Imo what’s key to a cosy game is that you choose within the game how much you want to challenge yourself. Take stardew, for example. My mum was content just farming crops. I went into the difficult mines with lots of combat etc. You can enjoy the game if you don’t do the hard parts, or you can do them sparsely, or all the time. You choose, and that’s what makes it so relaxing.
I’m not a hardcore gamer, but usually mostly into RPGs. But I’ve also got hundreds of hours in stardew and thousands in the Sims. When I play one of those, I’m always low key scared to grow bored because I LOVE those games and I know that there won’t be another good one right around the corner.
When I got bored of Skyrim, I played the Witcher, and when I got bored of that, I played Fallout. Repeat ad nauseam, because there’s more playable, entertaining RPGs out there than any one human could play in a lifetime.
With cosy games, not so much. When you grow bored of one, chances are, there won’t be another one that’ll be enjoyable to you at all, and you’ll have to hope and wait that something good will come out at some point.
Pretty sure you have to pay if you back out as well, so that’s not an incentive to kill you either.
You can get help setting everything up, but you have to be the one to push the button, pick up the lethal medicine, etc
Tbh my uni gave me a PC with no OS on it. I wasn’t going to pay for an OS for work so I installed Ubuntu. I liked it, so I also switched on my private laptop.
TLDR: it being free, then liking it
Even if you cant be bothered to figure out gaming on Linux, a dual boot works like a charm. I do all my gaming on the windows partition to keep it separate from work, to avoid distraction.
Didn’t mean to lie. I thought it followed from context (I see now it didn’t) that I mean that most people do not care about the killing of different animals as much.
I was trying to open a discussion and maybe get a person or two to get to question some things. Don’t think that’s a good reason to be mean. And fwiw I still don’t understand WHY a person cares more about a dog than a pig.
You think that farm cattle exist as a wild animal?
Yet there’s no posts in my news feed about how they’re being fished, let alone comments from people upset about it. Maybe we should care more about all animals?
Man Id like to say some things in response of youd have acted like you’re open for a normal adult discussion, but I just can’t deal with this level of condescension. Please be nicer to people who did nothing to hurt you
Yet most don’t. Good on you if you do though.
Octopuses are much smarter and people eat those too.
Edit: can I just correct myself. I now think we shouldn’t use perceived intelligence as a measure of how much ethical consideration someone or something deserves, that gets reeeeally gross really fast
Not talking about the artificially created species, that’s a separate issue. More things like overfishing. And hunting of other species that are endangered but not as cute and lovable.
Can someone explain why people care more about this than the killing of other animals?
Since it has shareholders, the only way for it to stay in business is ever-increasing growth. Profit themselves aren’t enough. It needs to grow faster and faster so that dividends keep increasing, which is the goal.
I didn’t specify in my original comment that you replied to. This is exactly my thinking. I just worry the original phrasing might be playing into eugenicists cards and feel we’d be safer if we specified that we mean exactly what you said.
Sorry I phrased it in a way that made it sound like YOU were saying certain groups should or shouldn’t have kids. What I’m trying to say is that I personally feel like even just pointing out that something is making more ‘stupid’ people reproduce keeps the narrative of who should or shouldn’t have kids alive, even if that’s not the intention. I think we should try to let that narrative die. But yeah I think we agree about pretty much everything else. I know it’s a big current problem that people delay or even refrain from having kids. And I find it quite heartbreaking, I’m very sorry you have to consider all this in your family planning.
All I’m trying to say is maybe we should consider how we speak about these issues, because prejudiced individuals and groups could read it like we’re agreeing with their prejudice, which reinforces their prejudice. I hope I’m making sense? We’re trying to say republicans are trying to keep the masses dumb, and by this we mean they like that those who can’t access the education necessary to form critical thinking skills are having kids who also won’t be able to access this education. But without this clarification, it could sound like we’re saying that certain people having kids leads to a dumber population, which is good for rightists and bad for us. Am I being overly cautious maybe?
And yes, that is what what I was trying to say about education being a driving factor!
And yeah, I’m enjoying this discussion too!
The question is still to vague. Obviously all of his politics were the worst. But the way it’s phrased, you’d kinda have to agree he wasn’t ALL bad if, for example, he made a pretty tasty pasta sauce. Like. Not that it’d be relevant. It’s the vagueness of the question that I’m critiquing. Maybe I’m just having an autism moment.