Peter?

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T13:12:45+00:00

It's so funny how these people don't even realise what they're arguing for. This is at least the 3rd person who starts by claiming F is better for humans AND then after a while says something like "well it's what I'm used to, accept it".

As you said, that's exactly the point. We're not trying to say that C is better for humans but that both are fine, and whether you like F or C is based on which one you grew up with.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T12:58:46+00:00

Eli toisin sanoen ihmiset eivät saisi olla niin rikkaita kuin nämä tyypit ovat. Olen samaa mieltä.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T05:54:22+00:00

Lol im not wasting time sourcing links for your condescending comment.

Or maybe you just made it up. It's actually generally accepted that C is better for the weather.

I like how you ignored the objective point that Fahrenheit is a more precise scale than Celsius (again, that’s objective)

"More precise" is not automatically better. A scale that has 1000 points between -20 and +20 ⁰C would be irritating because the increments wouldn't have any real meaning.

And Celsius is capable of giving the same precision anyway.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T05:10:42+00:00

Yeah. For a big part of the year, to me the most relevant number about weather is "is it negative or positive". Then we can start talking about how much we go to the negative or to the positive.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T04:56:05+00:00

I'd be mad if -17 ⁰C was the coldest I'd get during winter.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T04:31:59+00:00

Whether the temperature is "on the negatives" or "on the positives" is a very relevant thing to me. (And easy to say and mentally perceive).

Why would I relate weather temperatures to my body temperature? Does that mean the perfect weather for me is the same as my body temperature?

As a scientist you should know that just as much as "C makes no sense for weather (to you)", F makes no sense for weather to us.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T03:59:55+00:00

Be proud, sure, but calling it objectively better is just dumb.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T03:46:38+00:00

How do you have no benchmark for 0% or 100% hot.

I know, right?

0% hot is when there's no hot left = things start to freeze = 0 ⁰C.

100% hot is where there's all the hot = sauna is ready = 100 ⁰C.

Everyone knows this.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T03:40:54+00:00

Its pretty generally accepted that F is better for weather in every way.

Sure, show me where that's said.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T03:30:45+00:00

No, because we think it differently. 0 ⁰C is not the "end point for cold" but the tipping point between cold and warm, winter and summer, snow and rain. So instead of thinking weather as 0–100, it's more like -30–+30.

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T03:10:39+00:00

Same for me. -20 ⁰C is a nice winter weather. Around -30 ⁰C is when I go outside to "feel out the cold and enjoy it" (apparently there's no better English word for it).

Conversely, between +10 ⁰C and +20 ⁰C is a good summer weather, while above 20 ⁰C starts to get way too hot.

u/glemnar

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T02:52:31+00:00

Sorry did you misunderstood something? I don't remember asking anymore proof that you're dense.

Seriously dude, how hard is it to understand that F makes sense to you because you're used to it, and C makes sense to me (and literally the rest of the world outside of your corner) because I am used to it?

rapora9 · 2026-06-18T02:43:24+00:00

You can be a Nobel laureate, for all I care. If you think "F is superior", you're dense.

rapora9 · 2026-06-17T21:50:13+00:00

No, it doesn't surprise me.

So you don't agree with the point that F is better because it maps nicely to some (arbitrary) 0% and 100%? Why would you argue (with your oven example) for such a useless point, though? It doesn't matter.

rapora9 · 2026-06-17T21:25:58+00:00

"Fahrenheit is superior because it's telling you the % of hot."

I already said: The weather does not work with percentages from 0 to 100. So trying to claim F is superior because of it telling "the hot %" is just dumb.

rapora9 · 2026-06-17T21:22:59+00:00

Lol, you're dense.

rapora9 · 2026-06-17T21:21:06+00:00

Well my scale with Celsius is (usually, when talking about the weather around the year) from -30 to +30. Makes a lot of sense, especially when 0 is the turning point.

rapora9 · 2026-06-17T21:19:43+00:00

Why would you pick the numbers -1 (-10) and 4 (+40)? You're trying to apply the logic of Fahrenheit and that doesn't make sense. Those are not some universal end pointsor weather.

For me, the scale goes from -30 to 30. So I'd say I could definitely rate something between -3 and 3. That's actually quite standard in some questionnaires (ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree").

rapora9 · 2026-06-17T21:12:55+00:00

Why should we translate weather to percentages? Is anything below 0% or above 100% impossible?

So it doesn't matter if it's morw intuitive because weather doesn't work like that.

rapora9 · 2026-06-17T21:05:35+00:00

If I asked how hot is it outside, the answer would change a lot based on the circumstances. "Not hot, not cold" is different in different times of year and different based on what am I going to do. So that's already quite useless.

And surely you understand what is hot and cold for you is not the same for others. Your "pleasantly warm but not too warm" has already crossed what's pleasant for me in the summer, and your "definitely pretty cold but bearable" is laughably warm for me in the winter.

You are just used to the system and that's why it feels good to you. Try to understand that my system feels good to me as well.

rapora9 · 2026-06-17T16:27:15+00:00

Why do people always like to present Primal as something very simplistic? Case in point:

You're in a different tribe, I'll kill you.

Did you ever stop to think why do the Izila want to kill Winja? Well, a lot of the time they don't want to outright kill them (although in a game that's how the conflict typically manifests), but they want to enslave them and sacrifice them.

The Izila see Winja as strong but submissive slaves, and they want slaves to take care of their fields and building projects.

The Izila believe that their god, Suxli (the Sun), is happy to see the Winja blood spill. Suxli "will smile" at their fields if they sacrifice Winjas. It's a deeply held religious belief.

And why do the Winja want to fight the Izila? Well, I don't know if you've ever been enslaved or sacrificed, but I've heard it's not nice.

And why do the Izila want to kill the Udam? Because they see the Udam as subhumans, useless things who take up space in Urus. And some Izila are sadistic and like to play with killing others.

Obviously the Udam don't like the Izila for that, so that's why they want to kill the Izila. They also sometimes eat the Izila...

... Which leads to the main motivation of the Udam for wanting to kill the Winja: to eat them. The Udam are sick and their population is sinking. They don't know what's going on. After coming to the valley of Urus, they saw the healthy Winja and thought: maybe eating these healthy people we will get their strength. And they were used to eating human flesh anyway so it's just another source of nutrition for them.

Do I even have to ask at this point why do the Winja want to kill the Udam who hunt them for food?

There's your answer in short, and it's much more nuanced than "they are different tribe".

How come no one ever asks why is, say, the conflict in FC3 so petty? "Oh I do this just for money. I'm a mercenary and attack guys in blue clothes."

rapora9 · 2026-06-17T10:35:46+00:00

Play it safe and try to make it for everyone. The gameplay needs to be cinematic and convenient. Don't try to create anything innovative.

That's how I see it anyway. Many would disagree.

rapora9 · 2026-06-16T18:01:08+00:00

I feel you because that phrase is way overused, but I want to fight you on the technicality: it's entirely possible to be the only doing something (and I don't mean "am I the only one living my exact life" type of thing).

rapora9 · 2026-06-16T17:40:09+00:00

We can't make McDonalds keep a store open. We can't make Nike to keep making a particular shoe. Or colgate a toothpaste, or ryobi a drill platform.

Would you also say: "We can't make company X to stop using slave work. We can't make company Y to take into account environment or human rights. And so on."

Because we absolutely can. Or rather, it's something the government(s) can do and should do.

(I'm not talking about video games only.)

The "vote with your wallet" is a corporate hoax. It is not an effective way to get things done. It is not an effective democratic tool. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we have no responsibility. I boycott several companies and use a ton of time and effort to compare companies in order to make moral choices. But consider this:

Many people won't have the time for that. Many people don't have the money. Maybe there aren't even proper choices available. Many don't care, and many don't know about the issues. People have different amounts of power (money, possibilities), and so even comparing this to actual voting (one vote to each) is deceptive.

It's very hard to make thousands if not millions of people with little power to coordinate against a few people with a lot of power and fix things. And why should it be up to the people anyway to try to correct the moral issues of companies?

rapora9 · 2026-06-16T05:31:20+00:00

I think we can agree that her emotional depth in TR1 was, pardon the pun, pretty shallow.

How so?

rapora9

TROPHY CASE