fracture [he/him]

  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • this take in the article was really funny

    My guess at the real reason for all this grave dancing is that it feels like a victory over FOMO. If the new $40 game sucks and no one is playing it, I can safely go back to whatever I was playing before without worrying that anyone’s having fun without me.

    i don’t know what most people’s reasons for deriving enjoyment from concord’s failure are, but there’s no way FOMO cracks the top 3 lmao

    seeing the trailer, i definitely thought it was a bandwagon hero shooter that might have had some creativity if a bunch of suits didn’t say “make it GotG”, but realistically, it launched with little fanfare, in competition with valve’s first new game (beta) in ages. not that it was fated to fail but it didn’t have a lot going for it


  • it’s an interesting article, but i think the authors are conflating friction for wanting genuine human interaction; its easier than ever for me to make friends because i can instantly connect with and message back and forth, quickly and in real time, over various platforms e.g. discord, the depth of which is only limited by our interactions and how we treat them. forcing us back to sms/email/paper mail doesn’t make our interactions deeper, even though it adds friction. it means we can easily choose what the depth of connection we want is

    that isn’t to say that there aren’t examples where less friction leads to less interaction. dating apps are a great example. but i think the authors are conflating the friction for the interaction. yes, you could add friction that would encourage interaction, but you could also add friction that doesn’t. i think the more salient point would be, encouraging interaction often includes friction, but one shouldn’t shy away from that, as a UI/UX developer

    which, granted, isn’t as catchy of a title. but they could have gone into greater detail for that in the article, too

    regardless of this critique, i enjoyed reading it and the perspective it offered, even if i don’t strictly agree




  • thanks for sharing this information with us, i think it’s important to discuss this stuff on the fediverse

    i notice that beehaw doesn’t have a similar clause in its TOS, as far as i can tell. without the expectation of you answering this question, i’m wondering what the difference is between the two such that cohost has such a clause and beehaw doesn’t. maybe it’s because one is run by an individual and one is run by a small company?

    i did a search on cohost itself to see if anyone else talked about this and found this quite extensive thread: https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1588769277053739010

    so based on what you’ve said and what’s in that thread, i’m gonna update my post with some qualifications about cohost. thanks for piqing my interest in the TOS















  • so, my opinion on your game idea is essentially: it sounds like a decent idea. but ideas are only as good as their implementation. so a lot depends on how well you execute it. but the idea itself, sure. it’s fine. the world building twist is neat

    i mostly wanted to let you know that games to learn programming are actually a small market in games. it already exists and people are already making games like that. there’s even games for teaching things like assembly, which is more esoteric than C/C++ (among others, you can check out Human Resource Machine)

    so i think it would do you some good to research what’s out there, see how they do things, see if you find them lacking in some way, etc. then you can bring what you learned back to your game