Re: [Official!] Project Horizons Comment Crew Chat thread.

[O. Hinds]

Remember the terror people had about flying when 9/11 happened? The measures were taken and now most people don't even think twice about flying.

But those measures are themselves mostly theater too, are they not? They just don't cause anywhere near as much harm as locking someone away for over a decade for something minor.

No no no, this isn't getting rid of free will; this is just ensuring everyone chooses the same things. The right things.
We are just getting rid of mistakes and flaws, that's all.

Well, it would likely be suboptimal overall to have everyone choosing exactly the same things. Some level of internal difference and creativity is good for survival when an unexpected threat appears.

Let me stop you right there, are you advocating for Necrophilia and Graverobbing? If the dead have no rights then who is this a crime against? Should it even be a crime? I would definitely say yeah.

Well, as long as I'm joining in the discussion... Unless you're using a belief system involving an after-death state for the person that has them caring for the wellbeing of their corpse, I'd say that neither of those are crimes against them; they're problems because of the distress they cause the to the living, not directly to the dead.

[Guest]

What is it with you people and assuming the only crimes worth considering are the heinous crimes like murder and arson when the majority of crimes are drug charges and comparatively minor violent crimes like assault and burglary? You can cite the worst all day but the reality of it is not everyone who goes to jail is a serial killer or an incarnation of evil. Treating the majority of people badly because of a minority issue is ridiculous. It's hyperbole trying to justify a worldview when the statistics don't match it. This is Kattlarv logic and I thought you two would hold yourselves to higher standards than that.

Even if revenge is a part of our culture it does not make it right and a majority of these crimes aren't going to inspire vigilante justice. Why are we pointing at the 10% of crime to justify not changing ANYTHING when the 90% of crime is utterly banal run of the mill stuff. Are burglars and drug users or possessors going to get lynched in the streets? I don't think so. Even if there were heinous crimes are people really going to be seeking vengeance in the 15 to 25 YEARS it will take someone to get out of jail, if they even do get out of jail? How will they know if they got out on parole? People don't live in fear or anger for years out of their lives, once the measures are taken and security or justice is assured they move on. Remember the terror people had about flying when 9/11 happened? The measures were taken and now most people don't even think twice about flying. These assumptions are tenuous at best and only serve to prevent people from trying to fix anything. It promotes stagnation and lets these problems fester. It's cynicism like this that prevents anything from changing.

Because we're talking about reprogramming people. I'm making the assumption that they wouldn't begin to think of reprogramming someone over drug possesion or burgalary. And the argument is reprogram vs life or death sentencing. Typically speaking neither of these crimes carries such a heavy sentence. Maybe they would think reprogramming was a cure all, but I think counseling would help them with whatever addiction problem someone posessing drugs might have and financial aid would suffice for robbery.

[Frost]

Yeah, sure. All free will should certainly be an illusion managed by the government's mind-altering technology. It's been too long since I've read Brave New World, after all

As I mentioned earlier, I still somehow haven't gotten around to reading it.  I did mention it earlier in this conversation, though, as, based on what I've read of it, that sort of thing certainly seems like a possibility.  This could be better, though, depending on how well the technology can be developed.

Regarding free will, well, that's another philosophical debate, but personally I think it's already an illusion, and one that could stand to be under better management.

And yes, I realize that you (plural) are saying these sorts of things in jest...

Leaving aside pretentious philosophical debates on "what is free will?" and the absolute inevitability that this system would be both extremely corrupt and horribly inefficient within a month of its launch,

We live in a nation built on dissent. By law, people who oppose the regime are to be protected and dissenting opinions are to be given a voice. Regardless of what the system's become, it's built on the idea that the government rules with the consent of the governed, and that no one, no one at all, can be trusted with absolute power. And that colors our culture and our thought processes. If government workers showed up on the my doorstep--me, a law-abiding citizen--saying that they were going to do a "procedure" to do some "corrections" to "make me a better citizen", I'd bug out, kill them, or die trying, and I fully realize how ignorant and unenlightened that notion of independence may seem to one advocating a 'benevolent' dictatorship. 

Say what you will about our justice system, but we do not commit crimes against humanity upon prisoners. It's one thing to do so to 'willing' prisoners. It's quite another to advocate utterly stripping away the basic rights of everyone for the sake of a 'happy and productive society'

[Downloaded Skill]

First off, Skill, if we're going to have a civil discussion, calm your tits and ease up on the fucking butthurt. 

Secondly, theft, disorderly conduct, and other non-violent crimes are given lighter sentences than violent crimes--in a lot of cases, a virtual slap-on-the-wrist to keep them from doing so again. Such crimes, motivated by greed and oftentimes desperation, are hardly going to be deterred with job placement and education programs for the criminals.

And your "point" about vengeance is.....exactly what we're trying to say. Imprisonment and punishment of the victim would deter the aggrieved from seeking vengeance--it's the convicted, violent criminals being given advantages and perks that would provoke retribution.

I am sorry if my language came off as forceful. I shouldn't have done that.

However I completely disagree. In California there is a new initiative being taken up called the Prison Education Program. Even in it's early stages it has had significant results in the test groups in lower recidivism rates when paired with supplementary programs for other issues like tackling drug addiction and the like. These are basic classes for helping people get their GED and getting them interested in academics. We're not sending them to college, but we're given people who often don't have an education an education so they can get the qualifications to get a legitimate job. These give people options and people without options tend to do desperate, often illegal things. The convicts serve there sentence and they get more options when they get out, which has shown to prevent recidivism. All in all it sounds like a win win.

I may have also misinterpeted your point in the "giving the arsonist a carwash job", and I apologize if I did, but it seemed to imply that people would pursue vigilante justice AFTER the person has gotten out of jail. I never argued that those who commit the heinous crimes should not go to jail, just that we should give them options so they can go legit when they go out. As of right now they have precious few options and with the stigmas being so strong they often are forced back into illegal activities out of necessity.

[Downloaded Skill]

What is it with you people and assuming the only crimes worth considering are the heinous crimes like murder and arson when the majority of crimes are drug charges and comparatively minor violent crimes like assault and burglary? You can cite the worst all day but the reality of it is not everyone who goes to jail is a serial killer or an incarnation of evil. Treating the majority of people badly because of a minority issue is ridiculous. It's hyperbole trying to justify a worldview when the statistics don't match it.

Okay, honestly? The legal system serves a ton of purposes. Traffic laws exist to protect people. Also to make money. Torts and felonies are overseen by entirely different courts (and the same crime can be tried in both at the same time). Corporations are tried as citizens in theory, but that's obviously not the case. I could go on, but law's basically just a tangled mess of obscurity justifying next to anything in any situation based on any number of precedents.
Jails are no different. Some jails function to reform people. Mostly those that are specialized and called things like "drug rehabilitation centers" and "psychiatric hospitals". Some are private and are just supposed to hold people as long as possible and make money, having no other real purpose from a functional standpoint. Lots of different precedents depending on the kind of oversight.

Even if there were heinous crimes are people really going to be seeking vengeance in the 15 to 25 YEARS it will take someone to get out of jail, if they even do get out of jail? How will they know if they got out on parole? People don't live in fear or anger for years out of their lives, once the measures are taken and security or justice is assured they move on.

That really depends on the people, and I thought the question was whether the focus of prison (predominantly) should strictly be on rehabilitation or if people have a right to their revenge/justice. If justice is served adequately, then sure. But I thought you were arguing against any kind of 15-25 year punitive stay.

Just not sure what your argument is, now, other than objecting to my choice of examples.

I should clarify my position since it seems like I have failed to make it clear. I sincerely apologize. I'm not arguing against the legal system and I'm not arguing against people being punished for their crimes. I do believe that people who commit murder and other heinous crimes should have the hefty sentences, 15+ years yeah sure that sounds reasonable. I am against long charges for comparatively minor crimes, like when minimum sentencing for marijuana was several years a while ago. It just seems draconian and unnecessary.

I also object to the idea that prisoners are being treated as beneath human consideration and shouldn't be given any tools to go legitimate when they get out. The kind of people that commit these crimes often don't have education and studies have shown that if prisoners receive education in prison they are less likely to commit future crimes. I know some people object to the idea of prisoners getting perks, but we're investing in the future. Having the education is shown to cause prisoners to go legitimate and if it creates people who can contribute to society hasn't the prison system served it's purpose?

[Guest]

Well, as long as I'm joining in the discussion...  Unless you're using a belief system involving an after-death state for the person that has them caring for the wellbeing of their corpse, I'd say that neither of those are crimes against them; they're problems because of the distress they cause the to the living, not directly to the dead.

As swicked pointed out in a previous post both Harmony and OAC have shown very little regard for the Victim's families and loved ones, so if that is the concern these should not be crimes.

[O. Hinds]

Leaving aside pretentious philosophical debates on "what is free will?" and the absolute inevitability that this system would be both extremely corrupt and horribly inefficient within a month of its launch,

Corruption is a big problem to be tackled, yes, but inefficiency would likely be reduced significantly as the technology and systems built around in matured.

We live in a nation built on dissent. By law, people who oppose the regime are to be protected and dissenting opinions are to be given a voice. Regardless of what the system's become, it's built on the idea that the government rules with the consent of the governed, and that no one, no one at all, can be trusted with absolute power. And that colors our culture and our thought processes. If government workers showed up on the my doorstep--me, a law-abiding citizen--saying that they were going to do a "procedure" to do some "corrections" to "make me a better citizen", I'd bug out, kill them, or die trying, and I fully realize how ignorant and unenlightened that notion of independence may seem to one advocating a 'benevolent' dictatorship.

Oh, quite; I highly doubt that America would be the first country to try this.

Dictatorship probably isn't the ideal form of control to aim for, though. For one thing, even with FLT communications, it scales poorly. Besides, with full shared trust (barring glitches, but that's not quite the same thing), there probably wouldn't be any need for that sort of firm central control of the species until contact with aliens or the like, and we'd almost certainly have found something even better than this system by then.

Say what you will about our justice system, but we do not commit crimes against humanity upon prisoners. It's one thing to do so to 'willing' prisoners. It's quite another to advocate utterly stripping away the basic rights of everyone for the sake of a 'happy and productive society'

The reprogramming plan almost certainly would have a far higher positive harm flux in the immediate future, yes. After that, though (assuming, of course, that the work was carried out properly), there would be, as you said, a happy and productive society. It is hard to argue, I think, that, of itself, a society being happy and productive is a bad thing. There'd still probably be some positive harm flux, simply due to the nature of the universe, but it would be far lower than the current status quo. A properly-engineered post-reprogramming civilization would also be more survivable. How likely is it that, in the time between the decision point and when the integral of harm in the non-reprogramming universe exceeded that of the harm in the reprogramming universe, we'd find a better way? That's the big question, I think.

It might be splitting hairs, but I think the end state of this plan is a nearly complete lack of government.
Everyone will understand what needs to be done at any given time and will work to maintain an equilibrium. Everyone will protect each other and guide the nations as one unit.
We won't need leaders; we'll all just do what we all need to do when we need to do it.

So it's more like 'benevolent' anarchy.

It would probably be more efficient to have at least a bit more hierarchy than that, but basically, yes.

As swicked pointed out in a previous post both Harmony and OAC have shown very little regard for the Victim's families and loved ones, so if that is the concern these should not be crimes.

Oh, well, if you take ignoring the feelings of the others involved as a premise, it seems logical for those not to be crimes, yes. I've realized that I'm not entirely sure what this leg of the discussion is about, though; sorry.

[Downloaded Skill]

I can see what you're getting at and why. Me I just don't like the idea of the focus being more on the punishment and leaving the rehabilitation to only an afterthought, or sometimes just disregarded entirely. I mean sure you can put someone in jail for years and the family we have the satisfaction of justice, but if that person just gets out and causes harm to another family and he has to be put away again has anything really been fixed? Justice is integral to the process, but focusing on it too heavily just treats symptoms, but not the disease. At least in my experience.

I guess at the end of the day I believe criminals should serve their time while being given the tools and opportunity to go legitimate. If they choose not to use it then thats on them and the opportunities will be given to someone who will use them.

[Downloaded Skill]

By the way. Frost and Swicked I apologize that I got disrespectful and angry with you two. It was uncalled for.

[O. Hinds]

As swicked pointed out in a previous post both Harmony and OAC have shown very little regard for the Victim's families and loved ones, so if that is the concern these should not be crimes.

Oh, well, if you take ignoring the feelings of the others involved as a premise, it seems logical for those not to be crimes, yes.  I've realized that I'm not entirely sure what this leg of the discussion is about, though; sorry.

I'm suddenly reminded of a scene from the lion king.

*thwack*:

What was that for?
It doesn't matter! It's in de past!

What exactly is the connection you see, if I may ask?

[Downloaded Skill]

I guess at the end of the day I believe criminals should serve their time while being given the tools and opportunity to go legitimate. If they choose not to use it then thats on them and the opportunities will be given to someone who will use them.

Thinking you can fix a person is an ideal; I don't focus on those a lot. I like the idea of giving them what they need to go legitimate, but I think it still might not provide them with enough opportunities that they won't lash out again, decide their previous job was more lucrative, realize the alliances they formed prior to being incarcerated are still being enforced when they get out, or any number of other things. People are complicated and they commit their crimes for reasons that are important to them.
Avoiding creating more victims is very important. It's just more complicated and difficult to achieve. Again, we should try, but you can't say we aren't already in a lot of places and our recidivism rates are still pretty high.

I can certainly understand where you're coming from and those are valid things to consider. It is a very muddy issue and it requires a delicate blend of optimism and cynicism. Too cynical and you write off opportunities that were plausible and well the cynic never changed the world, just bitterly accepted it. However too optimistic and you overlook crucial, plausible details and end up the chump that gets taken advantage of.

 I'm not saying people don't try, but I'm friends with a director in one of the California programs. I hear a lot of success and failure stories from his work. He tells me that trying to get funding is a nightmare because the public tends appalled by the idea of funding being spent on improving criminals since, overall, they get written off with extreme prejudice. The outcry from trying to get them simple laptops, since most of them don't even have a computer and therefore had difficulty applying for jobs, was overwhelming. "Criminals will always be criminals" as they say, which I think is an overly cynical statement that just perpetuates a problem and refuses to address it.

Me I believe in second chances, but not thirds. I admit the idea seems very unappealing on first glance, but the studies and applications have shown that can work very well if properly managed. It just needs to gain traction with the public.

[O. Hinds]

As swicked pointed out in a previous post both Harmony and OAC have shown very little regard for the Victim's families and loved ones, so if that is the concern these should not be crimes.

Oh, well, if you take ignoring the feelings of the others involved as a premise, it seems logical for those not to be crimes, yes.  I've realized that I'm not entirely sure what this leg of the discussion is about, though; sorry.

I'm suddenly reminded of a scene from the lion king.

*thwack*:

What was that for?
It doesn't matter! It's in de past!

What exactly is the connection you see, if I may ask?

The person's dead, that can't be changed, it's in the past. Nothing can be done to fix it, so just move on.
Simba's head was hit, that can't be changed, it's in the past. Nothing can be done to fix it, so just move on.

What are you missing?

Well, I'm not entirely sure how that connects into the rest of the discussion, but then, as I said, I'm not entirely sure what this bit of the discussion is, so...

[Frost]

Say what you will about our justice system, but we do not commit crimes against humanity upon prisoners. It's one thing to do so to 'willing' prisoners. It's quite another to advocate utterly stripping away the basic rights of everyone for the sake of a 'happy and productive society'

The reprogramming plan almost certainly would have a far higher positive harm flux in the immediate future, yes.  After that, though (assuming, of course, that the work was carried out properly), there would be, as you said, a happy and productive society.  It is hard to argue, I think, that, of itself, a society being happy and productive is a bad thing.  There'd still probably be some positive harm flux, simply due to the nature of the universe, but it would be far lower than the current status quo.  A properly-engineered post-reprogramming civilization would also be more survivable.  How likely is it that, in the time between the decision point and when the integral of harm in the non-reprogramming universe exceeded that of the harm in the reprogramming universe, we'd find a better way?  That's the big question, I think.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. People are not machines to be programmed at a whim--certainly not the whim of some faceless government drone who's overseeing the 'reprogramming'. What's being discussed here is industrialized brainwashing on a societal scale to turn the entire human race into an ant colony.  I'm pretty much laughing right now at the thought that someone could do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify that as a good thing.


Sure, we'd become a perfect little slave race so all the nerds in charge could have their drones to play little space-conquering games with, but all artistry and culture, all human endeavor beyond the whim of some arbitrarily-defined government-mandated "greater good" would cease. The seeking of happiness and fulfillment as a driving force to excel, explore, and create would vanish, because happiness and fulfillment has been artificially carved into the human brain as filling your place at the tractor factory to work for the glory of the Motherland greater good. Life would be reduced to an absolute dredging cycle of work until you died with no greater purpose, even self-sought or self-defined. And everyone would love it. 


It's a good thing that the majority of fiction, art, and other traces of "negative and wasteful" cultural identity would be cast off and burned, because the drones might realize that their reality is exactly what their 'primitive' ancestors were horrified of and dedicate and immense about of fiction to using as the goal of an irredeemable evil force.

[Guest]

Y'all know I can argue for anarchism as well as the next guy, if we're back on the anti-authoritarian fear track, but apparently I'm a necrophiliac now because someone can't pull a decent argument out of his ass and has to resort to "won't someone think of the children"-style emotional appeals. Except in this case, the children are corpses. The poor, poor corpses. Look, I'm not saying we need to stop breathing completely because we're breathing in bits of dead people and that's cannibalism - CANNIBALISM, people - I think it's entirely reasonable to only breathe out of oxygen masks that deliver space-harvested chemicals from now on, to minimize the pain inflicted on the dead people. Anyone who disagrees is a disgusting cannibal and also a pedophile. Because they're putting dead kid bits in their mouth, you see. It follows. And that's the reason we have laws against what we'll now refer to as corpse-rape and whatnot, you see: because dead people have feelings, too. Not because it's distressing to living people.

Anyway, take a strong huff of that fresh O2 and read this article about statistical policing. It's neat.

[O. Hinds]

(Note: I've had to get up early due to a thing and am somewhat low on sleep. I apologize for any significantly subnominal quality caused by this.)

What's being discussed here is industrialized brainwashing on a societal scale to turn the entire human race into an ant colony.

Not quite, but eusocial insects are one interesting source of inspiration, I think.

I'm pretty much laughing right now at the thought that someone could do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify that as a good thing.

Well, I don't know if it's optimal but it certainly seems better than a lot of other possibilities.

Sure, we'd become a perfect little slave race so all the nerds in charge could have their drones to play little space-conquering games with

Unless someone managed to sneak in a backdoor (which would indeed be a significant risk to be addressed in actual implementation, as I think I mentioned), the closest thing to "nerds in charge" would probably be individuals modified using this and other methods to be specialized for thinking. Well, with the ideology I'm thinking of, at least.

but all artistry and culture, all human endeavor beyond the whim of some arbitrarily-defined government-mandated "greater good" would cease.

It's a good thing that the majority of fiction, art, and other traces of "negative and wasteful" cultural identity would be cast off and burned

Present-me identifies these as negatives, yes. Something might perhaps be done to get them through (I think, at least, that it might be good to preserve them just in case), but, either way, no one would mind.

The seeking of happiness and fulfillment as a driving force to excel, explore, and create would vanish, because happiness and fulfillment has been artificially carved into the human brain as filling your place at the tractor factory to work for the glory of the Motherland greater good.

Exactly. Scarcity of happiness and fulfillment would no longer be required to spur progress, as the collective good would be directly added as a base motivation.

Life would be reduced to an absolute dredging cycle of work until you died with no greater purpose, even self-sought or self-defined. And everyone would love it.

Better that than the same thing with everyone not loving it. I also disagree with there being no greater purpose; off the top my head, there are the big three goals of expanding and developing to increase available resources and better survive in the universe, working towards a superior society (potentially even one where inefficiencies programmed identified in the programming by the (now) modern humans as things to be desired could be accommodated), and searching from one way of reversing entropy or otherwise avoiding the heat death of the universe. And even the most minor workers would be conscious of their place in the great works and happy about it, rather than tiredly working for a subsistence wage with no prospects of improvement while the species as a whole just hopes to keep muddling along.

because the drones might realize that their reality is exactly what their 'primitive' ancestors were horrified of and dedicate and immense about of fiction to using as the goal of an irredeemable evil force.

There would be no reason to conceal that fact in the first place.

I don't think that this is the best immediately-post-modern-humanity state to hope for, but I do think that it would be good, and that it could serve as a transitory state to something better if properly implemented. I was already aware that that was a minority view, though.

[Frost]

Yeah, you'll excuse most of humanity if we don't think that becoming happy little work-slaves so we can go LARP some space-exploration game, I think.

[O. Hinds]

Probably, yes; I highly doubt I'll ever end up in a position to actually implement this, and even if I somehow did, it's quite possible that the technology didn't pan out or something better already came along.

I still think that, while your opposition to it is understandable and not unexpected, you're selling it a bit short, though. But it's probably time to end this conversation; I'm not sure that there's much more to be usefully said.

[Frost]

Fair enough. Call it an axiomatic difference of opinion, then.

[O. Hinds]

Fair enough. Call it an axiomatic difference of opinion, then.

Yes, that sounds good.

I love this sentiment.
"Yes, I agree with you now but, ideally, that will change once I've been reprogrammed."

Hinds is best robot

...Thanks? :D

[Harmony Ltd.]

On an unrelated subject, I've started playing Transistor, and just a few minutes into it, it's already pretty great.

The gameplay could be best described as "seamless", with the controls being almost instinctive; the soundtrack and voice acting is great and really adds to the game; and the artistic direction is pretty much My Aesthetic TM.

I just fear that the game itself might be a bit short given how quickly I've lasted through the first piece. We'll see.


Edit: for a few dollars more, I really recommend y'all buy the version with the soundtrack in it. It's pretty dope (have a look at the game's trailer if you want to have an idea of the musical genre of the OST).

[Icy Shake]

So, it may be the bottle of Champagne and couple of follow-up drinks, it may be the absurd love of Dune which I've put on display on this site and which had led me to read far more of Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson's work than could reasonably be justified, but I'm just stunned by the idea of what might have been after watching Jodorowsky's Dune. It's one of the best film industry documentaries I've seen, and I hope that someday this screenplay and storyboard may be brought to the screen. And hey, his son's still alive, and so is Mick Jagger, and you could get the voice of the Brain to take Welles's role, if it's done as an animation.

It's been a long time since I've watched it, but I liked the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries version of Dune, but never thought that much of Lynch's. I really wish that this could have happened, even if it changed the ending significantly.

[Guest]

Y'all know I can argue for anarchism as well as the next guy, if we're back on the anti-authoritarian fear track, but apparently I'm a necrophiliac now because someone can't pull a decent argument out of his ass and has to resort to "won't someone think of the children"-style emotional appeals. Except in this case, the children are corpses. The poor, poor corpses. Look, I'm not saying we need to stop breathing completely because we're breathing in bits of dead people and that's cannibalism - CANNIBALISM, people - I think it's entirely reasonable to only breathe out of oxygen masks that deliver space-harvested chemicals from now on, to minimize the pain inflicted on the dead people. Anyone who disagrees is a disgusting cannibal and also a pedophile. Because they're putting dead kid bits in their mouth, you see. It follows. And that's the reason we have laws against what we'll now refer to as corpse-rape and whatnot, you see: because dead people have feelings, too. Not because it's distressing to living people.

Anyway, take a strong huff of that fresh O2 and read this article about statistical policing. It's neat.

the last word:

You can respond if you want OAC, but personally I'm done. I feel shitty that's the way you took that and I need to excuse myself from this discussion going onwards. So that's what I'm going to do.

[Guest]

@Last
Nah, man, I'm over it, too. Apology accepted, if it was even necessary.

[Stringtheory]

On an unrelated subject, I've started playing Transistor, and just a few minutes into it, it's already pretty great.

The gameplay could be best described as "seamless", with the controls being almost instinctive; the soundtrack and voice acting is great and really adds to the game; and the artistic direction is pretty much My Aesthetic TM.

I just fear that the game itself might be a bit short given how quickly I've lasted through the first piece. We'll see.


Edit: for a few dollars more, I really recommend y'all buy the version with the soundtrack in it. It's pretty dope (have a look at the game's trailer if you want to have an idea of the musical genre of the OST).

Eh, I didn't like Transistor as much as Bastion and it's all because of the gameplay. I've found out that I hate 'Real-time with Pause' style of gameplay (DA:O, FTL, some RPGs), it just breaks the gameplay flow entirely if you're supposed to pause the game, you might as well make it turn based because that's how most people will play it. Transistor at least worked it into the story, but I don't like how helpless it made you outside of Turn(), most of my fights boiled down to dropping a lot of damage in Turn() then running around like a scared chicken waiting for it to recharge. The story, while confusing as all heck was quite good and of course the OST was fucking amazing. Can't wait for Supergiant Game's next game, hopefully they do something a bit more similar to Bastion gameplay wise (or go in a totally different direction).

TL;DR Bastion was a 9/10 for me, Transistor's gameplay dragged it down to a 6-7/10

[Harmony Ltd.]

Well, when I compare the gameplay to turn per turn titles like Shadowrun or Wasteland 2, I really appreciate how fast paced and action-y Transistor feels, comparatively.

And the combat mechanics feel closer to that of a Figthing game (combo-based) than that of an RPG, so for me at least that's refreshing.

I have advanced a bit and defeated the first "Boss", I'll see how difficulty scale up. What I've pieced together for now though is that staying mobile and always using cover as much as possible is the way to go. So, basically, Jaunt() is your best friend.

[Stringtheory]

Well, when I compare the gameplay to turn per turn titles like Shadowrun or Wasteland 2, I really appreciate how fast paced and action-y Transistor feels, comparatively.

I guess I just have a very clear mental boundary between turn-based and real-time games and when they get mixed my mind gets annoyed that I have to use the skills associated with one in what's clearly the other kind. I guess it also applies to genres too, I tried playing Valkyria Chronicles a while back and couldn't get past the third-person action bits in the turn based strategy game.

[Frost]

Veterans are dissatisfied with their benefits packages

Disclaimer:

[Harmony Ltd.]

So, waking up from a dream that has just given me an idea for what has the potential to be an hilarious crackfic:

A crossover between Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Hotline Miami, wherein a young lady with a track record of substance abuse and wanting to uncover the truth about the various strange happenings in the city recently finds Kyubbey after being beaten and thrown into a trash container at the end of an alley because she started raving about some sort of conspiracy theory in a bar.

[Tytan]

So, waking up from a dream that has just given me an idea for what has the potential to be an hilarious crackfic:

A crossover between Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Hotline Miami, wherein a young lady with a track record of substance abuse and wanting to uncover the truth about the various strange happenings in the city recently finds Kyubbey after being beaten and thrown into a trash container at the end of an alley because she started raving about some sort of conspiracy theory in a bar.

I think you just described vanilla Madoka.

[Harmony Ltd.]

Possibly.

I just have some hilarious visuals & quote in my head from the dream.

Like her being orally slammed down by a radio's DJ as she rant on the airs as a caller about a "murder hotline", the DJ treating her of literal crackpot, as she's speaking in a slightly slurred way.

I dunno. I may need to think about it a bit.

[Sponsored content]