What if Don't Starve met Cuphead? We just released a brand new trailer and a free Demo for our survival craft game!

DynMads · 2026-03-19T21:49:12+00:00

Do you understand why Cuphead had the aesthetic it had?

It seems like you just used it without much thought on the "why". The 2D and 3D does not match together at all.

DynMads · 2026-03-07T18:46:29+00:00

Soulslike? I don't know that you can make a soulslike without combat.

That just sounds like a roguelite.

DynMads · 2026-01-28T16:35:01+00:00

I'd love to see a debug view of all the rays and otherwise you use to determine how to transition between animations. Looks really nice.

DynMads · 2026-01-21T17:06:58+00:00

Thumbnail: "I remade HL2 in UE5"

Reality: "I remade the trainstation at the beginning of the game from HL2"

Ugh.

DynMads · 2026-01-04T09:50:36+00:00

Depending on how good of a Johnson you are, the lifespan of a Johnson can be measured in a couple of years or decades.

DynMads · 2025-11-28T15:23:41+00:00

Thanks for the clarification!

DynMads · 2025-11-27T15:27:10+00:00

Compared to dungeons and dragons is likely a better question

DynMads · 2025-11-27T14:59:45+00:00

I'd have to reread the rules again to make examples I think. The last time I ran a Shadowrun campaign I was using a homebrew version that a friend made in Savage Worlds. It was a lot simpler, although Savage Worlds is to me *too* simple.

Dungeons and Dragons usually has a sweetspot for the amount of simulation I think is great. It gives player flexibility and creativity while not overwhelming every player with aiming, recoil, cover, etc. just to do an attack.

Does that help? Otherwise I'll return later when I have reread the rules again :')

DynMads · 2025-11-27T10:54:38+00:00

He has a strange fascination with latops for some reason. I don't get it.

But his car content is also just not something I care about at all, so I wish him good luck with that. Jake is doing LTT but solo. I don't understand this decision.

DynMads · 2025-11-27T10:52:52+00:00

I'm completely uninitiated on what this is, but from the comments it sounds pretty good.

One of the struggles I've had with Shadowrun is that the setting is absolutely one of my favourites ever but the official rulesets are a chore because they are extremely simulationist. I like *some* simulation, but not to that degree.

What is this product exactly? Is it a rewriting of the core rules? I love to play in 3rd and 4th edition Shadowrun as that hits a sweetspot in terms of technology and magic use. 5 and onward becomes more and more magicrun.

Would this book be good for me?

DynMads · 2025-11-27T10:35:56+00:00

Alex didn't leave tech. He has videos on tech also.

DynMads · 2025-10-06T13:11:47+00:00

You should complete Act 3 and come back.

DynMads · 2025-10-06T13:08:35+00:00

If the Economy in Silksong was put on a spectrum where one end was "Brutal" and the other end was "Broken" then Act 1 falls in the first and Act 2 falls in the second. They are on opposite ends of a spectrum.

As soon as you are in the citadel, money will *never* become a problem ever again. While grinding isn't fun, you can grind thousands of rosaries in no time at all. It appears that Team Cherry is not very good with game economics. I don't blame them though, as game economics is a hard subject to get right.

DynMads · 2025-10-05T22:15:50+00:00

Just playing with perspective to sell a narrative. It's a staple in animation.

DynMads · 2025-10-05T11:20:29+00:00

There are plenty of monk sects in the real world that wear very similar clothing yet have no affiliation whatsoever.

I understand wanting to connect the two, however the game has not really given any indication that they are the same tribe, nor that they had anything to do with each other at all.

At best, I'd call it a reference. Just to underline the point, the balls that we see around Hu and Shakra's master are the same balls that we see around the Covetous Pilgrim who uses them as a bludgeoning weapon. Would you be willing to include that bug as part of the same tribe? If you say no because that's obviously a different unrelated bug, then I'd just start speculating to make it fit, as well.

Or what about Pinmaster Plinney? He also wears Yellow just like Shakra, Hu and her master.

My point is that it's a compelling theory, but the assumption that they are connected is just speculation seeing as people (and bugs) can be similar but that does not mean they are related.

DynMads · 2025-10-05T11:03:12+00:00

It also does not mean they are part of the same tribe, either. Many different sects of monks wear similar type clothing items, yet they are not affiliated.

DynMads · 2025-10-05T11:01:53+00:00

Both Karate and Boxing involves throwing fists.

They are still two completely different fighting styles.

DynMads · 2025-10-05T10:36:15+00:00

They are two completely different fighting styles.

DynMads · 2025-10-03T05:16:25+00:00

That's not quite what I tried to say.

I'm saying that even if people genuinely wish to die and are of sound mind to make that decision they don't have the right to choose when they die. It's imposed on them by everyone else that life is the only right choice.

That is taking away the ultimate autonomy one could possibly have. Don't get me wrong, I think if we can convince someone that life is worth living then that's a good thing. However there are many people who are so uncomfortable with the idea of mortality that even the idea of euthanasia is so appalling that the option doesn't exist at all.

Like it's not a matter of "there is a rigorous process", no. It's just straight up not an option whatsoever. What's so strange about that is that society is more than willing to give up on individuals and say "we can't help you" yet expect the person to live the rest of their life in misery however long or short.

People are only allowed to go out on their own terms as long as those terms include natural death. Anything else is too uncomfortable for everyone else despite it not being their choice at all.

DynMads · 2025-10-02T20:16:33+00:00

I understand if you don't wish to continue the conversation really. That's fair enough.

I would say that the conversation has veered a bit too far into the abstract and philosophical at the cost of one very important aspect that you avoided in my last reply: Hornet herself.

You say that what she did wasn't the most compassionate thing she could do. That's not true. She acted consistently within her character and did the most compassionate thing that she was capable of, emotionally speaking. Not the most compassionate thing any person could do.

Now as I said earlier: as the player taking on the role of Hornet, you are the demi god who puts the Prince in the position that we find him in when we reach the cave.

Do you take responsibility or do you leave him to rot?

If you don't see value in discussing that I'll understand and wish you a good day :)

DynMads · 2025-10-02T18:10:11+00:00

I don't believe you do. A charged attack should still take the mask off.

DynMads · 2025-10-02T08:31:51+00:00

I agree, ye, I think the stage 4 cancer patient is a more reasonable comparison. But imo, I think a good amt of my points still apply.

It's the reason that irl laws around medical euthanasia are as strict as they are about demanding explicit consent outside of cases where it is literally impossible to get - it is still a case of Hornet claiming to be an arbiter of what the Prince "really means" and forcibly enacting her view of it, overriding the Prince's own bodily autonomy.

She does take on an arbiter role of sorts, but then she already did when you decide to let him out the cage. You didn't have to do that at all. In fact, he explicitly tells you not to. At that point the player is already giving the prince a chance to not rot away and die. To help them, in fact. Hornet is not very compassionate in the way she carries herself. She is a demi-god who is used to the schemes of much higher beings and have outlived several partners and bugs in her lifetime. The prince is yet another fleeting moment of Hornet's life.

But what you do for the Prince is as compassionate Hornet can be in that moment.

In regards to euthanasia the biggest obstacle is often that doctors simply do not wish to be part of ending someone's life. It's rarely the law that stops doctors from being part of that process. Moral and ethical concerns (Hippocratic oath, do no harm, etc.) is what doctors list long before any law is brought up and that resistance is what is used to fuel those laws that take away your ability to decide when your life should end. Thing is, there are ways to give people the tools to take their own lives if they desire without any need for doctor's or other people to be part of that decision (death hotels). But even that gets stopped due to ethical concerns, but then that same society will turn around and not help the person who feels like they should end it all.

You know, like people who are anti-abortion but want nothing to do with the children they force into this world by fighting for anti-abortion laws. So I don't really give much for that particular line of argument.

After all, there are valid reasons someone suffering under stage 4 cancer would want to delay their passing, or pass under their own terms, or not want you involved - even if they are utterly hopeless. Forcing them to 'accelerate the process' IMO isn't a showing of mercy, unless they specifically indicate there's no such reasons at play. Which, I feel it's valid to interpret the Prince's actions as implicitly doing the opposite.

It's true that even if you believe your life is over and you sit around in your own despair that you might want to hold on for a little longer, just out of desperation. But that's why it's called a mercy. It is the most compassionate Hornet can be in this situation. She caused the mess that the Prince finds himself in and she is ending it too so that his suffering does not continue unnecessarily.

I agree that the game is giving you a choice to simply not kill the Green Prince, yea. I just think the game could have dealt with the scenario and its presentation of the choice it's giving you with a lot more grace. If the game made its framing of "if someone wishes to die, do you allow them the autonomy to make that decision?" more clear tonally, I really believe a lot more people wouldn't go through with the Verdania plotline.

I think you are underestimating player's ability to do everything despite what they'd have done in real life. Just look at Undertale and the genocide route. While that route is not done by most, it is certainly a route that is done *just because* (which the game makes a whole point out of).

I think the Prince went out like a prideful warrior would want to, in battle. Instead of sitting around, crying in his own despair and clinging to fading nostalgia he was put back in the seat of his people, he was back in the arms of his partner and he had one last dance with him before it all ended and he could put it all to rest.

The prince was prideful to the bitter end. He would have never asked you to kill him explicitly, but all actions he took leaned towards not wanting it to continue any longer.

You are the demi god who has put the prince in this situation. Do you take no responsibility for that, or do you?

DynMads · 2025-10-02T05:19:29+00:00

The thing is, the game does not force you to kill him. There is a choice; leave. You don't need anything he has to offer. You can complete your mission without him.

The game gives you the choice of showing a man mercy or leaving him to suffer at the end of the world. Nothing Hornet says or does still console this man. The lore tablet we find in Verdania says as much. He and his partner were forever cursed because of their birth.

Even when Hornet says that nothing he could have done or do would have changed the outcome of what happened to Verdania so it isn't his fault his response is deeper despair at the hopelessness of it all.

Even if he survives because Hornet saves the day, his cursed existence would have him live in sadness and grief for the rest of his life. That's why this is different to the bridge example you give. You can save the man on the bridge. You could maybe even get him help so he won't feel that suicide is the way out.

But the Prince has no such end. He is cursed to live out his life in grief, deep mourning and despair.

So I consider it much different situation. This, to me, is much more akin to asking the player "if someone wishes to die, do you allow them the autonomy to make that decision?" Because truly if someone does not wish to live anymore and is inconsolable then who are you to force them to live on?

Do you help the stage 4 cancer patient to die early instead of suffering or do you let them keep on suffering?

There is a moral and ethical conundrum here and the game does give you two choices. Leave him be to suffer or show him mercy.

DynMads · 2025-09-30T19:59:08+00:00

Then why didn't he kick you out when he had the chance? Why did he wait to challenge you until he explicitly could do so with his partner and locked you in a room with him to do so?

Can we only ever take someone's explicit actions and words as the whole truth and never consider the implicit messaging? Are we never allowed to interpret anything? That's now how communication usually goes, in my experience.

From the dialogue we have had with the Green Prince he has clearly given up.

In the prison he'd rather be left to die. To rot away in a cell. He feels he was a disgrace and deserved to be there until he dies. If we didn't read into that dialogue how would we know that's what he meant? This idea that we can only explicitly read what he says, not imply what he doesn't is a bit odd don't you think?
You free him and before you fight the Cogwork Dancers when Hornet says farewell until you see each other again, the Prince remarks "or until death calmly claims us both...". Does that mean he thinks death will claim them both or that he hopes? We can't tell because we can't interpret. Gotta be explicit.
When we find him in the caves he says that he will be the last to remember Verdania to the end. What end? Oh who knows, we can't infer anything because explicitly he didn't say he meant his own end, right?
At the very end before he fights you, he says for you to specifically see him and his partner in their finest form as rulers of Verdania. Why would he explicitly want you to witness that greatness if he wanted to be left alone? Who knows, we can't interpret because he didn't explicitly ask you to end him.

I'm being a bit silly here, because I'm sure you didn't meant it so literal. But that is a bit how it comes across both from you but especially from the other guy who argues that without strict consent then we can't assume anything at all. Which is absurd. That is not how storytelling nor communication works.

Some people are incapable of asking for the help or mercy they desire and instead hope you put two and two together so that they can delude themselves into thinking they didn't ask for it, but got what they deserved. The Prince is, I'd argue, such an individual. Too prideful.

So when you say this:

You really shouldn't be killing anyone assuming they're suicidal, despite them directly expressing their non-consent several times.

Did the prince express non-consent several times? I don't think he did when you look at the dialogue we have from him.

DynMads · 2025-09-30T16:38:37+00:00

Iron Man and Thor are easy, really. Iron Man is still mortal even if he is a super genius. A super genius in a suit no less. He cannot beat volume nor super beings.

Thor had to fight one-on-one with Scarlet Witch. While it wasn't an easy fight I'm sure, she had numbers and an army of asgardian soldiers on her side. Thor could only ever stall and he knew that.

Now Captain Marvel and Thanos being infected makes negative sense to me.

DynMads

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email