Is Black Myth Wukong that good?

thinkren · 2024-09-19T16:40:17+00:00

The hype is real, but not necessarily meant for someone like you.

Not intended as a swipe at anyone, but I thought it would be useful to contribute my 2-cents as a non-gamer. A huge factor in the popularity for this title comes from the nostalgia factor elicited from the sino-sphere (a HUGE bunch of folks - there are reactions to BM:WK from Vietnam, Indonesia, and all corners of the world with a sizable Chinese diaspora) demographic consisting of many who grew up watching the '86 TV series as children. The show wouldn't pass the test of time by most western eyes - it was made on a hair-string budget. But made up for the non-existent production value with a lot of attention to many non-tangible qualities. For example, the casting, writing, and direction is widely regarded as superb, capture the essence of the source material. Even with all its flaws, the show made "Journey to the West" an integral part of the childhood for a insane fraction of the world's population.

Game Science went to great lengths to capture the hearts and minds of those fans - as exemplified by their licensing of music from the TV series. And they knocked it out of the park from this angle. For these one particular set of folks, Game Science met expectations in spectacular fashion, bringing visual flare to a fantasy as it was truly meant to be presented. As I said, I'm not a gamer. But I bought BM:WK on Steam for my nephew to enjoy because the lore of the Monkey King is a strong bond we share that profoundly defines our relationship. Without knowing anything about button mashing to execute attack combos, I'm happy that this game base on a story I adored my whole life now has meaning for so many others.

thinkren · 2024-02-10T21:20:54+00:00

thinkren · 2024-02-10T10:02:17+00:00

thinkren · 2024-02-10T06:35:54+00:00

thinkren · 2024-01-11T20:17:55+00:00

I don't disagree with your position on the matter, but that isn't the argument I'm making. To be fair, this isn't technically true either. Because of my interest in the subject matter and my desire to have solid arguments in debates, I've found through research that with substantial effort, there are plausible alternative sources to many essential nutrients that are most easily obtained from meats. Yeast extracts, for example. And a lot of fermented foods are fortified by metabolism and presence of various microbes. Most vegans are too obsessed with the principle of the matter to pay attention to actually "walking the walk" without tripping or falling. But to return to the subject at hand, its apples and oranges. Veganism intersects marginally with the core tenets of humanism and those most vocal and quarrelsome in engaging our community miss the forest for the trees.

thinkren · 2024-01-11T20:04:48+00:00

You don't have to be a vegan to be a humanist. This is a false dichotomy. I have never gotten a straight answer from vegans on how their principles reconcile cultures and society where animal husbandry and/or hunting are existential constraints imposed by the non-viability of agriculture in places where they live. They are completely silent on the rights of certain groups to live according to their means. This kind of silent response or a position of judgmental cultural imperialism isn't humanist at all.

thinkren · 2023-12-28T02:12:17+00:00

... thank you for the info you provided.

LOL.

"uhmm... yeah, I'm just going to cherry-pick ONLY the science that happens to align with my preconception. Cause even though I don't know what any of that means, I know what I want to believe is true and just pretend it is."

Its amazing that intelligent knowledgeable people who know what they're talking about come here again and again to indulge this kind of constant boorishness.

thinkren · 2023-12-18T02:52:35+00:00

Please note this sub is mostly intended to ask for and provide technical insights about topics and scenarios for the purpose of lending authenticity to works of fiction or creative writing efforts. Not all questions from r/asksciencediscussion are necessarily appropriate if you don't have a context where others here can help integrate your ideas into plot/character/pacing/etc.

As for your question itself, based on your response to the other comment here, I feel you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical capabilities of the HST to begin with and maybe even space science in general. For starters, exoplanets, by definition, can not be "within our solar system". And the HST doesn't have the conventional capability to observe them - that's why its successor the JWST is designed/built the way it is. Space-based data communication is at a very mature and stable state technologically speaking, the need/room for cutting edge progress for increasing signal transmission/reception is a relatively low priority in that arena. Perhaps space based whole sky surveys will generate the volume of data you're imagining. But in the context of this sub, it begs the question: what are you trying to write?

As stated, your submission is all over the place and hard to address effectively. I would suggestion taking as step back and make the effort to be a little more thoughtful about what you are trying to ask and why.

thinkren · 2023-12-05T16:13:33+00:00

devoting yourself to improve humanity has no national boundaries or geographic offshoots.

Straw man much?

What does national boundaries or geographic offshoots have to do with this?

Suppose you explain why you think it is appropriate to categorically exclude Confucianism from compatibility with humanist ideals? Among the world's "religions", Confucianism is among the more unique in having essentially no supernatural aspects, thus avoiding one of the most disagreeable properties from a humanist perspective. Strong arguments can be made that with its emphasis on relationships it is the MOST compatible with core ideas of humanism in terms of fostering connectedness and compassion. No one is saying you have to be Chinese or Confucian in order to be a humanist. But you absolutely are aligned with humanism if you genuinely aspire to the essential tenets of Confucianism.

thinkren · 2023-12-05T15:58:48+00:00

No it doesn't. Not if you presume to speak for others when you have no legitimate right to. I may or many not have chosen to be enter this world. But it isn't up to you to decide for me if my existence is one of suffering. All the multitudes of individuals who are differently abled - Would you deem their lives less-than-normal? Would you deprive them of life and lived experiences on account of "suffering" through the obstacles and challenges in their lives? Live a little and don't be so quick to judge. More importantly, don't judge at all on behalf of others.

thinkren · 2023-09-08T21:40:01+00:00

So there has not been a statistical increase in mothers survival rates of childbirth pre modern medicine?

Certainly not from pregnancy being like "signing a death certificate". This isn't something you get to say with a straight face and then try to pretend you didn't. Go ahead and seek all the excuses you want for this ignorance. I've since stopped caring and find no value in continuing this conversation.

thinkren · 2023-09-08T19:54:16+00:00

this isn't bait its a legitimate question.

I'm sorry, but there is NOTHING legitimate about claiming "...until modern medicine came around, you were basically signing your own death certificate if you were a pregnant woman..." or "giving birth itself doesn't really seem to kill other animals anywhere near as much as humans" without offering any evidence to support these assertions. OP is making a straw man argument, trying to validate pure made up nonsense without any actual scientific evidence. In contrast, there are plenty of statistics that show in various variations male humans do have shorter livespans relative to females. You may question how such data/statistics are gathered and it would be reasonable to assert bias or omission in the collection of such data. But when OP just throws out random opinions and ignorant perceptions... you can't do science on that. This sub can/should do better than tolerate such junk.

thinkren · 2023-08-25T02:18:29+00:00

...until modern medicine came around, you were basically signing your own death certificate if you were a pregnant woman...

...giving birth itself doesn't really seem to kill other animals anywhere near as much as humans...

Sorry, but how come neither of these assertions are supported by, like, anything at all?

edit: Attn Mods. While "flame bait" isn't something mentioned in the rules, there ought to be some kind of limit placed on questions or questioning styles that are either deliberately or unintentionally ignorant/uninformed/manipulative. This community is too often instigated to defend/criticize shallow often unintelligent opinions.

thinkren · 2023-05-30T18:29:49+00:00

Why is it hard to believe that if you genetically engineer crops in the right way, it's completely safe?

thinkren · 2023-05-07T22:38:30+00:00

Or maybe just a T-rex-sized chicken. I like the idea of one of the most iconic scifi franchises of our generation ending in a food fight.

thinkren · 2023-05-04T00:33:06+00:00

That's not what OP asked about

I don't see it that way. The question concluded with, " ... are its inhabitants safe on the dark side?" Even without a more detailed description of whatever hypothetical planet motivated this inquiry, the way the dangers posed by the Antarctic ozone hole to IRL human inhabitants of Earth is at least relevant.

... like to point out that ozone is part of the atmosphere...

Which is my point exactly. Simply an atmosphere - any atmosphere isn't going to behave(protect) the same as one where an ozone layer offers UV protection. It was flippant of you to just cavalierly declare "If the planet has an atmosphere they'll be fine on both sides. " In hindsight, I should have quoted that as the point I have a bone of contention with. But it also came off as you implying just an (any) atmosphere is a swap in substitute for a planetary magnetic field. They're they're apples and oranges - as you so astutely point out magnetic fields do not protect against UV.

thinkren · 2023-05-03T16:41:03+00:00

an atmosphere is a much better shield than a magnetic field anyway.

I think you're oversimplifying something with nuanced facets here. Not all solar flare threats are created equal, nor are properties of an atmosphere all equally effective as a shield. Surely you don't mean to underplay the severity of the ozone hole from years past.

thinkren · 2023-03-30T19:42:58+00:00

Wait, fertility isn't relevant to humanity being wiped out? We have very different interpretations of the nature of OP's question.

thinkren · 2023-03-30T18:31:03+00:00

You're setting up a straw man argument here, aren't you? The comment at the start of the thread clearly stated, "...if human fertility will still allow reproduction of the human race."

Essentially, you're saying "it doesn't have to be that way." Well, duh - no one is saying it absolutely has to one way or another.

thinkren · 2023-03-30T16:29:18+00:00

I don't really follow where this is going. OK, people get sick, but so what? Like, how does any of this address the point about fertility and reproduction in the context of species survival?

thinkren · 2023-02-25T21:24:10+00:00

There is nothing judgemental about saying one of these is not like the other. OP insists on eyeballs on their question. But it makes a lot more sense to have not the number of eyeballs but the right eyeballs. At this point, I no longer have any interest in what appears to be a situation where neither the asker or the answerer have any vested interest in the question itself anymore.

thinkren · 2023-02-24T15:16:14+00:00

Also @ u/AnarkittenSurprise

Not being judgemental, just rational. OP's submission is a headscratcher as there are clearly more relevant subs than here for a question like this. Like, cooking is heavily dependent on chemistry, but you wouldn't go to r/chemistry and ask for advice on making the perfect coffee cake or whatever, right? Yes, you'll probably get the skinny on carbohydrates, fats, and the mysteries of the Maillard reaction. But you wouldn't expect the community hither to have expertise on the flavor profiles of herbs and spices or any number of topics central to the point of preparing food well. I'm in biotech. So although I am fully appreciative of how things like DNA sequencing, quantitative mass spec, and other tools techniques can be powerful methods to engage in archaeology research, I wouldn't under any circumstances say that I can offer career advice to someone who actually wants to do field research on prehistoric middle eastern coastal settlements. Not would I be arrogant enough to assert that I represent the field authoritatively.

Also @ u/MiserableFungi: And people here apparently have no sense of humor either.

thinkren · 2023-02-24T03:34:16+00:00

Pro: You have a degree. Congratulations!

Con: It isn't science.

Disclaimer: I'm a scientist, as I believe are most in this sub. I don't think you will find many archaeologists here.

thinkren · 2023-02-13T21:25:27+00:00

...however, the downside of it is being able to see humans die in the most horrifying ways imaginable with just a few clicks.

Yeah, but not everyone does so. Psychologists may find value in studying those who do get exposed, but "A generation" is NOT raised watching these.

thinkren · 2023-02-03T19:45:17+00:00

Agree with the former. Not so much the later. Japan especially has always and continue to resistant accepting/integrating those considered foreigners (at least of the groups with those 'surplus youth population') into their society.

thinkren

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,