File: Screenshot 2026-05-12 010037.png (921.7 KB)
>Make people work themselves to the bone or start a new town where people don't work themselves as hard
Please tell me the choices get more nuanced than this. Please?
Showing all 38 replies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>3982489
I understand that. Not many other games to go to, though. Cyberpunk is a movie game that has lots of different gameplay mechanics, it's not an RPG shooter 24/7 unlike Fallout 3. What I love about Bethesda types is that you're always in control gameplay-wise and you knew what to expect. There were no Bioshock-style 'connect the pipes' minigames in Oblivion. I hate that in first person open world games.
>>
>>
>>3982497
You have to do that a total of like 3 times among all the main questlines and even then you can skip them with charm potions and spells.
>Well in Bioshock you can skip the pipe sections by hacking-
I'm talking about open world games, and even still, at least Bioshock is consistent with its features and plays as a shooter with light imsim elements rather than a carnival with a new temporarily gameplay-altering trick up its sleeve every few steps like the Skywalker Saga or something.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>3982514
The size of the wedge is how significant the impact will be, whether positive or negative. The facial expression of the NPC when you're hovering over a quadrant tells you whether they like it or hate it. The goal, then, is to spend your biggest wedge on something they like, and your smallest wedge on something they hate.
Let's say Urbul there hates it when you Boast. You can tell because he's snarling when you hover over it. You also know he kind of likes it when you Admire him. You can tell because he's smiling when you hover over it, but not as much as the intense grin he's giving you when you hover over Joke.
And one final twist, each time you spend a wedge, the wheel of wedges rotates, and it always rotates in the same direction.
So you just plan which order you spend your wedges, because you now know which quadrants he likes and which ones he hates.
Once you figure it out, you can't fail these interactions, though there's a perk that helps if you fuck up by letting you spin the wheel of wedges an extra step before you spend one.
>>
>>3982477
The natural consequences of making an "anti-capitalist" game where Marxism-Leninism is conveniently ignored and the only alternatives are hippy communes, limp dicked social democracy and anarchism. This is also true of other games that feign to criticise capitalism such as Cyberpunk 2077, where almost everyone you meet despises the ultra-capitalist dystopia they live in but the best solution anyone has been able to muster is Keanu Reeves blowing up skyscraper for shits and giggles. Over time, the full blown neocon propaganda we used to see in Call of Duty and Tom Clancy games has been phased out and replaced with this insidious liberal nonsense.
>>
>>3983373
Marxism is a fools ideology as well. Any ideology that talks about "material conditions" and then doesn't want to position itself as Luddite is myopic. A system is an expression of the tools available and people don't put down tools.
>>
>>
>>3983380
No, I'm against anarcho-primitivism. Note:
>people don't put down tools
My point is just the contradiction in Marxism, the workers owning the factory are still enslaved to the factory. Large scale civilization is the problem, too much production is the problem. But, will humans ever desire to scale down, regardless of economic system? Doubt.
Failed species.
>>
>>
>>
>>3983709
Yeah, which is exactly why we are fucked. Your instinct is that of a primitive person where if the tribe sat still and didn't pick "some" direction, everyone was fucked. Made complete sense in that setting and it's what we evolved towards. Now, we exist in such a complex set of systems comprised of billions of people interacting that the old ways of dealing with problems are instead deadly, because randomly chosen directions spin out new issues and compound on each other. Especially those directions which are derived from poorly thought out moral concerns, like the cessation of suffering.
If only people weren't scared of maintaining a sense of confusion.
>>
>>
File: TltCjPBq[1].jpg (24.7 KB)
>>3982489
Actually, it's not.
Check the credits, most of the people are still there. They even got Tim Cain back. You'd think that would've been their saving grace, but no.
The only important figure that left the team is Chris Avellone, and it should be clear by now that it was he who fucking carried Obsidian.
>>
>>3983737
And yet, you still present no viable alternative. Bemoaning the state of things and how deeply rooted the core issues are may make you feel smart and/or superior, but it sure doesn't seem like it'd solve anything.
Hell, it doesn't even sound like it'd solve anything if everyone agreed with you.
>>
>>3983883
>And yet
Please don't be this way.
Solve what? You can't even describe a part of the web of problems without latching onto a dead man's model.
You are asking for surety in confusion because humanity is a gambling species that evolved in a survival situation and know finds itself in complexity outside our ability to comprehend it. This is why you latched onto ideology, to resolve this confusion and give yourself a false sense of "the state of things", so what happens is you use that model of a model and pretend it's the territory you exist within and work backwards to explain reality using it.
>may make you feel smart and/or superior
This is an incredibly pathetic response, anon. I absolutely don't care about this. That you think I do is really showing the primitive social response.
My advice is reduce the scale, this advice will not be followed because resolving confusion with risk is our biological answer to the chaos of reality, a short term small scale solution perfectly aligned with the circumstances we evolved in, but one that doesn't work in a large scale civilization where the techniques of efficiency without purpose reign.
>>
>>3982514
Big wedge equal more points
Npcs choose 2 things they don't like and 2 things they do like
Try and put small wedges on the things they don't like so you lose less points and big wedges on things they like
Its really retarded because imagine someone runs up to you and proceeds in 10 mins every nano second spamming a joke, praising you, shit talking you, or whatever and at the end you go "that guy was alright"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>3984186
See, caring about form rather than ideas just doesn't interest me. No one can convince another of their intent when the other has a vested interest in doubting them.
My advice to you is to realize that you can't placate people's inferiority complexes, the reason I talk about these things is I see them in myself, I'm a human as well. It's not about domination, but that is indeed something the primitive part of our brain obsesses over. But, nothing I said is about lording it over anyone, it's just a perspective that is based on first principles and holding confusion for a long time.
>>
>>3984192
I'll be honest with you, I fundamentally disagree with the perspective that the form is irrelevant. If the goal is the exchange of information and ideas, then to actively choose to take an approach that limits the reach of your ideas puts that motivation somewhat into question. (Or at least, it serves as a reminder why people with outdated, unhelpful or indeed actively harmful ideas that present them 'well' remain the guiding forces while those concerned purely with the realm of ideas and not their presentation can only bemoan the refusal of others to heed their words. There is value in... palatability, even if to many - not necessarily you, mind, I don't know you - it seems to demean the purity of the ideas themselves somehow.)
I mean, I fully agree with the folly of trying to convince someone with a preemptive bias, but if you end up speaking 'at' someone, and do not care whether they listen or receive anything from it, aren't you just wasting both your and their time? And besides, I'd wonder what's the point of your response to them at all, if you've already judged them as having dug their heels in.
>>
File: yam.png (1.2 MB)
>>3984199
The way I see it, I'm not just speaking to another person when communicating online. I'm speaking to anyone who reads it. By filtering my words through politesse or trying to "convert" people then I'm really undermining my own intention, which is to state what I think regardless if it finds fertile ground or not, radical honesty. Otherwise you get a slow mimetic shift in your own conceptions, as you try to "match" other people. But, for sure, I"m not patting myself on the back about anything I say, or at least not without self-awareness. Part of what makes me able to think these things is that I grew up a person prone to doubting myself and I often felt confused by what other people seemed to take as a matter of course. I truly believe holding confusion is a very useful thing to do, but I don't expect everyone to do it.
>>
>>3982477
It's gets worse, the game is shallow political propoganda.
>>3983383
Large groups of people can't own things. Even small groups of people struggle to share items. Large groups of people simply cannot organize themselves. They organize under one man's command. Any political system that fails to account for basic facts about human nature is inherently flawed.
You say "Large scale civilization is the problem" as though there was some ideal scale. Humans won't ever want to "Scale down" because they don't want to be stabbed to death by the spears of illiterate tribesman.
No creature that has ever walked, or crawled wishes to be "scaled down" even the lowest scuttling slithering singular cellular organism endeavors to continue it's existence.
Your issue is not just with man, but with life itself. You should seek consoling for your despair. .
>>
>>3984207
You're kinda repeating what I said. The issue I'm talking about is that "one man's command" is no longer viable or how the world works. The people in charge are enslaved to the techniques and systems that allow them to stay in charge and they really have no direction or ability to manage this ever growing machine. This scale is beyond the mind of any human being and all atomization and ennui and ideology are symptomatic. Obviously to "scale down" universally would require a monolithic power that would be even more complex, defeating the purpose. This is more about observation than solution. What's funny is that ancient people understood some of these principles first hand and created the Tower of Babel story.
I'm not afraid to die, that is what life is, finite. To me this is just a case of looking at reality, I don't want to be an ostrich. I prefer to look at the iceberg.
>>
>>
>>
