8 ms·

> I don't like the "both sides are the same" There's more than two facets, and you do not know yours is the right one. > somehow these two games are equal in

> I don't like the "both sides are the same" There's more than two facets, and you do not know yours is the right one. > somehow these two games are equal in speech value I wish I could tell the "speech value" of something over the next 100 years. > This is a storefront In my opinion, Steam is a marketplace. A store curates a shopping experience, whereas a marketplace contains stores where you can buy anything. > I don't want to say awful shit. I do. I want Spec Ops: The Line, This War of Mine, Papers Please, Doki Doki Literature Club, and Darkest Dungeon. > Now when a developer makes an honest game, they can watch it briefly blip by the "new releases" page >> We are going to enable you to override our recommendation algorithms and hide games containing the topics you're not interested in.

lifeformed 8y ago
> There's more than two facets, and you do not know yours is the right one. Just because someone has a contrary opinion to my idea doesn't mean my idea is now unknowable and equal in weight to their contradiction. I don't like this postmodern idea that "everything is subjective, so nothing has real value." It would be easy to contrive an example of a degenerate game idea which only purpose is to harass specific people and serve racist desires. You are saying that our society is unable to ethically categorize this game differently than any other game? I don't think it's required that we mathematically determine what's "good" in order to set reasonable boundaries. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's impossible to quantify their place in society. Sure, there's a fuzzy line that controversial topics straddle. Keep those all, I say. The games you mentioned are not even close to what I'm talking about. I'm not saying to get rid of controversial stuff, but to set an upper bound. It just seems like a conflict of interest to have zero guidelines about a thing they will profit over.

lifeformed 8y ago

> There's more than two facets, and you do not know yours is the right one. Just because someone has a contrary opinion to my idea doesn't mean my idea is now unknowable and equal in weight to their contradiction. I don't like this postmodern idea that "everything is subjective, so nothing has real value." It would be easy to contrive an example of a degenerate game idea which only purpose is to harass specific people and serve racist desires. You are saying that our society is unable to ethically categorize this game differently than any other game? I don't think it's required that we mathematically determine what's "good" in order to set reasonable boundaries. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's impossible to quantify their place in society. Sure, there's a fuzzy line that controversial topics straddle. Keep those all, I say. The games you mentioned are not even close to what I'm talking about. I'm not saying to get rid of controversial stuff, but to set an upper bound. It just seems like a conflict of interest to have zero guidelines about a thing they will profit over.