mechoman444

No, it failed because making a good game was pushed aside in favor of making a game with a message—and not even a very good one.

I once played a D&D game where our party was hired to clear a camp of murderous orcs. When we arrived, the camp was nothing but women and children; the male orcs had already been slaughtered by someone else.

But because they were orcs, and because there was a stigma attached to their existence, we were still expected to kill them. Apparently, their heads were worth the same regardless of gender or age.

We were playing a game, but it still felt wrong, and everyone at the table was uncomfortable. That is how you deliver a meaningful message. Not by saying, “I’m nonbinary”—because, in the context of Dragon Age: The Veilguard, no one cares.

You don’t just ram a message down your players’ throats. You present it in a way that is playable and contextual to the game’s world and lore.

The Veilguard is set in a magical world. There is no reason to have nonbinary or trans people with surgical scars when Dragon Age literally has polymorph magic—they can change their gender whenever they want.

It makes no sense to have nonbinary people in The Veilguard!

I’m currently watching The Practice. One of my favorite shows. Over the years it’s been on Netflix, prime, and shit like peacock and tubi. I can’t keep up with all that. Right now it’s in Amazon prime which I have but can’t watch because I have a “business” account and according to Amazon I shouldn’t be watching shows and movies on a “business” account.

Soooo… To the high seas I go. Not that I don’t want to pay for it but because it’s so much easier.

And now I’ll have the show for whenever I want to watch it.

The primary issue with those games is that they sucked fundamentally as games.

The politics in those games not withstanding if they were actually good games they would have done fine even if the fantasy dragon lady living in a world of magic and polymorph is “nonbinary”

This post attempts to frame opposition to DEI as opposition to the literal meanings of the words rather than the policies built around them. That’s a false dilemma. One can oppose DEI initiatives that sacrifice meritocracy and individual achievement without rejecting the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their purest forms. A system that prioritizes individual ability, effort, and competence over group identity is the foundation of real progress and innovation.

We need to be fighting nepotism, not implementing DEI policies that replace one form of favoritism with another. Nepotism undermines meritocracy by prioritizing personal connections over competence, but DEI hiring, when based on demographic factors rather than qualifications, does the same by shifting the bias to identity. The goal should be a system that rewards individual ability, effort, and achievement—ensuring opportunities are earned, not granted based on who you know or what group you belong to. True fairness comes from eliminating favoritism altogether, not redistributing it.

It seems we are forgetting the folly of the greater good.

That being said, everything I’ve read about companies that implement DEI—aside from some questionable journalism in the gaming industry—suggests that they are actually about 27% to 30% more profitable than those that don’t.

I just don’t like this post in general; it seems like one large logical fallacy.

Was playing Sims 2 last night. Managed to make a family but didn’t get far enough to buy a house because the game crashed.

Went to sleep.

Today I’ll be scouring the internet for the real reason people play Sims 2. Ya… You know why.

I’m only 39 ☹️

There is absolutely a direct correlation between crime and poverty.

It’s just here in America we don’t care about that because crime is business.

O God you went through my comments history.

I’m not trying to quantify my intelligence.

But clearly, I am smarter than you.

I don’t think that saying means what you think it means.

You bring up a very good point that the industry itself might be flawed.

The issue for me—and the reason I made my original statement—is that we can’t curtail human nature. By its nature, considering DEI aspects in hiring can potentially taint the criteria by which candidates are selected.

I’m not saying that cronyism and nepotism aren’t very real and serious issues across various industries and countries. However, DEI feels like a similar practice—just framed differently. It leads companies to hire a specific type of person for the wrong reasons rather than hiring the right person for the right reasons.

Moreover, in the U.S., only about 43% of the population is non-white. That means that, on any given job application, roughly 50% of the applicants are likely to be white. If a large business has an employee pool that is significantly more than 50% non-white, that suggests the industry is hiring with a specific demographic in mind—not based on merit, but based on ethnicity, appearance, or political beliefs. I think we can both agree that, in most industries, those factors should not be relevant.

O I’m sorry. I suppose that explains why you’re such a douche.

I will contend that actually is more or less the case. Considering it is simply human nature to be more lazy than more productive.

If hiring personnel are dictated to hire more on dei then on merit that’s what they’re going to do.

I’m not saying that this is happening industry-wide across an entire population.

I’m just simply stating that it’s a concern that this might be happening.

Yes it is. Dei literally favors diversity over merit.

It pressures people into hiring somebody they otherwise wouldn’t.

My concern is that dei hiring practices are curtailing merit based hiring.

I don’t care either way what ones political affiliations are or what one identifys as as long as they’re the best for the job.

(This is simply a critical assessment of the issue and does not reflect any personal views on dei or what some refer to as woke)

Yes I also have a master’s and a PhD in machine learning as well which automatically qualifies me as an authority figure.

And I can clearly say that you are wrong.

That’s literally not remotely what llms are doing.

And they most certainly do learn in the common sense of the term. They even use neural nets which mimic the way neurons function in the brain.

O… I wasn’t looking at the user name. Does you mom know you’re using the internet? They really ought to put a filter on your phone or get one of those padded tablets so when you drop it reaching for your sippy cup it won’t break.

The article you have provided doesn’t support what you’re saying instead supportswhat I’ve been saying the whole time.

There are of course parallels to Marxism in Star Trek. Which is not something being argued right now. The contention is that the society of Star Trek on Earth is marxist which it isn’t then the contention turned to rottenberry taking inspiration from Karl Marx which he didn’t.

Which goes back to my original question why are you talking about stuff you know nothing about?