I just think it’s bizarre to have a black dude protagonist in a historical japanese setting.

Why? He is a historical figure. Why does a historical figure in his historical setting feel bizarre?

I’ve read through the sources on Yasuke and I think it’s a stretch to say he was like a full fledged samurai.

Potato potato. Why him being a “full fledged samurai” even matters? The series is known to take creative liberties with history.

Seriously ask yourself why having ONE SINGULAR black protagonist in a series where protagonists have so far been overwhelmingly white feels like “black people getting pushed into games”.

Because to me, it sounds like you have seen too many opinions of people getting outraged and because of that you internalized their views without asking yourself why they (and now you) feel the way they do.

Why is everyone here pretending like palworld isn’t a straight up Pokemon clone that went a bit too close with the designs? I mean the game was basically marketed as pokemon with guns. I know you guys have this new hate for Nintendo, but this isn’t even them.

Because it doesn’t matter. Palworld isn’t getting sued for copyright infringement, it is being sued for patent infringement.

If I made a game about an Italian contractor with a red hat and mustache that fights mushroom people and turtles, you guys would defend it and claim it isn’t a copyright issue lol

Again, Nintendo isn’t suing for copyright infringement, but for patent infringement. It’s more like Nintendo suing Monster Hunter Stories for allowing you to ride your monsters (this is literally one of the patents Pal World is getting sued for).

The black samurai is literally a historical figure. What do you mean “it doesn’t make sense”?

I wish I was this deluded. Life must be so simple when it can whatever you want it to be.

No, it’s indeed a top down terraria.

Considerate literally comes from considering (aka thinking of other people when making decisions), if you forget to take other people into account when making decisions, you’re being inconsiderate.

It’s not complicated.

I like them in fire emblem, I suppose they have too much range in three houses but in most games (in the franchise) they’re actually pretty bad.

Imagine you have to go to the grocery store (interact with an item), but it’s far, so you can’t (the game has bad readability).

Someone makes cars (yellow paint).

Post OP says: fuck cars (yellow paint).

Comment OP says: I think we should be able to choose between having cars or walking (having yellow paint or not).

I’m saying: this option sucks (having yellow paint or nothing), we should have good public transport instead (good art/environment design that doesn’t cause confusion).

Is that a hot take?

Who… are you arguing with?

You?

Did you read any of my comment at all?

Yeah?

I’m saying give the players the choice to enable it or not.

And I’m saying that by giving a choice at all, you’re already failing the players that don’t want it. Aka, not a “everyone wins”.

My point is that yellow paint isn’t bad because it’s ugly or breaks immersion, it is bad because there can be good design that communicates the same thing without being ugly and immersion breaking.

Removing the former doesn’t suddenly bring the latter into existence.

The yellow paint is already here to stay!

I’m arguing that it shouldn’t.

Wrong. If the devs can’t communicate something without copious amounts of yellow paint, that’s a failure of design, not player intelligence.

Not really. Yellow paint isn’t a thing for shits and giggles, it’s there to make the game readable.

Before yellow paint, games needed to have good art direction (instead of “realism”) or good environment design to either make it clear something is meant to be interacted with or to point the player in the right direction.

Simply removing yellow paint doesn’t suddenly improve art direction or environment design, it just makes the game needlessly hard to read.

Imagine caring as a value, for example, my care™ about this topic is 2, whereas yours is 5.

In this interpretation, “I don’t care” implies that the care™ value of the speaker is 0, by the same logic, saying “I care” implies that their care™ value is greater than 0.

With that in mind, “I could care less” implies there is a care™ value lower than the one they currently hold. Meanwhile, “I couldn’t care less” implies the opposite, there is no care™ value lower, which is only true for 0 (AKA “I don’t care”).

Wasn’t that revealed to be a ripped hole in his leggings?