Simple solution: Try looking at the pictures of you through a mirror.

Whataboutism and a straw man in the same sentence. Smells like speed running trolling.

Am I the only one tired by all these franchises constantly rehashed to death?

Cause consumers let them.

Why do consumers let them? It’s just step one of enshittification : first, be nice to your customers until they become dependent on you and you’re the only game in town…

I dunno. You could throw yourself down the stairs. It’s an awful choice, but you could still do it…

The point is, a choice with all kinds of negative consequences to it isn’t really a choice.

Uh, it’s a brick shelf made out of books.

This is what happens when stack overflow is used for training.

Wake me up when a game about exploration actually has exploration in it. Loading screens, fast travel, shallow space content, minimally consequential space ship building…

Sure, in this game you “go places”, but you go places to be there, ignoring all the excitement of what has to happen to get there and what happens along the way. That’s not really exploration. That’s just a level select screen.

I think this is satire. Poe’s law is stronger than ever

Triple AAA games are usually very polished. But polish doesn’t make games fun. Polish is important with accessibility, and it’s easy to see why accessibility is important for a big studio casting a wide net.

But fun? That comes from creativity and innovation. Big studios are averse to risk taking, and struggle to attract creative individuals, because the corporate culture seeks to stamp out individuality in the name of process and procedure.

So yeah, more evidence of this. My money is going to Indy devs who prioritize fun over polish. (But polish is good to have too).

Asking your employer for more compensation because you are exerting more effort due to inexperience isn’t so different than a AAA studio charging high fees for a crappy product because of corporate bullshit and inefficiency.

In fact, these two things tend to be two sides of the same coin.

Just a thought, communities dedicated to one particular gender are often not inclusive by design, especially if you actively try to funnel people of a certain gender to certain communities. And therefore they, historically, have tended to devolve into echo chambers, and then subsequently into toxic spaces, with little room for nuanced discussion nor hosting a broad range of opinions. That’s not to say all communities are like this and most don’t start out like that either. There is value to have these communities if they themselves promote inclusion. But putting people of a particular gender into a gender-specific community is not at all the solution to “Too few women on Lemmy”.

I’d rather see the focus on making the general communities be welcoming to everyone equally.

Realistically, probably the same thing as what happens at self-checkout lines with idiotic anti-theft checks:

A beacon above the kiosk turns on, an attendant walks over and, without a word, flashes a badge at the machine to override the system lockout as they roll their eyes: this is only the hundredth time today someone accidentally pressed the wrong button, because what kind of terrorist would voluntarily press “yes”.