Philosophosphorous [comrade/them, null/void] @ Philosophosphorous @hexbear.net

Posts

2

Comments

255

Joined

1 yr. ago

i wanted to post something much more toxic than this but instead i'll just say that i struggle constantly with suicidal thoughts relating to romance and loneliness so seeing this post really did a number on my psyche. hooray for ptsd ocd and autism

don't bother their analysis is purely vibes based and completely uninformed. theres a huge difference between AOC stanning for kid killer kamala and Hasan literally trying to infiltrate the DNC to provide a single pro-palestinian voice on the inside, and getting kicked out for interviewing the excluded protestors and uncommmitted movement. literally just watch a single stream or video of his, he is CONSTANTLY criticizing democrats, more often than republicans. its not just some kind of '''triangulation''' thing, hasan is literally doing what a journalist is supposed to do in this situation, bringing the pro palestine anti genocide message to people who would otherwise not have heard it. idk what idiot footfaults got this opinion from because it sure as shit didn't come from actually watching hasan.

i've always kind of thought of myself as in the role of the 'loser' that people forget/dont want to think about, so i kind of hate this entire line of thought. don't take this personally because i've had and have toxic thought patterns as well. obviously you don't have to hate yourself to avoid 'main character syndrome' but when i see things like 'You can think yourself a person with a hidden demon within them who must prove themselves to be the best and be monstrously disappointed when you finish second' i worry about toxic thought processes. every single person wants to win and doesn't want to lose, this doesn't make you unique. people might have better and worse methods of coping with loss or victory, but its something we all have to deal with. this is how i think when i'm unmedicated or otherwise upset and at my most toxic. i simultaneously think i'm better than everyone around me and worse at the same time. the sentiment 'I like how in prominent MMA promotions, after someone is declared the victor, the camera begins to focus on them and their celebration instead of zooming in on someone who is visibly very frustrated by their loss.' also rubs me the wrong way, ideally the context of a sporting event is such that the 'loser' is not shamed and congratulates the victor as well, both of them glad to contribute to knowledge and development of the sport. like a scientist shouldn't be upset when their hypothesis is disproven, they should be glad to have furthered their knowledge. im a weirdo but i always thought the greek-style war-like sporting mindset of valorizing victory and shaming defeat regardless of context was a toxic cultural current.

i brush once a day (before bed) and never floss, and i eat sugary crap all the time, and last time i went to the dentist they remarked about how healthy my teeth were. my breath is fine unless i get dry mouth from smoking weed, you people need to like drink more water or lick your teeth after you eat or something if you get bad breath from missing just 1 of your 3 daily brushings... maybe my teeth are farther apart than normal so stuff doesn't get stuck idk

fucking hilarious that they don't point out it only applies to those with 100 million, like to these people 100,000 is just throw away gambling money. even 50,000 is more money than i'll ever likely have at one time in my entire life, it would be life-changing to have that much money, and i'm a fairly privileged first world failson.

i wish all art had explanatory blurbs, like i get we all want to create instantly intuitively understandable works of timeless perfection, but most of the time there's a bunch of intentional references to stuff i'm entirely unfamiliar with that add a bunch of important context.

does any console have 'worthwhile' exclusives anymore? PC always had the best 'exclusives' anyway, you can't get Cruelty Squad or Receiver 2 on Xbox or Playstation. i will say the hardware on my PS5 has never malfunctioned, while several friends have constant overheating problems with their newest gen Xbox requiring them to cover it in aftermarket 3rd party fan attachments even after thoroughly cleaning it. i'm lucky that i grew up with personal desktop computers, most people i know literally don't know how to do the most basic things on a computer, all they ever had was touchscreen smartphones. like they had no idea what a 'file' was, did not know how to use folders, did not know the red X closed a page, did not know how to open the start bar/home menu, etc. and these were like smart well educated leftist adults that went to excellent public schools, not just some clueless zoomer children.

if we assume the AI's sentience as a given, this is absolutely the correct take.

regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or not, it is quite interesting that we have a first-person perspective at all, instead of mindlessly/unconsciously computing like we presume a pocket calculator does. if not sentience, what's the difference between our brains and a rock or a cloud that produces this first-person experience of our conscious existence? should i stop using my computer on the off chance it is suffering every time i make it do something? should i care as little or as much about human suffering as i do a computer returning an error code? are other people merely physical objects for me to remorselessly manipulate with no confounding 'sentience' or 'conscious experience' for me to worry about upsetting, just 'biological code' returning error messages?

how would we even know if an AI was sentient? how do we know that WE are sentient? are nonhuman animals sentient, and if so are they proletariat or means of production? what about insects and worms? bacteria? viruses? nations? crowds on the street? economic systems? concepts? archetypes? if sentience is physical, how many neurons (or other hardware) and in what configuration creates sentience? if sentience is pure information-theoretical, which information is sentient and which is not? is a rock sentient? is the concept of the number 2 sentient? are quantum particles/waves/probability fields sentient? does sentience depend on determinism or nondeterminism? if we made a perfect simulation of your brain, would it be ethical to simulate torturing it? if i scanned your brain, killed your 'original body', and uploaded the brain scan into a computer that could perfectly simulate your brain based on the complete physical data of its structure, would the 'real you' 'wake up' inside the computer, would it be a new person entirely, or would it be just more lifeless code like a complex video game character or a simulation of the solar system? if we made a perfect instant clone of your brain and body and synchronized the brain states somehow, would both bodies share the same 'perspective' or would they still be distinct (though very similar and coordinated) people? or perhaps a new single 'person' with two bodies?

i like contextual animations, you could also use a bunch of contextual radial menus for stuff that isn't immediately necessary to free up controls. mostly contextual animations could be better i think, they only even try that approach in 3rd person games.

for camera bob and motion sickness, i think the camera in FP could just not be directly physically attached to the player model, or have a zone inside the head (which is not rendered like in ARMA or perhaps behind the camera) in which the camera can move freely to stabilize itself. or a combination of approaches. i think battlefield games usually have realistic looking run animations sometimes by just rendering a different model in first person with just legs and putting the camera in the chest (arms and weapon drawn on the HUD layer). playing GTA4 with first person mods didn't give me any motion sickness at least except maybe during car crashes. animations don't necessarily have to be physics based either, handmade or edited motion capture animations done well can have similar visual effects.

i know ive posted a lot in this thread but i have a rant. generally i think its weird how all shooter games have very similar controls these days, bring back lock on aiming like in old skool SOCOM and PS2 half life and red faction imo. or rather instead of bringing back, come up with new stuff or new spins on old stuff. i'm absolutely exhausted and sick of playing 'COD but x genre' or 'Quake but x genre' games. i think lock-on aiming systems have a lot of potential and might even be closer to real life instinctual aiming in CQB situations. i also think more games should have a difference between 'weapon up' and 'weapon down' postures with implications for mobility and other gameplay systems. the metal gear series touches on some of this but nothing goes as far as i want. like compare how people move in any given FPS or TPS game and then watch a decent war movie like saving private ryan or full metal jacket, and notice how much more agile real people seem. diving and rolling and crawling and running hunched over. clumsy but fluid, not mechanical and floaty or glide-y. we are so so far from having that in any videogame, and im not convinced its purely an issue of controls or input. so many games animate the player characters like they are a drone more than a person or even a physically existing android.

yea its like criticizing red dead redemption because you can't play entirely nonlethally. the point of the fiction is to analyze the topics via the player character. its not an RPG (it has like 2 or 3 'decisions' you can make in cutscene/QTE scenarios that lead to 2 or 3 slightly different endings that are all kinda depressing) its a linear 3rd person cover shooter. COD: Black Ops 2 is more of a choice based RPG than this. the whole point is that the war crimes feel the same as the normal gameplay, because normal military shooter gameplay is already making horrible things like war and murder feel 'rewarding' and 'compelling' and 'satisfying'. how many times have you executed a wounded or 'downed' enemy in video games? perhaps even with a fancy animated 'execution'... its a war crime.

myself and many others i know personally would totally have shelled out for some dope elite armor, i wonder if its a smaller part of the player base than i assume or if its also the devs trying to have balanced hitboxes at the expense of cool aliens

yea, i actually liked everything in 5 except the microtransaction loot drops and the forerunner enemy types in the campaign, the covenant are much more visually interesting and tactically varied imo. also there seemed to be a lot less vehicle sandbox maps in the campaign compared to like halo 3

true, and the gameplay mechanics of the aiming system is definitely more similar to COD than halo CE thru Reach since you have to hold LT instead of toggling with a stick click, so i can see why people get confused. the newer halo games do have some gameplay systems closer to COD like the aim system and everyone getting to sprint, but i still think they retain their halo charm with the floaty jumps and power weapons, my biggest criticism of infinite is probably the lack of playable elites in MP, its weird to me to have so many covenant weapons and vehicles around if its all humans/spartans.

i thought the post title said 'The Smarmiest Liberal' so now i'm obligated to mention the television show Crashbox

yea 4 or 5 had a microtransaction situation with unique weapon variants, some of them had scopes that worked like the other in-game virtual scopes

untrue, the closest is the pistol in 5 but it is held underneath the HUD crosshairs, the physical sights on the gun are not used. arguably the scoped weapons count but you have always used scopes in halo games, this is not unique to 5 and infinite, and the lore is explicitly that the helmet is interfacing with the scope, you don't acutally look down the sights (the 3rd person character model does not even animate differently, in fact the camera in Halo games is in the character model's chest, the bullet tracers come from the center of the chest in some halo games if you look closely in 3rd person spectating). the aiming mechanincs in 5 and infinite are a bit similar to COD in controls, you hold the left trigger instead of clicking the right stick, but the gun is not aligned with the center of the screen and the physical sights on the weapons (if there are any) are never used. it works exactly like in the OP post about RE: Village, the screen zooms in a bit and you get slower and the weapon is slightly shifted to the left, but the physical sights on the gun (the 'iron sights') are never used in ANY halo game that i know of.

it literally does not have ironsights, 5 and infinite do have a slight zoom with LT (that in 5 adds holographic HUD effects) but no ironsights, some weapons use scopes with that input instead but its a virtual scope built into the HUD. the zoom on non-scoped weapons works nearly identical to RE Village in the OP image, where the screen zooms in and the weapon slightly shifts closer but is not centered. The pistol in 5 is almost held in an ironsight-using position but is held just underneath the HUD crosshairs at an angle