James Sunderland’s external pressure was his wife’s disease. What are you talking about?

The stuff that you’re saying isn’t there is, if you’re paying attention.

And the game’s combat style is plenty Silent Hill.

• It’s tense, creating a lot of “dropped keys” moments.
• Your resources are limited, creating waves of dread and relief as you teeter between safe-ish and extremely vulnerable.
• It sucks, lmao got’em.

These are the 3 underpinnings of all Silent Hill combat systems. Every title has them.

I am kidding, though. Once you understand what Silent Hill f wants you to do, the gameplay is actually quite fun. I beat it on its super hard mode; not as difficult as you would think.

Not to mention, all of the fighting in this game, I get why people are frustrated, but it serves a narrative purpose. Hinako’s defining character trait is rage. The game compels you diegetically to rage with her.

And I feel you about to say “Silent Hill isn’t Doom Eternal,” but anger is a pretty dark emotion, I do actually think it’s worth exploring.

The main problem I have with this line of thinking is that I don’t think you leave any room for experimentation. It’s just grievance politics, basically. “This isn’t a Silent Hill game” doesn’t really mean anything, what it means is “it wasn’t what I wanted,” which is fine, but I think you’re trying to dress that opinion up in fancier clothes than it deserves.

For example, Doki Doki Panic is a Mario game. Not only was it made by the Mario team, using their Mario lessons, but it’s the codifier for a ton of modern Mario staples. Shy Guys, Bob-ombs, Peach’s float ability all debuted in Doki Doki Panic. You can’t really separate it from Mario history; it’s deeply entangled.

I think it’s important to consider that, if you had some aim to release something annually, but without taking any oblique compromises on quality, how would you announce this to people without pissing them off? Because a lot of people are going to hear the word ‘annual’ and just immediately seize.

I think, and I’m not saying this is true per se, but I think that they’re signaling an aim or a hope, and not that there will be a CI pipeline that auto releases the next Assassin’s Creed to stores no matter what state it’s in.

If they can’t keep pace with yearly releases, the language used tells me they’re willing to slow down, kind of exactly like how Resident Evil has.

I will be disappointed if it turns out Konami can’t keep their cock in their pants, of course, but SH2, SHf, and what I think I’ve heard about MGS3 all tell me that there is some effort to produce things that are worth seeing here, which I’m fine with.

Um, the part where it was fun and creepy? And drenched in symbolism. I don’t know what you’re asking.

I think you’re implying that they made a game called f and then called it Silent Hill f, but I don’t think that’s even remotely true. I don’t even know where to go with that.

We may as well ask if Ocarina of Time isn’t a good Zelda game because the 3D elements stray too far from the core experience of having crazy pink hair. Would it have mattered if that game was instead called “Golden Billy Wets His Willy in Medieval Japan”?

Hard disagree.

Not that I clicked on the article, but the quote given by OP actually doesn’t worry me too much. It feels too me like there is an appropriate level of caution here. I don’t get the impression they’re trying to do an Activision.

Resident Evil was near annual for a bit, and only the 3 remake do I really hear people complain about.

I have zero special interest in AI

C’mon, man. Don’t lie.

There are finite ways to solve problems with code, how can anyone prove a piece of code is actually written by them …

You and I are going to end up reinventing the US patent system, and while cool, I just do not have time for it. I have way too many autumn leaves to blow into my neighbor’s yard.

I’m going to go back to being mean to you if you’re just going to rules-lawyer carve a path toward your AI special interest.

Secondly, I don’t copy answers from Stack Overflow. I have skill. It’s beneath me.

You don’t even know why I said that. Why do I have to suffer people who are incapable of reconstructing someone else’s argument?

The ML approach to protein folding is a different system, used in different ways, by different people. Your insistance on conflating a data analysis technique with a robot that will pretend to be your girlfriend is utterly bizarre. It’s so oblivious and unaware, I don’t even know what to do with it. It’s like you want people to dislike protein folding. I don’t understand why your camp insists on treating these like they’re the same thing.

Except I do, actually: it’s the card says moops. A very Republican tactic, if I’m being honest.

It’s not. Trap circumvented. Do you have another question?

I’m going to be a little less mean considering some things I’ve seen you say elsewhere.

What I’m talking about here is attribution. Colleges have their own system, I don’t believe that it’s law, for identifying and dealing with plagiarism, and that’s because where an idea came from is very important to academia. Something that trips a lot of people up because they tend to think of plagiarism as thought-stealing from other people: you can be found to have plagiarized your own work from years prior. You have to call out where your information comes from.

Software, even though chunks of code are copywrightable, as a culture, does not care about this nearly as much. Are you stealing if you borrow something from stack overflow? In a way, yeah, kinda. But nobody cares. Lawyers do care about the selected licenses on libraries and github pages, though.

But this is where talking exclusively about copywright gets in the way: if a coworker of mine borrowed a solution from a free-as-in-libre github repository, that would be fine. And the law wouldn’t care. But if they then said, “I wrote this,” maybe because they’re anxious about proving to their manager that they’re worth keeping around, I would think that was really fucking weird of them.

Attribution is not strictly a legal concept. It may or may not be possible to get my coworker there in legal trouble, but that’s really besides the point, I think they’re being anti-social. The dishonesty about where those ideas came from make me nervous about continuing to associate with them at all.

That would make a lot of sense.

Scientific fields obviously put a lot of effort into tackling this problem, but philosophically, it is not possible to be specific enough to do away with vagueness. At some point, you have to use language like “a reasonable person” and just leave judges to interpret the spirit of what’s being restricted.

So you’re perfectly fine with vague rules like that?

Yes. I don’t even feel it’s that vague.

What glitches are you looking for? Metallic shaders work on any set of colors, you know.

And having crudely drawn dicks doesn’t exactly make QA work easy.

This is just simply not true. First, dicks are an HR issue, and second, the sentiment being expressed here is ridiculous. You do not need near-finished assets to test things out.

You know, any studio today that cares about winning the indie award as much as you seem to would probably just ask the award coordinators for clarification.

… to rapidly prototype and develop their ideas.

Only if their creative process is to pull a slot machine handle over and over again.

Sure, man.

… but it turns out later I had read a solution to this problem somewhere and inadvertently copied it.

Plagiarism covers this.

If I use a Jetbrains provided built in template …

Are you claiming you wrote the template? I think plagiarism might cover that.

What if I just accept it as is, still my code?

Absolutely not.

If I copy a solution verbatim from Stack Overflow or a book,

If you… saw a solution somewhere. And then you copied it letter for letter. And then you told people, “this is mine, I wrote this,” … is that plagiarism?

This is for sure a difficult one, super hard, but I will give you a chance to think about it. It’s good to consider all the possibilities.

I once used suno a bunch to “make something” of some funny lyrics I had written (a gag for some friends of mine, not really important), and the process of getting anything useful out of it was absolutely miserable. I would never use this for any serious artistic effort. None of it felt like it was mine, either.

When I say that it was like watching a microwave, I’m being completely serious. If my career became just endlessly hitting that slot machine button for another go, I might just punch my ticket.

🫡
I salute ye for your hard work on yourself.

Funny you mention that.