Magic just winds up being far better leveraged through status effects than direct attacks. Arcanist does this in some pretty cool ways, like instakilling anything that's asleep, or targeting enemies based on BP. You also get Red Mage abilities that proc BP from status ailments, so it becomes advantageous to do weird stuff like poison your own party. I forget if it still works if you're immune to it in the first place.
Performer is also a really good pseudo-caster, especially with Red Mage skills. Cheap mass party buffs, and donate extra BP.
Also remember you can dual-wield wands/staves. It gets your special move up twice as quickly.
Can anyone suggest a game (or multiple games) with a point build system or perk system that's good for either roleplaying or creating wildly divergent playstyles
I understand that's pretty broad and it's bc I don't really know exactly what I want
Can anyone suggest a game (or multiple games) with a point build system or perk system that's good for either roleplaying or creating wildly divergent playstyles
I understand that's pretty broad and it's bc I don't really know exactly what I want
Souls games can be this, depending on how close you want to stick to a concept. I remember having a good time doing a samurai build in Dark Souls, where the rule was that I could only use katana, spears, and bows (no shield). The worlds of Souls games don't have enough character interaction for traditional "role-playing", but all the games barring Bloodborne are good for concept characters.
Similarly, Mount & Blade: Warband. The base game is already good, but it really springs to life with mods. There are enough of them that you can theme entire runs, such as playing a campaign set in feudal Japan (via the Gekokujo mod). Various mods (such as Floris or Silverstag) add additional character building options, although the base game starts with enough viable options that builds other than "I hit them with my sword" can be very strong. Good example is the surgery skill, where each point gives 5% chance of a downed soldier being wounded after battle rather than dead. That really adds up, especially given that its benefit ultimately stacks with other defensive advantages (such as having lots of mounted troops in a field battle, or lots of troops with heavy armour).
Mount & Blade also has a system where you choose your character's starting stats via narrative options about their past, so it can encourage roleplaying via building your character along those lines. Consequently, you are encouraged to build an army that suits your character; you'll probably want lots of other horse archers if you're a steppe nomad yourself, or a retinue of knights if you favour lance charges. Mods tend to tweak balance and provide more incentive to diversify, though, while the base game asks you to be more baskety in terms of army build. That said, many mods also improve accessibility to diverse troop types, rather than forcing you to use the base game's system wherein you usually hire villagers and trudge through the entire upgrade tree.
Mount & Blade is neat because you have up to three "tiers" of build: Your character, your army, and optionally, your own faction. You can filch nobles from other factions to be your vassals and hold land in your name, or you can promote named party characters; they'll have an army type that matches their skills and preferences, so your hard-nosed, crossbow-toting master-at-arms will bring a lot of their own crossbows and heavy infantry to protect them.
All that said, Mount & Blade has some accessibility issues. Once you've got the idea, it's not terribly difficult to play, but the learning curve for newcomers is certainly a thing. Probably best to build a small, elite army and take mercenary work for the early game. Once you have your bearings (and a solid income), then it's more feasible to explore more of the game's myriad options. On that note, it's a good idea to purchase businesses in cities where you can, because the passive income makes a substantial difference when you have a small corps of good soldiers.
But seriously, most RPGs that spring immediately to mind are either JRPGs with JRPG progression systems, or have fairly mediocre progression systems. There's a lot of good things to be said about a solid point-buy system.
Hyrule Warriors is . . . not a very good game, but i enjoyed it
i like Fi because she's fun to play, zipping all over the place; the AI is absolutely dreadful but tbh i don't want the computer players hogging all the EXP anyway
and i liked the soundtrack, which clearly isn't metal, but i wasn't expecting it to be metal
and i liked the gauge system, the different gauges do different things and are fairly intuitive to use
it's the kind of game where you feel awesome, fighting your way through these huge armies . . . until you stop and stand still for a moment and discover you can stand for five seconds or more in a swarm of enemies and odds are they won't even take a swing at you because the AI is so bad
the story mode bias is also an issue (my incentive for playing other characters is, i like basically all the characters? i wanna play as a goron! i wanna play as Impa! i wanna turn into a dragon!)
i have other complaints, like the Beamos being too hard to hit (fortunately Legends fixes this)
and i did find myself quite often picking stages that i was seriously underlevelled for, failing objectives repeatedly, and then reaching a point where suddenly i'm levelled to the point where the whole thing is a cakewalk, which led me to suspect there is little skill involved. however i may well just be bad at it.
There was one of those bosses where you're supposed to gather all the playable characters together to debuff the boss. I brought in all four, stunned the boss, and started laying into its weak point gauge.
None of my allies launched a single attack. They just fucking sat there next to the boss and stared at it.
Also Impa's sword is mounted upside-down, both on her back and at her side for her iaido. You can't actually draw a curved weapon like that. It would get stuck with a forward grip, and your arm isn't long enough to clear the length of the scabbard for a same-side reverse grip. This bugs me far more than the fact that she's doing it with a fucking zanbato.
It means that it doesn't live up to one's personal standards for technical functionality but is still enjoyable. This is generally more applicable to films or books, but a game can be poorly designed in some respects or fail as a given kind of game but still be a rewarding experience.
In that vein, however, the question is, what kind of game is it bad at being, how is it bad at that thing, and was that the point? Furthermore, did it fail at being the kind of game that it was trying to be in the first place?
For instance, Monopoly has an abysmal endgame, particularly if you don't use Free Parking as a simple free space. But many, many people still enjoy it, and that's fine.
It's a damn Warriors game, it's not meant to be strategic or even particularly skill based. It's supposed to cathartic, pretty, and entertaining.
Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Devil May Cry games can be any of those things, depending on the combination of player skill and difficulty level involved, as one example.
"not a *very* good game", i said, as in, it's not a *great* game, but i still think it's p. good
though i would also say that, while there's *probably* no such thing as an objectively good game (that being a philosophical question), i dislike how kneejerk people are about dismissing the idea that a piece of entertainment media can be "good" in a measurable sense distinct from its entertainment value or whether or not you liked it
like that might be a vague thing to say but it's just insulting and dismissive to call it "meaningless", i've certainly read, seen and played things where i've thought, "this is impressive, but it's not my thing AT ALL, so i can't honestly say i like it". Hyrule Warriors was the opposite; i LOVED it, i felt it to be *heavily* flawed but i couldn't stop playing.
also this is all slightly amusing because i wrote that post with the intent of *defending* the darn game against Bee's criticisms and it still wound up like that
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
Yes.
Something can be an admirable feat of artistic endeavour and technical mastery and still not click with somebody who recognises those things in it; likewise, a person may acknowledge that a work is severely lacking in some respects or just really a mess when comparing its ambitions and success and still enjoy it mightily. I would much rather read one of Charlaine Harris' ludicrous gory vampire romances than one of John Updike's well-written extended riffs on suburban ennui and infidelity even though I fully recognise that, on a pure prose level, even ignoring plot and pace, Updike is a far better writer.
"It's not a good game but I like it" has never bothered me in the same way "It's a good movie but I dislike it,' or "It's a bad book and I hate it" have never bothered me.
I usually say that a given creative work is "effective" or "ineffective" at a given objective, rather than saying that it is "good" or "bad", because "good" and "bad" imply that the terms can be applicable for a general wide scope, while "effective" and "ineffective" limit the applicable scope of that assessment to a certain purpose.
"It's not a good game but I like it" has never bothered me in the same way "It's a good movie but I dislike it,' or "It's a bad book and I hate it" have never bothered me.
A statement like "It's not a good game but I like it" simply means that you think it's ineffective at engaging you in (at least) one certain way and effective at doing so in (at least) another way.
It's a damn Warriors game, it's not meant to be strategic or even particularly skill based. It's supposed to cathartic, pretty, and entertaining.
Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Devil May Cry games can be any of those things, depending on the combination of player skill and difficulty level involved, as one example.
I don't think they are mutually exclusive, I just don't think requiring strategy or skill is necessary for the game to be enjoyable
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
I play Hyrule Warriors because I like the obnoxious character designs, huge variety of playable characters, it's cathartic factor, and because of its absolute fuckload of content
Now, legitimate strategy, a design that rewards actual skill, more engaging RPG mechanics, and better AI may be things I'd like, but I don't expect them of a Warriors game for one and I don't consider then requirements when weighted against what the series is trying to do
i mean you could look at it that way, as having different appreciative categories, but that doesn't invalidate references to those distinct categories
it's kinda tiresome, frankly, because it's almost every time someone makes an evaluative statement on this forum as well, like in Anonus' "prestige shows" thread, when the silly thing is *you know what he meant*, because he even defined it a couple posts down, so it wasn't "meaningless"!
anyway naney's right
if you replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation" then the statement that "'artistic merit' is just a different form of appreciation" becomes merely a bland truism, as opposed to flat-out wrong
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
This would be fine if the differentiation was ever used for anything but "that's bad but you can still like it" said in the most condescending tone possible.
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
I don't disagree, but "I like it even though it's bad" is a pretty ambiguous and reductive statement. I think something more specific is needed, eg I hated everything Jurassic World stood for but damned if I wasn't on the edge of my seat for some of those action scenes, or I like Doom's sense of silly fun but I find the ethos of "video games need plot as much as porn needs plot" that was behind it rather irritating.
tbh "that's bad but you can still like it" is condescending as heck
but part of the reason it annoys me so much is, like, if i'm saying something's "good", i'm not just saying i liked it, i'm saying i think it's GOOD, so telling me that "no it's bad but, don't you worry your pretty little head about it because, you see, it's OK to like bad things" is just ASTOUNDINGLY patronizing
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
"bad in a fun way" still indicates that the person in question is appreciating the "fun" quality of the work.
So it's still appreciation. "Appreciation", "enjoyment", whatever. Pick a term for that, it doesn't really matter what it is, but it is still some sort of indication of finding value for oneself in a given work.
Terms like "good" and "fun" and "guilty pleasure" etc. are merely different aspects, different dimensions perhaps, of this broader category of appreciation, and specifically it cannot be said that any particular sub-category of this appreciation is necessarily any "better" in a general sense than any other sub-category.
Now, we may think one feels better, or more socially acceptable, or more morally upright, than another. For example, we may feel that a work that brings out strong emotions of sadness by commenting on the horrors of war may be more meaningful to us than a work that arouses our sexual desires with fanservice. But in order to form these judgements we have to first make presumptions about specific purposes/contexts for the work to be seen in -- and in doing so, we are thereby addressing the "effectiveness" of a work for a certain purpose, which is what I mentioned above.
tbh "that's bad but you can still like it" is condescending as heck
but part of the reason it annoys me so much is, like, if i'm saying something's "good", i'm not just saying i liked it, i'm saying i think it's GOOD, so telling me that "no it's bad but, don't you worry your pretty little head about it because, you see, it's OK to like bad things" is just ASTOUNDINGLY patronizing
And that's why I choose to discard the notion that a work can be "bad" in the first place.
i'm feeling kinda peeved that this debate happened in response to a post i made which i feel got misinterpreted due to my use of a qualifying adjective being ignored
i mean this was probably a discussion we needed to have, albeit not one i wanted this late in the evening, but i'm still kinda annoyed cuz that wasn't even what i meant
This would be fine if the differentiation was ever used for anything but "that's bad but you can still like it" said in the most condescending tone possible.
the sentiment is not similar, because in doing so i was expressing my own subjective views, not presuming to dictate to someone whether they are or aren't "allowed" to like something!
tbh "that's bad but you can still like it" is condescending as heck
but part of the reason it annoys me so much is, like, if i'm saying something's "good", i'm not just saying i liked it, i'm saying i think it's GOOD, so telling me that "no it's bad but, don't you worry your pretty little head about it because, you see, it's OK to like bad things" is just ASTOUNDINGLY patronizing
And that's why I choose to discard the notion that a work can be "bad" in the first place.
but anyway, yeah, i know, but other people haven't discarded the concept, and the concept they're using is not a meaningless one. that's my main complaint here, i've seen it a lot, someone makes an evaluative statement and someone else chimes in with 'value is meaningless bs' which is condescending af
Can anyone suggest a game (or multiple games) with a point build system or perk system that's good for either roleplaying or creating wildly divergent playstyles
I understand that's pretty broad and it's bc I don't really know exactly what I want
You should check out Transistor. The way the weapons system works is incredibly fun and has a lot of flexibility. Combat is somewhat limited in that all combat takes place in an arena style area, so you can't be assassin-y, per se, but there's still a lot going on that's quite fun.
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
This would be fine if the differentiation was ever used for anything but "that's bad but you can still like it" said in the most condescending tone possible.
Oh, I don't disagree. People use it as a way of covering their arses a lot. But that doesn't invalidate the concept, and speaking from personal experience, I've seen a lot of people do the reverse and say that they admired something on its technical points but found it personally unpleasant.
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
I don't disagree, but "I like it even though it's bad" is a pretty ambiguous and reductive statement. I think something more specific is needed, eg I hated everything Jurassic World stood for but damned if I wasn't on the edge of my seat for some of those action scenes, or I like Doom's sense of silly fun but I find the ethos of "video games need plot as much as porn needs plot" that was behind it rather irritating.
There is zero meaningful difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
sorry to be the guy who barges into the conversation he has no investment it but this is just... not true?
It's quite possible, and indeed commonplace, to have separate mental categorization for artistic merit and enjoyability.
I am inclined to agree with Jane, on the basis that "artistic merit" is just a different form of enjoyment.
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
But appreciation *isn't* the same thing as enjoyment for everyone, and getting annoyed when people don't feel like they're the same thing and say something like, "This is pretty bad, but it's bad in a fun way," or, "This is really well-done but I still really don't like it," is more than a little presumptuous, particularly if it is blatantly framed as an opinion.
I'm not arguing that this is objective. I'm arguing that you're allowed to have different measures of "good" and differentiate it from "fun," and that maybe separating the two is important sometimes.
"bad in a fun way" still indicates that the person in question is appreciating the "fun" quality of the work.
So it's still appreciation. "Appreciation", "enjoyment", whatever. Pick a term for that, it doesn't really matter what it is, but it is still some sort of indication of finding value for oneself in a given work.
Terms like "good" and "fun" and "guilty pleasure" etc. are merely different aspects, different dimensions perhaps, of this broader category of appreciation, and specifically it cannot be said that any particular sub-category of this appreciation is necessarily any "better" in a general sense than any other sub-category.
Now, we may think one feels better, or more socially acceptable, or more morally upright, than another. For example, we may feel that a work that brings out strong emotions of sadness by commenting on the horrors of war may be more meaningful to us than a work that arouses our sexual desires with fanservice. But in order to form these judgements we have to first make presumptions about specific purposes/contexts for the work to be seen in -- and in doing so, we are thereby addressing the "effectiveness" of a work for a certain purpose, which is what I mentioned above.
You missed my point.
Enjoyment is generally a different kind of appreciation from the sort of abstract technical appreciation that goes into saying, "I think this was executed well," or, "I think this succeeds in what it was trying to do."
This is generally why I avoid "good" and "bad" unless something meets both criteria on that front.
I want to play NWN2 but (1) I don't want to accidentally invest myself in one more thing right now and (2) I don't feel like figuring out want to do about the choppy animation bug yet.
But that's a game that literally lets you play as many different character classes, since it's based on D&D 3.5.
Oh, I don't disagree. People use it as a way of covering their arses a lot. But that doesn't invalidate the concept, and speaking from personal experience, I've seen a lot of people do the reverse and say that they admired something on its technical points but found it personally unpleasant.
But that is just a different kind of appreciation is it not.
Oh, I don't disagree. People use it as a way of covering their arses a lot. But that doesn't invalidate the concept, and speaking from personal experience, I've seen a lot of people do the reverse and say that they admired something on its technical points but found it personally unpleasant.
But that is just a different kind of appreciation is it not.
I use "good" and "bad" not infrequently during the course of casual conversation, because I allow myself speak more loosely or lazily on HH (and other places more erratically), and if necessary I can just scratch up something with a bit more thought. Shrug
Comments
I understand that's pretty broad and it's bc I don't really know exactly what I want
that being said
I would like to add the caveat of "no hack 'n slash" because as of right now I'm not super used to the genre and find it mildly off-putting
i like Fi because she's fun to play, zipping all over the place; the AI is absolutely dreadful but tbh i don't want the computer players hogging all the EXP anyway
and i liked the soundtrack, which clearly isn't metal, but i wasn't expecting it to be metal
and i liked the gauge system, the different gauges do different things and are fairly intuitive to use
it's the kind of game where you feel awesome, fighting your way through these huge armies . . . until you stop and stand still for a moment and discover you can stand for five seconds or more in a swarm of enemies and odds are they won't even take a swing at you because the AI is so bad
the story mode bias is also an issue (my incentive for playing other characters is, i like basically all the characters? i wanna play as a goron! i wanna play as Impa! i wanna turn into a dragon!)
i have other complaints, like the Beamos being too hard to hit (fortunately Legends fixes this)
and i did find myself quite often picking stages that i was seriously underlevelled for, failing objectives repeatedly, and then reaching a point where suddenly i'm levelled to the point where the whole thing is a cakewalk, which led me to suspect there is little skill involved. however i may well just be bad at it.
the AI is bad
Or perhaps, more accurately, replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation".
though i would also say that, while there's *probably* no such thing as an objectively good game (that being a philosophical question), i dislike how kneejerk people are about dismissing the idea that a piece of entertainment media can be "good" in a measurable sense distinct from its entertainment value or whether or not you liked it
like that might be a vague thing to say but it's just insulting and dismissive to call it "meaningless", i've certainly read, seen and played things where i've thought, "this is impressive, but it's not my thing AT ALL, so i can't honestly say i like it". Hyrule Warriors was the opposite; i LOVED it, i felt it to be *heavily* flawed but i couldn't stop playing.
also this is all slightly amusing because i wrote that post with the intent of *defending* the darn game against Bee's criticisms and it still wound up like that
Now, legitimate strategy, a design that rewards actual skill, more engaging RPG mechanics, and better AI may be things I'd like, but I don't expect them of a Warriors game for one and I don't consider then requirements when weighted against what the series is trying to do
it's kinda tiresome, frankly, because it's almost every time someone makes an evaluative statement on this forum as well, like in Anonus' "prestige shows" thread, when the silly thing is *you know what he meant*, because he even defined it a couple posts down, so it wasn't "meaningless"!
anyway naney's right
if you replace "enjoyment" with "appreciation" then the statement that "'artistic merit' is just a different form of appreciation" becomes merely a bland truism, as opposed to flat-out wrong
but part of the reason it annoys me so much is, like, if i'm saying something's "good", i'm not just saying i liked it, i'm saying i think it's GOOD, so telling me that "no it's bad but, don't you worry your pretty little head about it because, you see, it's OK to like bad things" is just ASTOUNDINGLY patronizing
So it's still appreciation. "Appreciation", "enjoyment", whatever. Pick a term for that, it doesn't really matter what it is, but it is still some sort of indication of finding value for oneself in a given work.
Terms like "good" and "fun" and "guilty pleasure" etc. are merely different aspects, different dimensions perhaps, of this broader category of appreciation, and specifically it cannot be said that any particular sub-category of this appreciation is necessarily any "better" in a general sense than any other sub-category.
Now, we may think one feels better, or more socially acceptable, or more morally upright, than another. For example, we may feel that a work that brings out strong emotions of sadness by commenting on the horrors of war may be more meaningful to us than a work that arouses our sexual desires with fanservice. But in order to form these judgements we have to first make presumptions about specific purposes/contexts for the work to be seen in -- and in doing so, we are thereby addressing the "effectiveness" of a work for a certain purpose, which is what I mentioned above.
As always the main issue is a lack of specificity
i mean this was probably a discussion we needed to have, albeit not one i wanted this late in the evening, but i'm still kinda annoyed cuz that wasn't even what i meant
i mean for goodness' sake:
except i literally didn't say that!
the sentiment is not similar, because in doing so i was expressing my own subjective views, not presuming to dictate to someone whether they are or aren't "allowed" to like something!
But that's a game that literally lets you play as many different character classes, since it's based on D&D 3.5.
Sorry for being irritable. i just, idk, i clicked this thread idly and was not expecting this.