Recent content by Untitled.

Sartre outlines a somewhat general theory that could be relevant to your line of questioning in Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions. Specifically, chapter 3 should be the interesting part. If you don't have access to the book I could write a short summary at the end of the week, as I've only eyed it superficially before.

By "efficiency", do we mean efficiency in production or efficiency in allocation? Both? It seems to me that there's some value in not conflating them and instead considering them independently.

That horse archery clip is hilarious. You'd think people who work in games journalism have enough experience with games to intuitively understand after the first, or even second, time that you can't fire your bow to the right while on horseback. Yet they keep trying to hit things.

But there has to be a catch, right?
No catch!

Click to expand...

I guess that depends on how you define a catch. You have to subscribe to the newsletter after all.

Lord Milky said:

There were plenty of native tribes after the British left. The decline of culture is mainly due to the influx of settlers which in turn caused population growth , shrinking territory and racial tensions. I'm not saying the British were completely innocent but let's not forget , the drastic decline happened after their departure. Your source sounds incredibly biased. The French also had a major foothold in the Americas causing war amongst tribes , disease etc

Click to expand...

Could you point out the biased premises so I could address them? The pope was generally quite lenient towards the natives, and the French were on better terms with the natives a lot of the time than the British (for example, there's to my knowledge no British equivalent to the Cajuns).

Of course, natives at different points in time would ally any European power they could against their traditional enemies, I'm not disputing that. The only thing I am trying to show is that, in the Americas, the Spanish were less destructive for the native populations than the non-Catholics (primarily British).

wormydowg said:

The big empires like the Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Ottoman, and British, just kinda let culture do it's thing. The last 2 empires were real jerks tho, ottomans wanted to unite all these different cultures under one religion, and the British we're trying to drain areas of their wealth.

Only the 16th century Spanish have managed to completely destroy cultures, and while they have done their fair share of destruction, it was actually forcing interracial marriage between native Americans and Spanish millitary  that did the most damage to existing culture.

Click to expand...

The reason North America is basically racially homogeneous is partly because the British systematically killed off the local populations. The Catholics, especially Spain, were much more lenient on natives in the New World. The pope even considered them to be essentially like children (which implies that they were seen as idiotic humans, but the British didn't view the natives as human at all).

Diego de Landa was even called back to Spain to be tried for conducting an unlawful inquisition and torturing natives. This is vastly different from how the British treated natives in North America.

Of course, disease killing something like 80% of the population (I took this number from Dan Carlin's history podcast, not sure what his source is) completely crippled civilizations, but the Catholics intermarrying with the locals is why you have any native culture at all in South America, and also the reason why pretty much everyone is mixed today.

There are several competing conceptions of what constitutes a lie. The conventional definition requires you to believe that your statement is false in order for it to be a lie though (usually with an express intention to deceive). Generally then, truthfulness (concerns belief) and falsity (concerns validity) of a statement are two separate phenomena.

This article, specifically section 1.2, does a fairly good job of discussing the issue.

Bjorn The Raider said:

But I must say TW doesn't really seem good from outside when it comes to the communication.

Click to expand...

They've never been very good at that. All things considered, this is a pretty small thing to worry over, especially since the contradiction came quite soon after the initial statement (it would have been much worse if you could have pre-purchased the game with the understanding you'd get early access and then the game releases without going through early access). They just need to make a more definitive and less ambiguous statement.

onarum said:

Akesh the Cursed said:

Auldman said:

I don't mind paying $40 for this game in EA

Click to expand...

Lol! If this goes more than $20 I will be very disappointed. The game has been in development for how many years and it now decides to go in to early access? I am one of the few people here defending TW when it comes to needing more time on game development but I do not support early access games. This may be an exception if it is fairly priced but if they want $40 I will just wait for the full development or may just pass altogether, which would not be easy for me.

Edit: I would love to participate in a beta if that is a possibility.

Click to expand...

....What? you people do realize that you'd be basically buying the game early and having access to it right? you're not just paying for beta access, and you want the full game to cost you 20 dollars?

This will be a full price game friend, 60 USD minimum, do you really think they'd spend all this time and money, develop an entirely new engine, and then charge 15 bucks for it? you can't possibly be that delusional right?

At most you'd get a 15% discount by buying it while on early access, but that's it, of course I'm talking about Early Access specifically, if they decide to do their own open/closed beta test I doubt they'll charge anything for it.

Boy I can already see children *****ing in the steam forums about the final price of this game..

As for me I'll pay whatever it is they charge for it, because I know it'll be worth it.

Click to expand...

Yet isn't that literally what they did for the original M&B? I recall paying something like 15€ for beta while the actual released product was ~20€ unless I'm mistaken.

Of course, circumstances are different and Bannerlord is a game of much larger scale, but I think it's a little bit of an overreaction to call someone delusional in this case while then proceeding to make the statement that you know it will be worth whatever they decide to charge you when the game isn't even close to release.

Warband has aged somewhat poorly in the visual department, so even if the graphics look a little bit "potato 2013", I'm quite happy with the upgrade.

rysborn said:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/300908109, start at 1 hour 5 minutes exactly, should be it, for those who can't watch it live

Click to expand...

Man, the girl interviewing him doesn't seem very insightful with regards to the subject.

Serious question: does wind energy still have to be subsidized to be economical, or is that just a reality of the 90s?

Beny said:

It's the youth's way of documenting how strong a relationship is. Every consecutive day that you send or receive a snapchat from someone contributes towards a "streak", which is represented by a fire because our friendship is mad fire yo. I currently have acquired one of these magical "streaks" so will document it here for scientific reference.

Spoiler

The future is weird.

Click to expand...

What do the smileys next to some people mean?

I think it's necessary to speak of this in broad terms because we have so little information of what the final product will be like. All of my posts should be read with a "in principle" caveat in mind as we can't really assume much from the little information we have been shown.

But I think the worry persists even if there is tiered system for castles as long as castles can be upgraded along these trees. If each village can have a castle, the player can reach a stage where every settlement has a castle of enormous proportions. We have no idea if the sizes of tier 3 castles are similar across the board, and we also don't know what the in-game timeframe for the upgrading of castles is. There's no word on razing of castles or other mechanics to naturally limit castle growth that I'm aware of, so it seems prudent not to assume them.

Rabies said:

If it's possible, it's realistic.

Click to expand...

I think it would be more proper to format it as: "if it's plausible, it's realistic". It's possible to board a spaceship and travel to the moon, but it wouldn't be plausible to implement that into the world of Calradia.
If grand castles were rare during the periods the game draws inspiration from, there's no reason to allege that the same reasons for generally building smaller castles would not exist within the game.

At least the original M&B aspired to be a game without certain "fantasy-inspired" elements when it came to things such as trade goods, equipment, buildings etc. The game did not draw inspiration from only one point in history though, but rather mixed things in from a width of a few centuries.

I think we've established that immersion is quite important in games of the genre. If the game cannot convince you to suspend your disbelief, is that game not doing a poor job? Would there be a drawback to scaling back the forts that compensates for this loss of immersion?