To me it mostly comes down to just three things that give the roguelike experience. There needs to be permadeath, there needs to be some kind of clock (traditionally hunger) that encourages messy solutions and exploration, and the player needs a lot of tools (inventory) to be able to come up with creative solutions to problems. A lot of these action roguelikes are mostly lacking in giving the player a lot of tools and encouraging them to experiment, they are a lot more like build slot machines that are mostly about good physical execution and understanding basic synergies. These games are still fun but not really the same vibe as a classic roguelike. But a realtime roguelike can be done, I’d argue Barony is just that.

Sourdough with chunky peanut butter, ground mustard, and aioli.

Lord Kill The Pain

Katana Zero
Celeste
Cuphead
Opus Magnum

If they need money honestly Tencent is better than a lot of the alternatives who might be willing to invest.

It takes a village to raise a child, not a “mother” and “father” specifically. I do not idolize the hetero nuclear family.

Most politicians in the West don’t actually care about humanitarian issues in China. That has almost nothing to do with why we don’t play nice.

Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.

It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.

I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.

I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.

Those analogies don’t make any sense.

Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?

While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.

It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.

Then shouldn’t it either be changed to “of any cause” or terminate after “dying”.

LLMs don’t “know” anything. The true things they say are just as much bullshit as the falsehoods.

I think the Berlin Interpretation is quite outdated and was not even good at the time, but I will defend it on this one point. It does not provide a threshold for what is and is not a roguelike, the Berlin Interpretation just lists criteria that are important to consider when determining how roguelike something is. The heap paradox is an exercise for the reader.

A roguelite is ostensibly something that has enough features of a roguelike to be noted, but not enough to be considered one. And I’d argue there is way more to what makes a roguelike than permadeath with no meta progression.

Also Slay the Spire has less meta progression than Issac. Hades is in a whole nother ball park.

Literally Bill Gates.

Who’s labor?

I don’t need the acrimonious screeds of a racist incel to tell me how language should function. I communicate daily, in English, both on and offline, and have yet to witness this breakdown of communication you’re decrying.

Call me crazy but I mess my fries up and eat them with a fork.

I wouldn’t judge a book by its cover. Following aesthetic trends is just being savvy, it’s not necessarily compensating for something.