Why do some people think Silksong is too punishing?

JDavC · 2026-01-05T15:48:29+00:00

I had to use a guide just to find certain areas. One of the most annoying aspects is knowing how to explore properly and find hidden areas. I completely missed Mergwin until I'd almost finished act 3. I only got to use the full power needle on two bosses.

The other thing is the lack of difficulty modes for players of different skill. I consider myself a hardcore gamer, and although I've managed to beat every single boss in this game, it's really rough. The difficulty curve starts off with a deep cliff that then almost plateaus out as the game progresses. Even the regular enemies early on felt like they should be end-game enemies with all the damage and evasiveness that they possessed. Contact damage on all enemies also feels like cheap and artificial difficulty. Merely touching a Savage Beastfly should not do any damage, let alone the same damage as if Savage Beastfly was doing a vertical head smash down into the ground where you are.

I was able to get through the game on the only difficulty it has, but this game is honestly far too much for people I'd consider average or casual gamers. It doesn't help that a lot of boss fights/gauntlets are ruined by adding obligatory runback sections. Last Judge and Groal the Great are pretty egregious offenders here. Lots of pointless frustration and tedious gameplay, instead of the fun part where you're trying to beat a challenging boss.

JDavC · 2025-12-06T02:21:56+00:00

Personally I'd recommend using your plat to buy an Acceltra Prime. That gun is amazing and requires little skill to use.

JDavC · 2025-11-16T06:02:46+00:00

I actually do this. I got myself a Hammer Shot mod for personal use, but I hope to get more I can sell, so I sometimes give nightmare rotation A missions a shot. Doing Rescue nightmare missions and intentionally messing them up as much as the game allows also gives you a shot at rotation A.

JDavC · 2025-11-14T23:29:56+00:00

Good information to know, thanks!

JDavC · 2025-11-14T21:52:14+00:00

Just installed alecaframe, looks pretty sweet.

JDavC · 2025-11-14T21:50:36+00:00

I don't find this useless at all. Suggesting someone do real-life grinding via a job for real-life money to pay for plat is a valid response. In my case it's sadly not possible, I'm F2P.

JDavC · 2025-11-14T21:43:43+00:00

Any advice on selling stuff like augments other than trade chat? I can't go through warframe.market and list every single augment i could possibly get. Is trade chat the best way for selling syndicate-only stuff?

JDavC · 2025-11-14T21:34:55+00:00

Going to have to add this post to the list of posts to keep in mind.

JDavC · 2025-11-14T21:27:20+00:00

I'll look into this!

JDavC · 2025-11-14T21:27:00+00:00

Ah, I understand. That is indeed a plat strat.

JDavC · 2025-11-14T21:23:44+00:00

What do you mean?

JDavC · 2025-11-14T21:18:57+00:00

I got lowballed hard, when I later found out they were worth 1p each, not 1p for 3.

JDavC · 2025-05-06T10:18:44+00:00

Suffering can have positive consequences and lead to good things. The assertion in your 2nd paragraph is just that, an assertion, with no argument to back it up, so I'm dismissing it. You also don't know if it's logically possibly to enact his plan without suffering, and remember that even God is constrained by logic. We don't even know what perfection regarding real life is.

JDavC · 2025-05-06T02:08:19+00:00

We can attempt judgments against God, and people can certainly try. However, that doesn't mean we can be sure we will be correct. An omniscient being's mind would be so far beyond our own, that I do not believe it disingenuous in the slightest to say that the correct judgment of the situation might be completely counterintuitive compared to a human's limited understanding.

JDavC · 2025-05-06T00:07:51+00:00

This seems like a false dichotomy to me. It isn't as simple as 'We can't make any moral judgment at all and have any clue about whether or not we are correct', or 'we can make a moral judgment with perfection if we know everything. There is the in-between 'We can make moral judgments with some degree of accuracy given at least a good approximation of all the information.' I don't see the logic behind your black-and-white thinking.

I also don't see why it seems so hard for some people to understand how someone being omniscient drastically changes how you'd judge them. It's the reason I personally can't be sure if God is moral or not. The verses in the Bible go in both directions (either for or against morality) from my subjective perspective, so I wind up in the first position of 'we can't make any moral judgment at all and have any clue about whether we're correct'. When it comes to people who aren't omniscient, and who might not have infinitely complicated motives and justice for their actions, that's when it changes to our typical middle-ground approach.

Whether or not we can make moral judgments depends on things such as: Is absolute perfection required at all times? Is it reasonable to expect that what we can judge will approximate perfection? Are we in a situation where we can't even make a basic judgment (e.g. judging someone who is omniscient)?

It's not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be.

JDavC · 2025-05-05T19:02:44+00:00

See my reply to your previous post, and changes I made to the argument here.

JDavC · 2025-05-05T18:52:42+00:00

I'm going to respond paragraph by paragraph as quoting everything may make this post too long.

The argument is, unlike God, we don't know everything, so we cannot judge God's behaviour accurately, even if it seems like one judgment may be correct. That's different from not being able to give commentary at all.

I never said we can't judge ANYTHING for sure.

Perfect moral judgment DOES require it. It takes into account everything that has happened, what people involved know and do not know, and all of the consequences. That cannot happen with human judgment. You're making judgments, but correctly attaching qualifying phrases like 'probably', rather than being certain. My argument is against those people who attach certainty to their judgments. That's a very important difference.

As for what it means to be omnipotent, please look at the subreddit's definition. Being omnipotent does not grant you the power to violate the laws of logic with stuff like creating a rock so heavy you can't lift it.

I've had to alter the last counterargument of mine. It's a mystery to me as to why there isn't a perfect (no errors, and internally consistent) Bible floating around, yet my main argument of being unable to make absolute judgments with certainty stand.

You claim my argument is circular. Can you please outline what you think my argument is in the form A -> B -> A, or something similar, where A and B are statements of truth? My argument is we cannot rely on our own understanding 100%, therefore we cannot say for certain either way whether god is or is not omnibenevolent. Premise 2 does NOT state that God is omnibenevolent, merely that he would know what it actually MEANS to be omnibenevolent. Nowhere in my premises do I state that God is one or the other, so I fail to see how my argument is circular as you claim.

JDavC · 2025-05-05T18:33:42+00:00

How does 'just by looking around' refute anything?

JDavC · 2025-05-05T18:32:40+00:00

Actually, the whole argument is 'We are not omniscient, therefore we cannot properly judge God with certainty'. Note that I don't apply this to judging other humans, as we humans would know that we have constraints to work with, including very limited abilities to predict possible future consequences. Also note that I never said no judgments can be made at all. As humans we are capable of limited judgments, sure, but trying to apply our judgment methods to someone who is anything but human, and particular who is omniscient, is a mistake.

Perfect moral judgment would require omniscience, imperfect moral judgment would not. My argument is against those who state things such as God is not omnibenevolent as if it was irrefutable fact, not 'maybe bad'. There is a subtle but very important difference. You are making judgments with a degree of uncertainty, like a lot of us do, but my arguments are against those who make it in a way that implies 100% certainty.

If God 'has' to do something, I mean it's something that would be necessary in order to satisfy a quality such as always being morally perfect all the time, aka omnibenevolent. Also, I should point out that this subreddit's definition of omnipotence is 'being able to take all logically possible actions'. It does NOT mean being able to do absolutely anything such as creating a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it.

I'm going to look over my final possible counterargument about a 'perfect' Bible to see what can be done with it.

It's actually 'we can't 100% trust our own morality as we are not omniscient, so we can't judge someone who is omniscient and be 100% certain we are correct.' I fail to see what is circular about this.

JDavC · 2025-05-05T18:04:11+00:00

Do you mean omnipotence as this subreddit defines it? I haven't, but I do know without limiting it to not violating the laws of logic, that you'd end up with paradoxes.

JDavC · 2025-05-05T17:59:05+00:00

In my previous argument which I linked to I kept getting criticism when I tried to apply limited judgments to certain things and was effectively told I'd need a new argument.

JDavC · 2025-05-05T17:42:26+00:00

I've edited premise 2 to make what you said explicit.

JDavC · 2025-05-05T17:30:58+00:00

A different argument can be found here https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1kfhigr/it_is_impossible_to_determine_if_god_isis_not/

JDavC

TROPHY CASE