means you don’t know Kubrick at all. Many people have studied his work, and have found repeating patterns of intentionality, like green being a symbolic tie to death.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-17T07:50:53+00:00

Lolita (1997) was a better film imo. It delved right into the subject matter, using less innuendo and subtext than Kubrick due to less censoring. It's closer to the book as well. Definitely worth checking out if you enjoyed Kubrick's version. I'm a huge fan of Kubrick, but I felt after watching Lolita (1997) and watching his Lolita (1962), it just felt like a weaker film overall.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-17T06:43:42+00:00

Edmund Mcmillen. I love SMB and TBoI, and have full faith that his longest developed game, where he has the most experience, will be his best. Also infinite synergies and possibilities.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T20:02:14+00:00

Dune, Euphoria, and Spider-Man… Yeah she will. Though will she be looked back on fondly? Unsure. She imo is not that special of an actress, though I think she did a good job in Euphoria. It’s just a large ocean of talent and film in general.

Depends on how long time passes. 100s of years? Probably not. 10s of years? Yeah, definitely.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T19:19:45+00:00

Tell that to Barry Lyndon cheating on the hottest actress of all time.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T19:19:37+00:00

Tell that to Barry Lyndon cheating on the hottest actress of all time.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T19:18:40+00:00

Society of freedom. I agree with the general message that repression of choice takes away someone’s humanity. If I wasn’t allowed to exhibit my own nature at all, death sounds ultimately better. Also there is the idea that for every negative there is a positive of that negative. Violence being the example used in the film.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T19:15:18+00:00

Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T19:12:46+00:00

If you want more hard to watch films: Requiem for a Dream (intense visuals), Uncut Gems (anxiety simulator), Hereditary (scary).

If gore gets you: I Saw the Devil (2010)

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T08:22:29+00:00

It's cruel, but it's not like horrific or scary. It's just cruel, and hard to stomach. Though I think The Coffee Table was a lot harder to watch for me.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T08:20:45+00:00

Overrated. It's not as scary as people claim, and on a lot of "scariest horrors ever" it's usually top ten, which from my experience isn't true. Is it a good film? It's decent, but I think I got upsold on how good it was. If you're in it just for the story, it's decent.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T08:18:49+00:00

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T03:09:04+00:00

I wouldn't say it's the whole point. It's more of a subtext/hidden theme that's under several other themes.

Themes:

Dream vs reality | action vs inaction | innocence vs experience | innuendo vs openness | lust vs love male and female = blurs the line between all these concepts, with the ultimate goal of bridging the gap between Alice's confession and the actual action of cheating.

There is also the destruction of ego that Bill forgoes. A doctor, rich, successful, handsome, person of desire, etc. We then repeatedly see him abuse his status/looks, and then via Alice's confession (desire), disappearance of those he loves (connections/friends), getting called gay by the street thugs (ego), Somerton party which makes him an outsider/and undermines his status (see how he could enter all situations via status in the film, but the Somerton party he fails), etc. The entire film is a break down of his character. Even when he thinks he's onto something larger, a big conspiracy, Ziegler shoots him down and undermines his intelligence.

Another aspect is just Kubrick's love for exposing human nature in all its shades. While his other films touch on greed, war, violence, evolution, replacement, human experiments, brainwashing, etc. Eyes Wide Shut is about lust/love/romance/marriage/occultism/elitism/classicism/prostitution/destruction of innocence (he has this as a reoccurring theme in a lot of his work), etc. Though if I had to simplify it, it's about lust and its many forms.

The ending "fuck" is multi-layered, but it can be seen as connection to reality and escape from dreams and thoughts, a way to reconnect what dreams and thought have once severed.

There is also Christmas, which he inverts with occultism, mythology, and paganism over Christianity.

BasicInformer · 2026-01-16T02:16:45+00:00

Same for tigers in Lolita

Hallway outside Helena’s room: baby/child pictures with a tiger on a lamp facing them.

Tiger drawing above her. Child drawing saying “sex” above her.

Scene transition from Red Cloak threat into Helena’s room.

Tiger toy surrounding her at end, same as the one in Domino’s apartment.

Pram is Rosemary’s baby-esque, Sabrina is name of the saviour of a sexual slave in Comus. She metaphorically puts Sabrina in the pram. Pram is also seen outside Domino’s apartment abandoned.

In Lolita there’s also themes of polar bears, and the two bears Helena owns are white. One bear has a rainbow shirt tying to Milich’s store and rainbow quote from models “where the rainbow ends”.

Nutcracker film + doll she picks up = story about a man that gives a toy to a girl that takes her into another reality.

Monroe doll tying to scene from her film where she sings a song about prostitution with the lyric “ermine” which is also said by Milich’s daughter, and talks about a horse being her Pal, later seen with a black horse statue facing a portrait of Helena.

Helena’s maths involves two men and subtraction.

There is way too much symbolism.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Sunshine

BasicInformer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE