• 0 Posts
  • 54 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • I think most reasonable people would agree that there are many objectively good things about the modern world, but progress isn’t a strict good/bad binary. Often, progress results in both good and bad circumstances.

    For instance, I think most reasonable people would agree that modern medicine is a very good thing. Vaccines and antibiotics have saved countless lives. Also, more advanced agricultural technology has allowed us to grow more food and feed more people. However, progress has also resulted in significant ecological damage, depletion of natural, nonrenewable resources and a significant loss of biodiversity. I think most reasonable people would agree that these are very bad things.

    I don’t think the point is to ignore the very real, important positives about the modern world, but to point out that there are still things that need to improve, and unintended negative effects of progress that need to be dealt with.

    I appreciate that for you the modern world is overall good, but that’s not necessarily everyone’s experience. Some people do feel purposeless, depressed and worn down, despite being relatively wealthy and comfortable, especially compared to humans of past eras.








  • It really depends on how you define “successful.” If your measure of success is based on how closely these societies resemble Western, liberal, capitalist societies, then, yeah, you’re probably not going to see a whole lot of “success,” but that’s not what these revolutionary movements were trying to achieve. I would say that first and foremost what essentially every communist movement was striving for was just autonomy and independence, and many have been successful in that regard. Vietnam is an independent nation, instead of a French colony. China, similarly, is no longer under the thumb of the British. You may not like what these nations do with their autonomy, but that is what they were striving for and they have achieved it.









  • Why can’t you use the Deck for streaming?

    Oh, I do, and it works very well, overall. I’m just hoping that someone will release a device that does streaming even better. I would like a better screen (I have a regular LCD Deck, not the OLED), that’s 1080p with a 16:9 aspect ratio. I have a 16:9 monitor for the PC, and I would just prefer that the aspect ratio on the handheld screen matched my PC monitor, so I don’t have to fuss with that. I would also prefer a lighter device, with better controller layout. I think the sticks could be improved, I might need to replace one of mine after a few years because of drift. Also, I don’t like the Deck’s D-pad, and I don’t like where it’s positioned. These are relatively minor things, but I think they would make the experience even better.



  • If you want to (legally) play Nintendo games, obviously buy a Switch 2. You don’t have any other option. If Nintendo games aren’t that important to you, and/or if you already have a large Steam library, a Steam Deck is a great option.

    Personally, I love my Steam Deck, but I’m looking forward to a Steam Deck 2, or maybe a third party handheld, running SteamOS, that has a nice, big, 1080p screen, better controls, and better battery life. More power would be nice, but not if it comes with a louder fan and poor battery life. Honestly, I’d even be ok if the device was focused on local streaming, from my PC.


  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I agree that Nintendo was ahead of the curve when it came to expanding portable gaming, but the only reason the switch sold so many units, and ultimately got so many games ported to it, was because of Nintendo first party titles. If you look at the best selling switch titles, the vast majority of them are Nintendo games. Without Nintendo first party titles, the switch would have been far outsold by better devices.