• 0 Posts
  • 1.12K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • Dude, no one is asking for realism. Why are you strawmaning?

    Play a modern shooter, and compare that to Starfield or FO4. They just don’t feel good. Weapons don’t have weight to them, and there’s no impact to them being fired. Your character barely reacts. You just run around spraying bullets, and it doesn’t feel like anything.

    What it needs are good animations, recoil systems, camera punch, VFX, and things like that. Starfield and FO4 have almost none of that. It’s the bare minimum to not be absolute trash. If you’re comparing it to FO3, they’re fairly good. If you’re comparing it to something like Battlefield, Escape from Tarkov, or anything modern, not so much.

    That’s not to say there’s nothing to enjoy. I think FO4 was reasonably good, and FO3 and NV were good too. I just didn’t enjoy them for the gunplay. It’s everything around that that makes them good.

    Personally though, I think Starfield sucks. The story is bland as hell if you know much sci-fi (if you’re failing to appeal to the audience that follows the genre, you failed). Exoring sucks. Clearing dungeons is pretty boring after you’ve done the five dungeons a few times. The loading screens, even on an NVMe SSD, constantly take you out of the experience. I just don’t understand what there is to like. I’d rather play FO4 with a bunch of cool mods if I’m playing something like it, or Morrowind if I want a good Bethesda RPG.












  • They are unrelated things. It has nothing to do with “what we feel”

    I didn’t say it did. I just said it’s more useful for that. Whether it was on purpose or not, 100 and 0 are when it’s dangerous. Before those it can still be, but beyond them you really need to be careful.

    Celsius is also arbitrary. There’s no particular reason water, at sea level, is used for the scale. It was just chosen. If you’re measuring water, it’s great. Otherwise, there’s nothing that makes it “better” than F. It’s not easier to convert to scale to higher or lower numbers or anything, which is what the metric system usually has an advantage with. They’re both just scales.

    I’ve been playing Stationeers a lot lately. (It’s a game about managing a station on another planet, and simulates liquids and gasses really well, following the ideal gas law, and phase changes, and all that good stuff. I highly recommend it, and the devs are great.) In that you use Celsius and Kelvin, with you often needing kK or even larger. It wouldn’t make sense to use F, because it’s hard to switch between F and K, but C and K are the same, with K just being 274.15 higher. I have no issue with C, but this type of use is the one place it’s better, and no one I know would ever have to do this.




  • For temperature, not really. Both Celsius and Fahrenheit are useful for different things.

    Fahrenheit is great for what we feel (it’s related to body temperature for the high end, and the freezing point of brine on 0).

    Celsius is great for cooking, or applications where you care about what water is doing (0 is freezing, 100 is boiling).

    Neither uses different scales, like other metric units increasing by 10s (at least, I’ve never seen anything like kC). If you’re doing that, you’re using Kelvin, which is a fundamental base temperature, where 0 is actually 0, which makes more sense for physics and math, but is less useful for what we feel.

    I think the US should switch, just to make it easier to communicate, and other metric scales actually are better. C and F are both equally useful for different things though. Neither is actually a better scale.