Discussion about it on the subreddit was insufferable back in the day. All the fanboys would show up in every thread complaining about the problem saying stupid shit like “well Psyonix has the data to judge if it’s working or not and since you don’t that makes your argument invalid”

Even in casual mode, you have a (hidden) rank which does go down the more you lose. If you keep getting demolished in the game then I’d recommend doing the training, playing against bots, and/or continuing to play in casual mode until your rank starts placing you with other players you can better contend with.

There’s also a distinct possibility you were against someone smurfing as some people like to do that either for content or just for kicks and giggles. The very lowest ranks are probably where the most egregious smurfs like to keep their ranks, so unfortunately you can have some of the widest swings in actual skill levels.

Unfortunately the devs don’t really seem to care much about the smurfing problem in the game because it’s been pretty rampant for a very long time and some of the changes they’ve made have actually made it even easier to get away with.

Why’s that?

I’m not saying I know this person is an asshole because they drive a large, obnoxious vehicle every day. I’m saying I see people who drive large, obnoxious vehicles on a daily basis and as such it wouldn’t surprise me if this person also drove this large, obnoxious vehicle on a daily basis because I’ve seen others do it. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that this person does use this as more than a “toy” just as much as it’s possible that this is the only time it was ever on-road.

If this person drives this vehicle regularly in relatively urban areas (or really much anywhere except mostly on empty roads or off road) then I’d be disappointed and frustrated that their toy is something that has been modified in a way that makes it larger and more dangerous to both other drivers and pedestrians. That’s not to say I think they’re doing that specifically to be more dangerous to everyone else, but the net effect is still the same. Their modifications have made it harder to see others close to the car, made it easier for others to go under the vehicle in the event of an accident, and made it more likely to tumble in a crash.

That all being said, my experience with the type of people who install modifications like this to their vehicles would suggest they’re an asshole who’s either apathetic to the danger they cause others or like these modifications specifically because it pisses people off. Just as you said I don’t know from this single photo whether this person fits that mold and I’m not going to pretend I do, but I’m also not going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

You may feel comfortable introducing the possibility and almost insisting that their vehicle is a toy, but personally I’m against calling almost any car or truck a “toy”, much less one that has wheels that look taller than many people.

To a sensible person it wouldn’t be a daily driver. I’ve seen some people who are not sensible on my daily commute.

Well only started using a browser profile, specifically in Chrome, within the last year. I still don’t use it for personal use, though. Or chrome for that matter.

I’m the same boat except I was forced to use it because of work some time in the last 2 ish years.

As far as my personal opinion on whether games such as any of the Soulsbourne titles should be made easier, I’m appreciative of the fact that they don’t have difficulty sliders in much any regard. If I beat Dark Souls 3, there isn’t a question about if I beat it on the easiest mode, anyone who’s gone through the entire experience knows what I also went through. While I agree that most of the FromSoft games are sorely lacking in accessibility options (even more so their older titles), Difficulty is only one of many accessibility options. I would rather they add other accessibility options so that players who struggle with the games as is can have an easier time getting the intended experience than reduce the intended experience down to allow for the lowest common denominator.

As an aside, many of the Soulsbourne games already have something in the way of “easier modes” via alternate weapons, different combat systems, and different play styles. Playing almost any of them primarily using ranged combat reduces the difficulty in most every encounter in the game outside of boss battles. Boss battles often have their own gimmick that you can exploit to make them easier to fight. Often the level design, nearby items (and descriptions), or enemy positions are used as clues to make finding these exploits easier.

As an example, the Taurus Demon in DS1 can be killed fairly easily by baiting him to where the skeleton archers are above the fight, then using a plunging attack on him several times in a row. The intended experience is that you would go into the arena, you may run directly towards the other side, spawn the Taurus demon once you run about halfway through the arena, and notice you’re being shot at from behind. You’ll likely die, but in the next fight against him you can try to take out the archers via your own ranged weapons, but doing so shows a cleverly hidden ladder that leads up to the archers. The ladder isn’t visible when entering the arena but the moment you turn around to look at the archers you can clearly see it next to the doorway you entered from. You can go up the ladder and easily dispatch the archers. I don’t remember if every following fight you have to run halfway through the arena to spawn him again or if you have to run halfway through only the first time, but regardless an observant player will notice after taking down the archers that the drop back down the ladder will look very similar to the plunging attack the game teaches you in the tutorial boss fight. If you make the connection and perform that attack on the Taurus Demon it’ll take out about 30% of his health depending on your class and weapon. Scramble around his legs (now that you’re on the same floor as him) back towards the ladder, climb up, and repeat a few more times for an easy victory. Alternatively you can wait up where the archers were for a few seconds and the Taurus Demon will jump up and fight you there. You now have an alternate wider arena better suited to strafing around him instead of the narrow bridge he spawns in on.

Other games would do things like give a prompt to lower the difficulty, reduce the health of enemies in the background after repeated failures, or give you optional power ups after X defeats. All of these reinforce the mentality that “what you’re doing is right, but you’re lacking the skill to do it” when often in Soulsbourne games that’s a harmful mentality to have as it’ll lead you to keep repeating a tactic or playstyle that’s demonstrably not working. In my opinion, that’s the core of what fans of harder games like myself want to keep experiencing and why so many are against “easier modes” because it subverts the intended experience we enjoy: recognizing what’s going wrong, correcting it to make things go right, and overcoming great challenges.

You’re presenting the two options as similar when I’m not entirely sure they are. You’ve explored making an easy game harder and a hard game easier, but let’s look at the other two results from your presented options: making an easy game easier and a hard game harder.

Making a hard game harder is often met with praise because the people who beat or otherwise enjoy the hard game already want and expect a challenge out of the game, so giving them more of that is almost what they expect already.

Making an easy game easier can be met with praise as much as it can be subject to criticism. The Pokemon series has long been critiqued for continually making every next installment easier and easier for the last several generations.

Obviously in your example of making a hard game easier there are people in favor of it but also people against it. The fact that we’re having a discussion about this controversy is proof enough that many people want it, but dedicated fans are often against it.

And just like in your example, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone against allowing an easy game to have harder modes as long as it doesn’t negatively impact those playing the easier modes.

The trend I’m seeing amongst these 4 outcomes is usually that allowing the option for a harder mode than the game already allows is often agreed upon by the wider gaming community, but asking for easier modes is often controversial. The trend I’m also seeing is that this remains true regardless of if the game was considered easy or hard in the first place.

Your original post seems to imply that players and fans for hard games are being obstinate and resistant to allowing the same concessions that players and fans for easy games do, when you could use the other two results I brought up to make players for easy games seem just as obstinate. “Us players of hard games are allowing for harder games to be made, why do you fans of easy games seem to be having such a controversy over if easy games should be made easier?” or something to that effect.

In my opinion, the controversy isn’t whether hard games should be made easier, it’s whether games that fans enjoy should be made easier.

The closest thing I’ve ever seen to a teen center was a sports facility that had a room for kids and teens to hang out, but that was closer to a babysitting service. Paired with the facts that you had to pay monthly membership dues ($25 to $100/mo these days, apparently) and the whole facility was meant for something else entirely, it’s not something I would first describe as a teen center. Not any more than I’d call a high school a chemical R&D facility just because of its chemistry classroom.

Outside of that one room, I’m not aware of anything else nearby me that would be even remotely similar.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. Was a little factoid I had heard a long time ago and never questioned. Good to know that it wasn’t actually true.

The Chicago area has more people of Polish descent than Poland.

Iirc there’s ways in steam to do the same thing, though I believe it’s a bit more involved of a process.

I used to play a ton of this game Magicite before the developer destroyed the game with its final update which came out conveniently around the release of their next game. Which they did again for that next title, and again for the one after that.

And by destroy I mean now you have a chance to soft lock in every level, picking up specific auto loot items can cause shops to permanently close up, crafting certain items cause glitchy behavior, co-op went from “minimum one person must survive each level” to “the first death causes everyone to instantly fail”, and the game crashes on the final boss fight before counting it as completed.

Every recommendation I’ve seen for this game also comes with an explanation on how to revert to the second latest version of the game.

That’s to say Early Access, not the other EA in the gaming industry of Electronic Arts.

Exactly this. I tell my friends not to get their hopes up too high about Palworlds eventually being completed because the studio has a history of abandoning titles in early access. I’m not telling them not to buy it or that it’s not worth purchasing, but to weigh if where it’s currently at is worth the price they’re charging.

The studio may use the funding they got from its spike in popularity to actually complete a title just as well as they might sell out to a bigger studio (I’d imagine The Pokemon Company would love to buy then bury it), or abandon it entirely. We don’t know what the future holds and we do know the studio has a history, so keep that in mind when you’re purchasing or when you’re asking yourself if it was worth the buy.

I haven’t watched it since about when this clip of the opening was first uploaded, but I recall a lot of the emotional beats getting undercut by long bits of dialogue interrupting the events of the show.

For instance I remember some fight where it felt like every time someone started speaking all of the other characters stopped everything they were doing as if waiting for their turn to do something. Which wouldn’t have been so bad considering you don’t want the camera to miss the actiony bits but it took so much time for anyone to say their line that it was distracting.

Again, haven’t seen it in a long time so I may be misremembering, but that was the impression I got from my initial viewing.

Have you considered Nonstop Nut November?

There was some stealth game I was trying out that did this. Before you start the game, it’s mandatory to set the brightness level so one logo is barely visible. I figure since it’s a stealth game I might as well just so I can see what areas are supposed to be light and what areas are supposed to be dark. Get into the game, soon find some guards and a nearby alcove in total darkness so naturally I dash over to hide before they notice me. The guards walk by and immediately see through the dark to spot me as if they had night vision goggles.

I stopped playing the game not long after because there were a lot of things about the game I really didn’t like, but those first few minutes were a tone setter for me. To this day I still wonder why the devs felt it was so important to make sure some things were dark enough to not be visible to the player if everything was going to be visible to the NPCs.

You better limit that recursion or imma smack you with a RecursionError

When I said “they owned bukkit” I didn’t mean they founded it, just that they were at the time of the controversy the owners of bukkit. Them taking it over isn’t mutually exclusive with owning it.

Also the controversy I was referring to was back in the peak of bukkit’s use, and they had owned it for some time before that peak. I’d wager the controversy was a much larger component of the fall of bukkit than them “plucking it apart” considering it was a product they owned and wholly benefited from it being the defacto standard at the time.