You seem to have a very narrow and incorrect definition of the word faith, that you place so much faith in, that you don’t even seem to want to look it up in a dictionary.

Your faith in your definition of the word faith goes so far, that you just repeat your incorrect definition and completely shut out any reasoning or any sources that might say otherwise.

The evidence says something else, but your faith in your definition of that word makes it impossible for you to consider any other option.

I think your perception might be 10 years off.

Assassins Creed 1 came out in 2007, less than 20 years ago. It was mindbogglingly fresh and innovative back then. An open world where you can’t just run anywhere you want, but also climb anywhere? And your character dynamically climbed up walls, finding places to hold onto everywhere? That was amazing back then. It was the first game that even attempted anything like that, and it was really, really good. AC only became lame when they started doing the same over and over again with little change.

Similar story with Far Cry. FC1 came out in 2004, only FC2 was also released in that decade (2008). Both FC1 and FC2 were doing something new, fresh and genre-defining. Looking back from now, yes, these games look like everything else that followed it, but because these games defined it.

But in this decade we saw a lot of other genre-defining games, like Warcraft 3 (2002/2003), WoW (2004), KOTOR (2003), Bioshock (2007), Crysis (2007), Fable (2004), Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009), Portal (2007) and also a lot of AAA flops that happened due to too much experimentation and shooting for the stars, like Spore (2008).

And most of the games I listed above don’t have a piss filter.

You will find that everyone who has faith claims to have a good reason to believe in it.

Faith is trust is believing in something without definitive proof. If you have proof, you don’t trust, you know.

That’s just nuts.

Seriously, Monopoly is one of the worst games in existence.

But that’s expected, since the game it cloned was actually two games, the one was like the current Monopoly, the other one had a property tax system and that one was so balanced that the game never ended. Both games were not made to be played for fun, but to show how different taxation systems lead to different outcomes. They were serious, non-fun games on purpose.

Damn, thanks for the insight. I just read the wiki article and the source claiming the marketing budget of that game, because I couldn’t believe it, and the name Niantic was somewhere in there, so I figured Niantic did what Niantic does. Apparently, it’s not even that.

It’s ridiculous, seriously. Monopoly is a horrible game in it self, and I thought everyone and their dog was already sick of it, but I guess I’m just projecting.

Or pumping the equivalent of the GDP of Samoa into the marketing of some stupid mobile game version of this really bad board game really does something.

Less so though.

Yes, being “safe” means you won’t make the next Minecraft, where a hobby budget turns into the best selling game of all time. But it also means that the people who buy every instalment of Fifa or Assassin’s Creed will also buy it.

These popular franchises almost always turn a calculable profit as long as they don’t experiment and do something new that bombs.

As sad as it is, it actually does work out.

That’s why we gamers shouldn’t trust on AAA titles bringing something great to the market. If you want to play a game like you watch linear TV (plonk down on the couch/in front of the PC and to whatever to relax and waste time), then AAA is great. If you want to play something new, something exciting, something that you haven’t played before, then go with lower-budget titles.

AAA is the McDonalds of games. You don’t go to McDonalds for the freaky hand-crafted vegan fusion kitchen bacon burger with crazy Korean curry mayo and caramelized lettuce.

So you have to be religious to be faithful to your spouse?

No, faith doesn’t refer to religion. You can have faith that your investment works, you can have faith in democracy or the judicial system, and in many other things.

In fact, if you check out what Wikipedia has to say about it, there’s a whole section on “Secular Faith”, which includes faith in e.g. philosophical ideas, ethics, personal values and principles and so on.

Faith is just a strong conviction or trust, that’s how it’s defined. And sure, you can have faith in God. But you can also have faith that the scientific method works and that the amount of published garbage studies is low enough to not break the system.

And this faith can be shaken when learning about meta studies estimating that about 30% of scientific papers are bogus, plagiarized and/or not reproducible.

Or when learning about John Bohannon, and his purposely bogus study on that chocolate helps with weight loss, which he published to show how easy it is to publish nonsense papers, and not only did this study make it onto headlines of newspapers worldwide, but his retraction of the study totally failed to get any publicity at all. He basically couldn’t retract his own study from public knowledge.

And like with religious faith, learning about these issues can either lead to either increased understanding, a shaken faith in science in general or an angry counter-attack.

If you don’t understand everything in every field of science (and it’s impossible to do so), then you have to trust what you cannot prove. And that’s literally the same thing as faith. Because it is faith. You blindly trust something without having proof, just trusting that when someone else claims to have proof, that they actually do have proof.

Yes, that’s a huge issue. Another issue is that the reward for doing peer reviews is far too low, and publishing negative peer reviews comes with the risk of making an enemy in the same field, who might do your next peer review. So you only call out egregiously bad science or just rubber stamp every peer review, because there’s nothing in it for you to publish a negative peer review.

I’ve read meta studies that said that huge amounts of published scientific studies cannot be reproduced. I can’t remember the exact number, but it was >30%.

So if the published science itself is already full of garbage, how is a journalist (who is themselves not a scientist or at least not a scientist in the specific field) know what study is good and what is garbage? And even then, how many people read science journalism compared to boulevard media?

John Bohannon comes to mind, with his purposeful bogus study that claimed that eating chocolate can help with weight loss. He used overfitting and p-hacking to create a study that was purposely garbage and got it published. His goal was to show how easy it is to publish a sensationalist-but-garbage paper. This went so well that every trashy boulevard paper but also many major newspapers ran it, often as a title page news story.

In an interview he said that he got hundreds of calls, all on the level of “Which brand of chocolate helps best?”, and only a single serious inquiry doubting his methods.

He published his own debunk shortly after publishing the original story, it it got pretty much no media attention at all.

He basically couldn’t even recall his own bogus study, and to this day many people worldwide still believe that chocolate can help with weight loss.

Is there any decent way to run Plasma Mobile in Termux by now?

But then they still need to trust the journalist. And considering how much crap science gets published even in supposedly high quality journals, and how little quality peer review happens, even the journalists don’t have a scientific basis for much of science reporting.

Faith is a different word for trust. They are synonyms.

Newpipe annoyingly does that by default.

deleted by creator

Yeah, that’s clearly just spam, likely created by a bot. Didn’t even bother trying to make it match the community it was posted in.

20 years ago AAA games could still experiment, but that was because back then AAA games had about the same budget as big indie games now.

You just can’t gamble if you have 10k employees and hundreds of millions riding on it.

Happened even with Boeing. I think it should be illegal for anyone with an MBA to be CEO or CTO of any company. They can be CFO if they want to, but not any role with actual decision power over products.

To me - normie writing is something like those new switch Zelda games or Yakuza games or those Jedi Fallen Order/Survivor dark souls clone games or something like Watch_Dogs 1 or hell insert any ubisoft game apart from FC2, WD2 here

This. And none of these games with their totally predictable normie plots get any shit for that, let alone anything major.

And Watch dogs 1 was such a terrible game, it would deserve getting major shit.

This is spot on.

In 2013 I was much younger and believed ahit I read, so I was swept up in the “Sarkessian wants to destroy games” crap (as if she could and/or mattered enough to actually affect change in any way).

A few years ago I looked up her videos (cudos to her that she still kept them online) and I was honestly almost disappointed in how bland and obviously true her points were. Sure, her research wasn’t perfect and she could have presented them a bit better, but what these videos deserved would have been mostly bored acknowledgement. Similar to TLOU2. It wasn’t a super exciting game. The story wasn’t great but also not terrible. The characters were adequately interesting for the most part. The gameplay was again not great but ok, and certainly not worse than part 1.

Could it have been better? Sure, no question. But it also didn’t nearly deserve the hate it got.

Same with many other similar media, like e.g. the Ghostbusters remake or Twilight.

But what happened there was that people got seriously offended by these games/shows/movies and then made it their mission to destroy it. And that’s ridiculous and pathetic, but it happens all the time.

YouTube gives me more value for free than a lot of services I actually pay for

That’s the really annoying part.

I’ve been considering swapping to other services for a long time, but to follow the creators I want to follow I’d have to subscribe to Nebula and Floatplane and I’d still miss out on quite a few creators.