this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

Games

32636 readers
979 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] turtletracks@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I refuse to ever pay $70 for a game

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If it's a game I'm going to get hundreds, or sometimes thousands of hours from, then I'll pay more. If you look at price per hour spent on entertainment, it's hard to compare. However, you often have to wade through a bunch of shitty overpriced games to find those gems.

Okay, back to EU4 now ;)

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm kind of in a different boat with this. I'm paying for quality, not quantity. Especially since I don't have as much free time as I did 20 years ago.

So if I can play through a phenomenal story within a couple months over a 20 hour game (which usually takes me 30 hours) at the height of the hype when people are still talking about it, I love it. Give me efficient storytelling.

In fact, if it's something longer, it kind makes me rethink it whether I want to pay full price. Why rush?

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sits back in porch chair, Back in my day you could get a fully complete console game wið online multiplayer and all ð bells and whistles, for just ÞIRTY DOLLARS

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

hell yeah, þorn and eð user in the wild!

alþough I stand by the opinion þat þe voiced-voicless distinction between þorn and eð is someþing superimposed onto English later on, as eð and þorn were used interchangeably for a time and it was more a question of time period raþer þan voicedness

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean ð distinction is well and truly ðere now, so a spelling reform ðat tries to reinstate a spelling convention from a period when it wasn't is really just slapping a coat of paint on the same kinds of historical spelling issues ðat English still has.

To me bringing ðem back isn't a matter of restoring old spelling, it's a matter of using what once was to make something ðat works for the here and now.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

My point is more þat we don't really need þe distinction, a lot of other phonemes are ambiguous in English, and þey've not coexisted for a long time historically. Early English mostly used eð, middle English mostly þorn. Not faulting you for using boþ at all, I þink þat's also valid