I get where you’re coming from.

B. The game is a product that they want to sell to more people, adding difficulties sells more

Sure. Not not necessarily untrue.

I don’t see the issue either way

My stances is forced here. I support the artists.

Unfortunately, supporting artists means sometimes you have to disagree with the businessmen when the two groups disagree.

Selling microtransactions and skins and deluxe editions and pre-order exclusive content, etc, etc all “sells more” (or at least makes more money).

If the artists feel for whatever reason adding more difficulties is too much to manage or prevents them from making the experience they want to make, I have to take the side of the artist.

There’s always going to be an argument the product needs to change to make more money, that’s not the art I find super interesting.

Why care what audience it’s conforming to, you’ll either enjoy the game or you won’t?

Because I think of the people who make games as artists and it pisses me off to think of some guy in a suit pressing his fingers into the Mona Lisa and pestering Da Vinci to make her smile and show cleavage so it can sell more.

I get that a business needs to make money, but those should be decisions the artists are in the room for at least.

If it’s A I don’t care, if it’s B I do.

I have to be honest here and say I don’t understand where you’re coming from at all.

Thats okay! Thanks for asking. I’m coming from the place that video games are art.

If games are art, then I choose to support artists, even if they want to make weird or unconventional art. If an artist has a vision which clashes with my own I want them to be able to follow their vision that instead of always conforming to “general audiences”.

As to the rest of your comment I already said first thing accessibility options are good so I’m not sure what got miscomminicated there.

The problem with Ghostbusters (2016) didn’t have anything to do with having an all female cast

That’s what I just said.

If women arent the ones greenlighting these movie, directing them, or even writing the script, how could they possibly be the problem?

I listed a bunch of actually good “woke” media. They were made by a trans and black creators but if you want examples of women being funny look at Veep, the Good Place, 30 Rock, Parks and Rec, etc.

The problem as I pointed out is a predominately white male board member of business grads who feel having an all female cast is all they need to market a movie, so they can skip giving a shit about the product.

it was more about the timing of the jokes, the lack of slow quiet scenes to build atmosphere, and the effects being crappy unmemorable CGI

Because Sony can’t make a movie to save their lives. Look at Morbius, Kraven, Madame Web, etc.

There was a time in the early 00s/10s where society said “any representation is good representation”.

Movies like Black Panther and Get Out were inherently going to do well because they catered to an audience demand that had been long underrepresented.

Nowadays there are actually good movies in competition. We dont have to settle for bad representation. If you want a horror movie that’s an allegory for not transitioning you can watch it, if you want a vampire movie where the vampires are an allegory for racism and white exploitation that’s in theaters right now.

Spotting background character 1 and 2’s gay kiss in Disney’s reboot of Buzz Lightyear feels a lot less exciting to me.

When a bunch of white board members decide to make a movie “for women” and resurrect a dead IP and start forcing a script, that will be inherently more shallow than going to Amy Poehler and asking if she has an idea to pitch.

This is why Marvel succeeded in giving Ryan Coogler a higher degree of creative control for Black Panther than Sony did for any of the female cast in Ghostbusters.

While I’m enjoying diverse films like Sinners and I Saw the TV Glow, if you’re more interested in Disney’s live action remake of The Little Mermaid, or Disney’s live action remake of Snow White, go right ahead and watch it. I’m not saying you can’t.

But the idea you have to “support it” is nothing but marketing. I don’t think you’re really supporting diverse stories, I think you’re supporting corporations who exploit diversity and intentionally rage bait the worst racists imaginable for free marketing instead of investing the areas that you point out would make the movie better.

Accessibility options are good.

Agreed.

Not everyone is a god gamer with the reflexes of a 14-year old hopped up on Adderall and Red Bull. Some people just want to enjoy the story and the atmosphere of a game and it should be normal for us to let them.

Not everyone just wants to enjoy the story. Some people want a challenge which requires the reflexes of a 14 year old hopped up on Adderall.

Why should every single game be changed to suit your specific play style?

Instead of demanding their games change, maybe you could just accept its okay some audiences have different likes than you and just play the ones that cater to your style?

Imo there are two types of “wokeness”.

There is a diverse inclusive story by someone with an underrepresented experience who partially lived that story and has a unique perspective and ideas.

And then there is a “diverse” story constructed by an all white male board of execitives who think “wokeness” is trendy.

Movies like I Saw The TV Glow, Parasite, Sinners, etc are fantastic “woke” stories coming from the former group.

The latter group comes up with stories like “Ghostbusters but all women” or “Oceans 11 but all women” which I think should rightly be criticized.

My character was straight up an actual poacher cause the best way to make money is selling creatures to that lady in Hogsmeade.

I mean…do we want to tear it down?

Pretty sure we do.

Some things are for you, other things are NOT for you. Letting both exist is an option.

So you agree it’s good Fortnite now exists on iOS? Apple users get more options?

Not OP but your very first sentence was

It’s very simple, valve is a gamer company.

It’s not “whataboutism” to directly respond to your point and try to argue they aren’t a gamer company.

I do agree with you overall though that Epic can suck it.

This is entirely correct, and it’s deeply troubling seeing the general public use LLMs for confirmation bias because they don’t understand anything about them.

People aren’t interested in “learning about LLMs”, especially people like artists.

They’re interested in telling Elon Musk to “fuck off”, and when Grok says something bad about Elon it’s very cathartic for them.

They might know it’s feeding their own thoughts back to them, but they don’t care. To people who aren’t in the know, this box Elon is promoting as “objective truth box” is criticizing Elon. That’s a very powerful narrative in a world where he’s taking over the world.

It’s hard to disagree. Elon can go fuck himself. What’s more important to the average person, stopping Elon or understanding the nitty gritty of machine learning?

When artists say AI is stealing, they’re not interested in an explanation about how “its really not”. And if you tried to, they’d feel you’re missing the forest for the trees because their problem with AI isn’t metaphysical philosophy, it’s that it’s hurting their job opportunities.

The sad thing is there’s another end of the curve where games get too old to be as enjoyable as if you played it at the time.

Shooters pre dual stick controls can be tough for example.

Where do you get the real data, though? They just scrap data from websites

Great question… Do they “just” scrape data from websites?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/libgen-meta-openai/682093/

Keeping it clean would require hiring people to scrub contamination from the data sets.

That’s exactly right.

https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/

The point I was trying to raise that wasn’t semantics was that if the majority of the full training data were synthetic, it could lead to model collapse.

But luckily (or not?) a small amount of finetuning can be very effective in correcting the range of responses.

Open LLMs are finetuned on partially or fully synthetic data all the time

That’s what I was suggesting.

You explained to me you weren’t talking about “finetuning”, but training on completely synthetic data.

(Fine-tuning happens after the LLM has already been trained)

Oh, yeah then I agree with above commenter. This would collapse the model.

You’re not training an LLM on text generated by an LLM. You’re training it on 98% real data, and intentionally biasing it by sprinkling in the fake data intermittently.