Lightor

I’ve been scrolling through the comments to see the reaction to this trailer and this is the only comment that made me legit cringe.

Ok, with reductio ad absurdio in mind. You’d be ok with banning all the books that have romance in them, thats inappropriate for young people to be thinking about relationships. At least some people would think so, just like in this case. The banning of books falls apart when you realize that the decisions of what books to ban are based on personal morals.

Also, I agree with them, it is a strawman. A book about a girl realizing she might like other girls is not the same as having kids watch a snuff film. It’s not related to things they will experience in their life, no one is asking to watch it, it is no where even close to the same. You’re building up that wild stance, or straw man, to fight an entirely different topic. You might as well have asked if they could take them on field trips to executions. It’s ridiculous.

Yes I do understand the topic… Just because I disagree doesn’t mean I don’t understand. That’s a bit close minded. We are talking about banning books in school, which is why it’s weird you brought up a snuff film.

Those are not even close to the same thing… A book about a girl getting her first period is not some horrible experience that they need to be sheltered from. You’re putting a snuff film and a book about “my first period” in the same category…

Ok, lets say banning books is good. Who gets to decide what is banned and why? I could come up with reasons to ban nearly anything. But guess what, kids can still find it on the Internet. You’re not going to stop anything, you’re just going to shelter and isolate them. “It seems like all the books at school about relationships are girls and guys, not guy and guy. Something must be wrong with me.” That’s what you’re creating.

Your stance is to push your morals on others and only allow what you think is right. My stance is to allow parents to, you know, parent their kids. Prepare them for the real world. And I think we can do that without making them watch snuff films.

And fun IMO. It seems like a lot of people who actually played it looked it.

Ok, I’ll prob get roasted for this but hear me out.

I think Ubisoft+ is great. I can get the whatever $500 mega platinum edition for like $15 if I can beat it that month. Or even if I take 2 months to beat it, I’ve only spent $30 which is less then a base game. Then you unsub and wait for the next game you’re interested in.

If this game takes me 40 hours to complete at a price point of $70 that’s $1.75 an hour to be entertained. That’s not bad value at all IMO. And seeing how I’ll prob take longer doing side missions and such I see that going to under a dollar an hour. Not a ton you can do on a rainy day that will keep you entertained for less than that.

It seems to line up with a lot of other open world games for me. I’m not saying this is an amazing value, I just don’t see it as a bad value.

The sad part is that it’s a fun game. The company rep and horrible pricing structure set them up for failure. Release this on steam for $60 and I think it would do great. It doesn’t have all the Ubisoft BS like tons of micro transactions or a million map icons. It was a really good direction shift that they just wouldn’t let succeed.

I dunno, I’ve played about 8 hours of SW:O and it’s genuinely fun. It’s not a crazy advancement of the genre, but not every game has to be. IMO it’s a very solid open world RPG without all the usual Ubisoft BS.

I hurts me how bad SW:O did for that very reason. There’s no XP, there’s no tower in each zone to unlock or whatever. It’s a really good game IMO with a few issues.

Jedi Survivor is awesome. If you liked the first you’ll love that one.

Even outlaws isn’t bad, it gives me Jedi Survivor feels but more stealth and crime.

In general, I agree. But if someone is saying different things every other week, going back and forth, it shows that they really have no stance. Flip flopping isn’t evolving your understanding, it’s constantly changing your “view” to appeal to whatever crowd you’re in front of.

Exposed to? Everyone has the Internet. Trying to stop exposure via books when the whole Internet is on their phone is silly and just causes more harm than good as groups of people get to decide what is ok and what isn’t.

Let me try to better explain.

We start with an absence of information. We don’t know about DRM. We then have new information from an FAQ. Now I’ve not seen them lie about this before so I have no reason not to believe it right now. They could be lying sure, but anything could be. You could be AI, I could be the devs. No one knows anything is true really, we assume and work based on a level of trust. I have no reason to not believe him so I have confidence it won’t have DRM. I don’t “know” it won’t, but based on the information I have I am more likely than not to believe them.

Now we have additional information, the writer add the “at launch” bit. Now this could mean at launch as in, it will never have it, even from the start. Or it could me they might add it later, it’s a bit ambiguous but either way they just made that part up. Made up, ambiguous statements do not give me confidence one way or the other. It does not impact my perception of the situation at all. Their comment might as well have not existed IMO.

To work off your scenario of people punching you. I’d venture to guess multiple people get close enough to punch you ever day, but you trust they won’t. But anyone could. You’re operating off trust (which is based on past experience) and confidence. Same thing here. Without built or broken trust I’m neutral there, I only have confidence. Yes, they could be lying, but I don’t have evidence that they would right now, so why worry about it? It would be like walking around worried that everyone is going to punch you.

What really kinda bothers me is you did the research and found that they do have a basis for trust but still refuse to accept that. Even stating that you may make statements like this in the future without looking things up. Maybe. Why? Why spread mistrust that isn’t based in anything and might actually run counter to the facts, that’s wild to me.

I agree that you should weigh multiple sources but you held something made up by a random person as a higher standard of truth than the person actually creating the game. It’s logic of that kind that really throws me.

No, but I trust what a person says themselves more than another person making assumptions based off what they said. Concerns and guesses are not valid when the person has said No very clearly. Unless your stance is “trust no one about anything” then this seems a little extreme.

You’re saying your guess has more validity than what they’re saying, and they have a very clear answer. So I’ll ask an equally silly question of you, do you always value your guess over what the sources say?

Historically inaccurate

And who gets to decide when we’re at war about what

You want good people protected, how do you propose we do that without any group that is very cop like in their responsibilities?

Well I was looking for an engaging convo, not chat with someone doesn’t trust anyone or anything. It seems there’s no shared perception of reality we can have a conversation about, it happens.

The part the writer made up?

You seem to not trust anyone except the person who wrote the article and just literally made up that part to add. That’s the only part you have faith in?

Well your stance is “don’t trust them” because they could lie. Then why listen to anything they say at all or engage in the convo?

They hate’us cause they anus.