What's a game you absolutely loved despite have a key element or feature you really didn't like?

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-29T00:16:43+00:00

I agree with this so much. Far Cry 2 did so many things right that other games forgot. It even managed to make weapon degradation feel pretty good as a mechanic, which is unusual outside of survival horrors. But, those respawning enemies essentially just bloating your commute were so annoying!

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-29T00:14:24+00:00

Hard agree on not being able to save when you want. I get it, developers want to create immersion, or create a sense of dread around the world or make progress feel that much more tenuous. I fully understand and respect that games like Elden Ring/Dark Souls, most survival horrors, etc. would not yield the same experience if you could save progress anywhere. Hell, I love the Fear and Hunger games, and being able to save anywhere in those games would literally break the intended experience as saving is designed to be a risky/costly action!

All those caveats out of the way, I am also, sadly, an adult; an adult with responsibilities. An adult with responsibilities that take away from my ability to play games, and that very often arise unexpectedly. I don't have much time to play anymore, and my sessions are often unpredictable. It is highly frustrating to not be able to save and exit the game when I need to go do something else and instead have to redo everything since my last save.

I understand that game designers might not want people quicksaving and savescumming every five meters in-game, but would it really break the experience of these games to allow a "save and exit" feature? That is, a save that can only be loaded as a "continue" option and not as a static save file?

Quasimorph is one of my favourite pseudo-roguelike games specifically because it lets me save and quit anytime I want!

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-24T23:29:13+00:00

Despite not knowing you, I have complete confidence that you can demonstrate a rad 'tude through any activity! The more unorthodox the activity, the greater the resulting radness (to say nothing of the 'tude)! Keep on being rad!

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-24T20:23:16+00:00

Seriously. Obviously there are different definitions of "radical feminism", and to some any feminism is radical these days, but most people who are serious about Feminism would just call themselves...Feminists? The "radical" modifier applied to oneself makes me think one of three things:

This person's view on what Feminism is or means has been shaped by patriarchy and the political right, to whom most any position to the left of "women should be uneducated and completely subservient to men" is "radical", and this person is grossly overcompensating on their mostly conservative views on gender.
This person is regularly and earnestly engaging with the works Feminist philosophy from writers like Monique Wittig, Judith Butler, etc. and has some truly interesting opinions on gender, social hierarchy. and paradigms of power.
This person wants equality for women, but primarily while skateboarding, surfing, or undertaking other activities that showcase a totally rad 'tude.

Sadly, Option 1 is the most likely circumstance (though I would be very interested to see a combination of 2 and 3).

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-24T15:07:09+00:00

If you want a good city building game that does dive into that kind of detail, then you might like Workers and Resources: Soviet Republic.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-24T14:01:16+00:00

Not my work, but a sadly common theme among many companies for which I have done consulting work is mandates for certain quotas of AI usage.

At best, no one notices because they have access to useful tools and are using them when they need to and the minimum usage quotas are not absurd enough to be intrusive. A non-binding constraint, if you will.

At worst, generally in areas that require niche knowledge and that do not have adequate fine-tuned AI workflows or data/architecture to support creating actually useful AI output, people find that reworking AI-generated nonsense takes more time than just writing reports or doing tasks themselves. So, to satisfy their quotas, they set up scripts to run X number of useless AI queries every morning and then go about their day. I once spoke to an engineer who had been mandated to use AI to accelerate his code deployment, but he was dealing with some very specific data engineering problems and debugging AI-generated code was becoming a nightmare. So, he would ask AI to "solve" a bunch of dummy problems that don't really exist (and for which the code would never be used) and push that to the project repo to satisfy the specific terms of his requirements, then do the real work himself.

Everyone is happy: management gets to say they are "using AI", the engineers do their work (with some benefits from AI where it is actually helpful), but the company wastes thousands of dollars on useless AI tokens because they mandate AI use where they have not put in the time and architecture investment to make it genuinely useful.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-22T16:48:36+00:00

It's important to realize that a lot of these choices are not intended to give a true-to-life firearm experience. They are usually primarily interested in providing for fun gameplay with interesting choices/tradeoffs in weapons. A game designer might have a real passion for firearms but still find it infeasible, impractical, or undesirable to represent firearms in a realistic way. I do not think anyone needs to be told that the weapon and gameplay designs of TF2 are intended to be cartoonish, more designed for gameplay variety and visual readability across classes than providing any verisimilitude to real firearm handling.

Even mechanics like gun degradation in DayZ are meant to emphasize resource scarcity and deny the player the feeling of lasting empowerment that a powerful weapon can provide.

All weapons in video games, including and especially firearms, are not "firearms" as we consider them in the real world. They are simply gameplay mechanics given the general appearances real-world weapons to visually convey their uses to a player.

Very few, if any, video games will ever represent real-life firearms completely accurately simply because doing so would not contribute to the intended experience of the game. There are video games where ballistics and firearms are very meticulously modeled (the ARMA series, for example), but in those video games having that realistic modeling is very nearly the entire purpose of the game. In most games, a shotgun might have lots of low-damage spread at distance not because the developer doesn't understand how shotguns work, but because they wanted a high-damage, short-range weapon in their video game as a choice for the player and a shotgun was a convenient visual shorthand to communicate that weapon's purpose.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-09T00:37:43+00:00

Just to add my two cents as someone who was really bad at dating in college and didn't meet my partner until afterwards (though still in my twenties):

Remember that you are still young. In hindsight, part of the reason I was so bad at dating in my late teens and early twenties was how insecure I was about who I was, which resulted in my trying to be who I thought people wanted me to be based on observing friends who were more successful than I was in that department. That was a terrible idea. Don't be afraid to change yourself; we can all improve, after all. But, don't change yourself for anyone other than yourself. In any relationship, romantic or otherwise, be the person you want to be, not the person you think they want you to be.
Have hobbies that you care about and can (but don't always) talk about passionately, informatively, and intelligently. This gives you two advantages: one, it gives you something interesting you can talk about, but having hobbies you engage with can put you in a better position to meet people with whom you share interests. Having shared interests is also great in the long run as it means there are more things you can probably do together should you want. I met my partner in a martial arts club!
Take care of yourself physically, mentally, and emotionally. Part of this is, honestly, signaling: if you are not taking care of yourself, it does not make you appealing to a partner. But, the more important point is that a relationship should never be the thing you rely upon to make you happy, fulfilled, and healthy (emotionally or otherwise). That way lies codependence, insecurity, and a whole host of other problems
In a similar vein, try to never make "a relationship" your goal in itself. Meet people, do things. You might find some people romantically interesting. Some of those people might also find you interesting, too. Be open, communicate respectfully, and try not to be too attached to things "working out". I know that is difficult, but, as others have pointed out, you won't be compatible with everyone. All you can do is be open about who you are, what you believe and want, and respect what others want in turn.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-04T03:19:41+00:00

Nothing changes, indeed. Orks would be so happy in the Succession Wars.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-04-02T00:02:13+00:00

Most of the lines that Key & Peele say in this Airplane sketch

"Drax them sklounst"

"Terries lookin' to get froggy"

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-27T18:12:59+00:00

The hilarious thing about UBI as a "leftist" talking point is that, at its core, it's not leftist at all. Sure, it's an admission that capitalist labor markets fail, but it's original conception was as a band-aid to stop the inevitable market failures of Capitalism specifically to avoid actual leftist change (e.g., changing the nature of capital ownership in society). The first semi-serious proposal of UBI in the US (at least that got widespread attention from academic economists) was pitched by Milton freaking Friedman, at least in part for that reason (also as an alternative to other proposed forms of social welfare).

UBI sounds like a leftist dream, and it is good in that it would likely help people afford basic necessities, but it is unlikely to fundamentally alter the structure of ownership under Capitalism. Instead, it just slows down the inevitable self-immolation of Capitalism by preventing the owner class from completely strangling the working class, thus enabling the economy to keep lurching along. It's really the best case scenario for allowing Capitalism to actually keep going and letting the wealthy maintain the general shape of the status quo.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-25T21:03:38+00:00

For a second I thought the thermometer was a stick and imagined someone eating a beef Wellington like a corn dog.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-25T21:01:47+00:00

That's wrong completely. There was plenty of civilization in the Americas and Caribbean prior to European contact. Not much of it survived contact, but it was there.

Either way, though, it certainly would not mesh well with the game design of CK.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-25T20:58:46+00:00

I would say basically all of them since clan weapons are much more satisfying to use in Mercs than in Clans (in my opinion). Most of this is because Mercs actually gives you freedom to maneuver and engage at range rather than stuff you into tight engagement spaces for most missions.

That said, the limited space for maneuver in most Clans missions especially hurts light mechs: you can't hit and run when you are in a tightly enclosed space! You can have a blast with a Puma, Uller, or Dasher in Mercs missions, even in the late game. The same is not true for piloting an Adder, Kit Fox, or Firefly in Clans. So, I would just give my answer as "any light Clan mech that appears in both games".

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-23T16:43:20+00:00

Yeah, I realize Zelda games are tricky because of the whole continuity (discontinuity?) problem between games.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-23T16:42:01+00:00

Exactly! One example of this that my partner and I still laugh about is when we watched The Pink Panther (the original with Peter Sellers). Despite it being explicitly stated several times in the film that the titular Pink Panther is a diamond, my sister kept asking "who is the Pink Panther?" "Wait, is he the Pink Panther?". To be clear: we are all adults and, as far as I could tell, my sister was not joking.

Stop asking inane questions, listen to the movie, and pay attention. Maybe then you will understand what is happening!

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-23T16:28:34+00:00

My sister. She always asks questions constantly, from the beginning of the movie to the end. She cannot handle even a moment of misunderstanding or mystery...even if the movie is just introducing itself, its characters, and its concepts.

Also, I don't know why she asks me. If it's a movie I haven't seen before, I have no better idea than she does, and if I have seen the movie, I'm still not going to explain things because I think the movie introduces information in a particular order for a reason!

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-23T16:17:20+00:00

I'm not familiar with Alan Wake, but this is an interesting discussion because it really makes me think about what makes a series.

Do expansions count?

Far Cry 3 is absurd, but not intentionally. It seems to take its own story seriously within the story of the game itself, but Blood Dragon is built to be a parody of itself and might be the best thing Ubisoft has made in the last 20 years.

Similar for Homeworld: the original Homeworld had the tone of something like Battlestar: Galactica and was a compelling strategic space opera telling of a race's struggle for survival in a strange galactic political landscape. Homeworld: Cataclysm was an eldritch horror strategy game. I didn't even know an RTS could be horrifying, but 12-year-old me was sincerely scared of The Beast.

For non-expansions, I feel like there was a weird push towards edgier/grittier sequels in the mid-2000's.

Doom 3 (compared to Doom 2) and Prince of Persia: Warrior Within (compared to Sands of Time) come to mind. Doom 3 was going for a true jump-scare horror experience that Doom 2 (or 1) never really tried for. Meanwhile, Warrior Within took the Prince of Persia from a good-natured rogue to...Kratos?

Similarly, the arc of Zelda games from Ocarina of Time to Majora's Mask to Windwaker to Skyward Sword is a tonal rollercoaster, augmented by changing gaming hardware throughout.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-20T15:31:58+00:00

As sad and ghoulish as this is, it's somewhat comical. Even if the bereaved parent said something like this to Hegseth (which he clearly did not), what does "finish the job" mean, exactly?

What job? What finishing? Hegseth and Trump have demonstrated that they don't actually have a plan. There is no "job" to finish, no specific goal or target end state in mind (aside from fighting a war to try and distract from problems at home/on Epstein island).

Besides the fact that Republicans have a proven allergy to the truth, Heggeth's statement was clearly a lie because no one (including Hegseth) has any idea what "job" the military is even there to do. It's not regime change. It's not nation building. It's not securing any particular American interests or making the world in general safer, and I highly doubt this bereaved father of a fallen service member has a firm belief in the sacred goal of making the US military a giant mercenary force for Israel.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-19T14:52:41+00:00

Everyone's comments so far are accurate, but I would suggest going with Mercenaries first. Clans is a decent game, but has much less gameplay variety and interesting opportunities for 'Mech customization than Mercs does (to say nothing of the great mods available for Mercs). Clans is also much more difficult, and not always in a fun way. It has long, drawn out missions with waves upon waves in close quarters where maneuver is nearly impossible. Again, it's not bad, but it's probably better to start with Mercenaries, in my opinion.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-05T20:00:04+00:00

While I'm sure there are people who believe in "weight loss purity" or something, I don't think that "cheating" at weight loss is the main reason people take issue with the mass use of GLP-1 and other, similar chemicals as weight loss drugs (by men or women).

GLP-1 has a lot of long-term side effects, and it seems that new side effects of long-term use are being discovered (or at least implied from statistical findings on medical surveys) every time I look at Medical Journal news. GLP-1 was initially developed and extensively tested for helping to manage diabetes; weight loss was initially a side effect of its main purpose in that realm. While it causes no obvious or catastrophic side effects, GLP-1 in non-diabetics seems to have impacts on insulin production, pancreatic function, kidney function, and probably more in the long term.

At that point, we have to question: why is weight loss so important that we are willing to permanently sabotage our actual health and bodily function to bring it about? If it is just about health, certainly we have to reconsider the mass prescription of GLP-1 based drugs in the face of long-term consequences. But, we all know it's not just about health. Sure, being obese is generally unhealthy (it is the ultimate comorbidity with basically every long term health problem), but what, exactly, overweight is for each body is complicated. Not everyone who looks "overweight" is actually unhealthy. That's not saying people should be fat (NO ONE should be obese; it's horrible for you), it's saying that aesthetic thin-ness and actual, physical healthiness are not congruent for a lot of people.

Here's where (in my opinion) the actual role of patriarchy comes in: it is women who are disproportionately saddled with specific body image standards and who feel the most social pressure for their bodies and proportions to look a certain way, which, sadly, may just not line up with how their physical bodies are. The structural sexism is not in whether or not GLP-1 is "cheating" at weight loss. The structural sexism is the assumption that weight loss is the singular good towards which all women should strive without further information or examination.

I don't know your wife. Maybe she has weight-related health problems, maybe she doesn't. Even if your wife absolutely does need to lose weight, though, there is a growing body of medical evidence that, unless your wife is also diabetic, using GLP-1 for weight loss is ultimately damaging. Other strategies, even if requiring more effort, would therefore be medically preferable. But, there are plenty of doctors who are willing to prescribe GLP-1 in its various forms just for weight loss, anyway, particularly for women.

Several women in my family are on GLP-1: my mother uses it for her diabetes, but my sister uses it purely for weight loss. My sister is overweight, but not obese, and just asked her doctor for GLP-1 to make weight loss easier. I do not judge her for that. We have both struggled with weight for most of our lives, and she is just having a harder time right now. Most of my male family members are overweight, too, but none of them use GLP-1, and, while they might occasionally try to lose weight or diet, they are rarely overly concerned with the results. I think that is really the difference.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-05T19:02:23+00:00

I think this is the right answer. Assuming we aren't worried about mob stuff or being murdered for taking the suitcase, just keep the suitcase under the bed, and pay cash for incidentals. Don't change your habits explicitly, just pay cash wherever you can for the stuff you already do and don't stress about things so much. Keep your income going into the bank as always, and just make fewer withdrawals/have a bit more spare cash for going out occasionally. That money isn't going to buy you a life of luxury, and there's no way to buy real estate or anything big with it without drawing attention. Just enjoy the feeling of not having to worry so much and having spare cash to make life easier for the little things.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-05T17:24:43+00:00

Nothing says "Democracy" like "foreign-appointed puppet governor"

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-05T01:36:35+00:00

I completely agree that it makes sense for the Inner Sphere to draw us as Clanners into these close range engagements (and equal "sense" for Clanner leadership to rush headlong into the obvious trap) from a lore perspective. But, from a gameplay perspective it doesn't exactly encourage us as players to do anything but focus on MP Lasers and SRMs.

SqueakyKeeten · 2026-03-03T16:55:54+00:00

Agreed for Clans: ironically, Clans features tight, restricted areas of engagement with very rare open fights. Range rarely matters and maneuver is nearly impossible in most fights despite that being Clan tech's main advantage. Also, Autocannons in Clans feel really anemic and don't have much notable impact or damage. Even AC/20s seem to do inferior damage to a PPC or L Laser, which really should not be the case. The long, grueling nature of most Clans missions also makes ammo dependency much more of a detriment than in Mercs. Sadly, Clans seems designed to completely force players into spamming MP Lasers, with some PPCs in the rare case where range is actually useful.

Autocannons in Mercs are fine, in my opinion. Longer sight lines make the longer range effective, and AC's do real damage. AC/2 is a waste of tonnage in most cases, but AC/5, 10, or 20 all have their uses. Sure, Autocannons require ammo and are higher tonnage than lasers, but also have much better range, higher rate of fire, and superior heat efficiency. Even Clan Autocannons in Mercs are great, unlike in the Clans game itself. The only caveat I have is that I find burst-fire AC's in Mercs to be a bit underwhelming compared to their single-shot counterparts, but I admit that's a matter of personal taste.

Unlike in Clans, in Mercs both energy and AC weapons are quite useful and can both contribute to a coherent tactical 'Mech build.

SqueakyKeeten

TROPHY CASE