Most of what I see as 'issues' are personal preferences. Stuff like railroaded dialog choices even worse than Fallout 4, or stiff/awkward voice acting, or landing on planets being randomly generated despite claims otherwise. But as for actual issues, two things stood out to me: spaceship flight is very dangerous because bumping into things has a good chance of bugging the physics engine and killing you instantly (but other times, barely even registering damage). And seeing a player get stuck because they got a bounty without even knowing it, and then the bounty was making them shoot-on-sight by guards and them having no clue how to deal with the bounty. I'm sure there's a perfectly simple way out of the situation, but without any communication to the player, that's nothing but frustration. Add in broken NPC pathing/animations (people getting stuck inside objects like bar counters), making it all-too-easy to fall down ladder holes in ships, and horrible performance optimization (with Todd Howard being quoted telling people to just buy better computers), and I think it'll need a bit of polish before really considering giving it a shot.
Well, sure. And Starfield follows in the wake of Fallout 4's lackluster RPG experience, offering shallow conversations and the illusion of choice. After Fallout 4, I'm not sure I can get myself to play another game modeled after the same system of "Would you like a quest? [Yes/Yes but sarcastic/One question first then yes/Maybe later]". If the story is railroaded, Starfield and NMS aren't too different then - there's a main quest line, with things to learn and people to meet, and you check off the boxes until it's done.
But as to whether they should be compared, I think it's unavoidable. There's too much overlap, and no other games like it. Games in which you can customize a space ship, explore thousands of planets, make a home base on any planet you want, and are incentivized to explore and find new places and meet new people? NMS, Starfield, Elite Dangerous, maybe Star Citizen. With some similar gameplay elements and a small pool of games, comparison is natural and expected. Nothing wrong with that.
Fair enough, but there's a difference between reading headlines/articles to make a judgement, and watching actual real-time gameplay for several hours to make a judgement. The only difference was that I wasn't the one holding the controller. If several hours of uninterrupted unedited gameplay isn't enough to make a surface-level observation, I'm not sure what is.
Plus, I was just saying how what I saw made me feel, and I said I'd rather play one game over another. If we want to talk about unnecessarily strong opinions, let's start with you attempting to shut down my honest two cents to reinforce your negative worldview. Let's all be kind to each other, okay? :)
I haven't bought Starfield, and I don't plan to, but I watched some gameplay and... Well, the game is a pile of issues. And the few bits that are acceptable are bits I've already seen from NMS - and their implementation is usually better than Starfield. So as I'm watching Starfield footage, all I can feel is a desire to reinstall NMS and play that instead... And I'm not even a big NMS fan. It's not a good sign if your 'revolutionary' game already feels beat out by competition that had existed before your game was even halfway in development. Bethesda had all the time and manpower in the world to compete with NMS, and still fell short.
That was a >100gb download that took the moderators time to download and test. And the admins weren't involved. All the claims of admins backing the torrent or deleting comments has had zero proof, as it was all hysteria drummed up by the psychotic cracker called Empress, who has had a long standing imaginary feud with 1337x.
1337x can have malware in anything, as anyone can upload. The volunteer moderators downloaded and tested it as soon as they could. I'm sorry some people downloaded it faster, but there's no conspiracy here.
I'm not sure that the labels themselves are the issue in either of these cases. It's worth remembering that we're talking about historical periods of mistreatment as well. From my experience, Psychiatry as a whole has historically had its favorite diagnosis for the 'bad and unwanted' people in society. Hysteria is the obvious reference, but that shifted towards labeling the 'undesirables' as schizophrenics (and later as borderlines). It wasn't (and in the case of BPD, still isn't) uncommon for people to receive these labels purely to communicate to other doctors "I don't like this patient"/"They're faking"/"They deserve mistreatment".
Let's not forget that the label of schizophrenia started as a combination of the idea of early-onset dementia and stigmatization of behaviors that do not fit into society. The latter half is covered up by history, but the initial 'symptoms' of a schizophrenia diagnosis included things like not making small talk and having strong beliefs about politics. The list of symptoms read half of what you'd expect in terms of psychosis, and half like it was copy-pasted from the 'symptoms' of Hysteria. That's why these additional labels were harmful - some of them were associated more with not fitting into society than actual pathology.
It's no coincidence that when this general issue of mistreatment and over-diagnosis was being fought against, Psychiatry was busy switching over to using Borderline as the new maligned diagnosis. The schizophrenia labels were removed during the wider push for humanizing treatment of schizophrenics, but I don't think the labels themselves were a significant part of the issue - the bigger issue was the inherent power imbalances and patient abuse present within Psychiatry. After all, BPD was previously unnoteworthy, but now has become the new stigmatizing label, and all the mistreatments of schizophrenics are being shifted to borderlines. After all, there's now a "quiet borderline" label - for people who clearly aren't borderline, but psychiatrists want to give the 'bad diagnosis' to anyway.
Autism is adjacent to Psychiatry, but the story is the same. Autism is currently maligned by society, and the fact that people are so hostile towards autistic people is the real problem, not the labels they've made up to 'justify' their hostility. Getting rid of the labels doesn't remove the hostility, because the hostility is just looking for an outlet. That's why my only focus is making sure that labels are medically useful - because managing societal and medicalized hate of disabled people is another issue altogether.
Do you think a "soulslike" is defined by being dark and gritty? I find it odd that you think the inclusion of anything cute or hopeful/friendly would be only a negative. Maybe your preferences are for dark and gritty only, but I assure you that many people enjoy other styles. There's a charm to there being hope in a dying world, isn't there?
Besides, I'd say most people define "soulslike" by their gameplay, not aesthetics. Maybe the "git gud" fragile-masculinity crowd needs their unforgiving combat system paired with a dark, 'masculine' atmosphere to fulfill their power fantasy, but again, I assure you that many other types of people enjoy those games - especially Elden Ring, which has much broader appeal than the previous souls games.
I'll wager you're a toxic "git gud" type that hinges their identity on these types of games, and that's why the idea of your sacred icon being blemished by comparison to Soulframe upsets you so much. I really can't see why else anyone would be this angry over a game not being to their preferences. If people enjoy something different than you, let them. :)
Nuance is needed here... The terms high- and low-functioning are definitely problematic, because they're too reductionist, and lead people to assume things. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that autism having "levels" is bad - the DSM-5 (as horribly flawed as it is) contains two sets of three levels each for determining level of support needed by an autistic person, with the two sets being related to socialization and life-skill functioning. Given that autism is a spectrum, and some autistic people aren't disabled by it at all, being able to categorize people by their needs is useful - we just have to make sure that it's qualitative, rather than arbitrary labels being picked by how the doctor is feeling that day. And it's something to be kept in medical records, not used for self-identification.
As someone who highly values spending time just thinking, it does take a level of privilege to do so. If your needs aren't met, or your life isn't safe/secure, letting the mind wander is giving it the ability to latch onto these distressing topics and create loops of anxiety and stress.
As much as I value spending my time thinking, I also value ways of shutting my brain off so that I don't have another panic attack about how I can't afford groceries yet or not knowing if my housing situation is secure. I can't feel like my life is collapsing if I distract myself.
And more people than not are struggling to make ends meet, so I imagine more people than not have stresses they need to put out of mind, just to retain their sanity.
This has been known for at least a decade now, and no changes have been made. I've even seen estimates on how little it would cost to modify the feed, and it's negligible, but any extra cost is too much cost I suppose.
It causes temporary and often permanent memory loss and brain fog. The goal of ECT is to, quite literally, make people detached from their illness or trauma by either forgetting it entirely or by damaging the pathways of learned stress responses, both of which are achieved through random damaging of soft tissue by routine 'treatments' until the right spots are hit, with every other damaged area being deemed acceptable losses.
It's proven effective, sure. It's more effective at causing improved mood than doing nothing. So is a heroin addiction. At least once you stop abusing heroin, you recover physically. ECT does permanent damage in most people who undergo it. Plus, ECT isn't a single course of treatments - any benefit it gives eventually wears off, and additional treatment cycles are planned in perpetuity. This is because of neuroplasticity, where the brain will recreate some of those connections that were damaged by ECT, thus bringing back trauma memories/associations and symptoms of illness.
Is it really worth it to suffer bits of permanent damage every time you undergo what is essentially medicalized repression of memory? There are people who lose memory of their partner of several years, have zero emotion towards them, leave them and continue on in their life never remembering the love they had. Is that worth it, for something that just returns anyway?
"Proven effective" and "outperforms placebo" are statements that focus on a single variable and don't mention how much damage something may cause elsewhere. Don't take it at face-value.
You can't get a lobotomy anymore, but doctors still prescribe ECT all the time. You just need to modernize your standards for physician-inflicted brain damage.
I used to think that. Then I realized I was dissociating all my memories away, and that my panic attacks were reality catching up to me. My life's fairly empty, but things definitely happen, I just don't remember them. It wasn't until I started living with someone else that I had someone to remind me of all the things I forget.
But I figure, my brain's doing it for a reason, right? Guess this is just how I deal with the stresses of life. It has its disadvantages, and I'm no stranger to hating myself for not remembering things, but any other way of getting through life would have its own downsides. Or so I tell myself.
/r/Place has always had massive country flags whenever it ran. But the way I see it, the largest murals need the most people working on it, and getting many people involved means having them all be connected in some way, and country-of-origin is the easiest way to do that. Combine that with the fact that the biggest non-English communities on western social media like Reddit (and Lemmy too, now) tend to be German or French, and it's no surprise that the two largest murals are those flags.
You'd wish people would find something else to represent them and have fun with things like this, but people gravitate towards the largest groups they feel a part of. Low hanging fruit, I suppose.