Yeah, that's the big issue with the prosecutorial system. District attorneys are incentivized to secure convictions, not to seek the truth.
In fact, especially in criminal law, the truth is often completely irrelevant. The system is designed more to "make an example" out of people rather than simply ensuring the law functions as it should. It's a flawed design and a pretty damning reflection of our society.
This comparison is flawed. Training AI on freely available data isn’t the same as pirating copyrighted material. Piracy means unauthorized access for personal use or distribution, while AI training processes text as input without reproducing or selling it directly.
You can’t have a system where individuals expect free access to information but demand that corporations pay for the same data. If something is truly free, it should be free for everyone.
No one expects an artist inspired by Michelangelo or Raphael to pay their estates for using their techniques or styles. Once knowledge and creativity enter the public domain, they become part of collective human progress.
That said, I fully support what Aaron Swartz did—hell, I would’ve done it myself. But on the flip side, let’s not ignore that JSTOR was a subscription-based service, meaning he was literally stealing paywalled content. It’s not the same as AI training on publicly available data.
And let’s be real—the three platforms mentioned exist in a legal gray area. It’s hypocritical to say individuals can use them freely, but corporations can’t. These sites exist solely to make information accessible to everyone, and you can’t pick and choose who gets to benefit.
Don't even get me started in biblical abortion.v
One of the greatest things a doctor can tell you is if something is generally unremarkable.
Because if it is remarkable there's generally something there you don't want.
Just got the app it's absolutely fantastic.
This is why I get just the regular s24 or whatever, like the pixel 8a.
I dont like big phones.
The primary focus of this exchange is how the game's story was a major factor in its poor sales performance.
I am asserting that the story significantly contributed to this lack of success, and I have provided sources to support this claim.
For further illustration, the game lacked meaningful moral choices and consequences, a defining feature of previous entries. Additionally, the gameplay was linear and unremarkable, with simplistic mechanics that failed to stand out.
I find it difficult to recall the exact point of our discussion, as you continue to introduce minutiae and nuance that, while relevant, stray from the core argument.
I have kept my points clear and concise, consistently attempting to keep the discussion focused on the central issue. However, much like Sean Hannity, you have managed to fill an entire comment section with excessive verbiage while ultimately saying very little.
I have no doubt that you will now argue this with an even longer response with more quotes for my comment but I don't think I'm going to respond to it moving forward I'm going to let you have the last word. Sorry. I'm tired.
It doesn't. Which is my point.
What's more is that generally the people know they politicians are corrupt and do absolutely nothing about. They keep voting for those corrupt politicians to boot!
It's some kind of self-deprecating cycle thst just won't end! 🤣☹️
You're doing it again the self-deprecation isn't going to help you here you're still an idiot.
You’re asking me to prove that the game’s messaging and story issues were a major reason for its failure, but you’re not holding yourself to the same standard. You claim that industry-wide issues like oversaturation, pricing, and publisher greed were the real reasons, yet you’ve provided no evidence that these factors impacted The Veilguard more than any other game.
The backlash against DAV wasn’t primarily about price, oversaturation, or competition. The loudest complaints were about the game’s tone, character writing, and perceived prioritization of messaging over deep storytelling. If industry trends were the dominant factor, we’d expect similar pushback against every game in this space—not just DAV.
The Dragon Age series once had strong audience trust, but that eroded over time, largely due to shifting priorities in writing and design. The skepticism around DAV didn’t just appear out of nowhere—it was a reaction to a pattern of changes fans disliked.
If DAV’s failure was mostly about the industry downturn, we’d expect all comparable RPGs to be struggling just as much. Yet, games that focus on strong player-driven storytelling (Baldur’s Gate 3, for example) have thrived. The key difference? They gave players what they wanted.
The burden of proof goes both ways. If you’re going to claim story issues and messaging weren’t significant reasons for DAV’s failure, you need to prove that too. Just pointing at industry-wide problems doesn’t explain why this game failed more than others.
https://www.polygon.com/analysis/520290/dragon-age-the-veilguard-sales-ea-bioware-layoffs
https://thatparkplace.com/dragon-age-the-veilguard-sales-lower-than-reported/
https://gameworldobserver.com/2025/01/23/dragon-age-launch-sales-veilguard-vs-previous-games
You say that you're a moron thinking that the self-deprecation makes you sound like an intellectual.
But you really are a moron.
You’re shifting the goalposts. My argument wasn’t that messaging was the sole reason for failure, but that it was a major factor—one that contributed to the game feeling like a product with priorities misaligned from what players actually wanted. Saying there were “many reasons” doesn’t refute that.
Your claim that messaging wasn’t even in the “top 100” is still unsupported. Listing industry-wide problems like oversaturation and rising prices is fine, but none of that explains why The Veilguard failed specifically. Plenty of games thrive under these conditions. The difference? They connect with their audience. DAV didn’t.
As for lore consistency—yes, Dragon Age has established magic that lets people change their gender at will. If that exists, then the idea of medical transition (and scars from it) doesn’t naturally fit within the world. That’s not a personal assumption; it’s a logical question based on the rules the setting has already established. If a game contradicts its own internal logic without explanation, that’s bad writing.
And no, “retcons” don’t excuse anything. A writer can change their worldbuilding, but doing so in a way that breaks immersion, alienates players, or makes the setting feel incoherent is bad storytelling. Just because you can rewrite lore doesn’t mean you should—especially if it weakens the internal consistency of the world.
You’re misrepresenting my point. I never claimed there was an explicit directive to prioritize "a message" over game quality—I said it feels like that’s what happened. That’s a critique of execution, not a conspiracy theory.
Yes, every piece of media has a message, but there’s a difference between a theme that naturally emerges from storytelling and one that feels forced or out of place. The issue isn’t that the game has a message—it’s how it delivers it.
Claiming messaging wasn’t in the "top 100" reasons for failure is just hand-waving. You provide no evidence for that, and even if it’s not the primary reason, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a factor.
Finally, comparing this to the "historical accuracy" argument is a bad-faith deflection. Dragon Age isn’t real history, but it does have established lore and internal consistency. When a game introduces elements that contradict its own worldbuilding, it breaks immersion. That’s the issue.
No, it failed because making a good game was pushed aside in favor of making a game with a message—and not even a very good one.
I once played a D&D game where our party was hired to clear a camp of murderous orcs. When we arrived, the camp was nothing but women and children; the male orcs had already been slaughtered by someone else.
But because they were orcs, and because there was a stigma attached to their existence, we were still expected to kill them. Apparently, their heads were worth the same regardless of gender or age.
We were playing a game, but it still felt wrong, and everyone at the table was uncomfortable. That is how you deliver a meaningful message. Not by saying, "I'm nonbinary"—because, in the context of Dragon Age: The Veilguard, no one cares.
You don’t just ram a message down your players’ throats. You present it in a way that is playable and contextual to the game's world and lore.
The Veilguard is set in a magical world. There is no reason to have nonbinary or trans people with surgical scars when Dragon Age literally has polymorph magic—they can change their gender whenever they want.
It makes no sense to have nonbinary people in The Veilguard!
New Bill to Effectively Kill Anime & Other Piracy in the U.S. Gets Backing by Netflix, Disney & Sony
I'm currently watching The Practice. One of my favorite shows. Over the years it's been on Netflix, prime, and shit like peacock and tubi. I can't keep up with all that. Right now it's in Amazon prime which I have but can't watch because I have a "business" account and according to Amazon I shouldn't be watching shows and movies on a "business" account.
Soooo... To the high seas I go. Not that I don't want to pay for it but because it's so much easier.
And now I'll have the show for whenever I want to watch it.
The primary issue with those games is that they sucked fundamentally as games.
The politics in those games not withstanding if they were actually good games they would have done fine even if the fantasy dragon lady living in a world of magic and polymorph is "nonbinary"
This post attempts to frame opposition to DEI as opposition to the literal meanings of the words rather than the policies built around them. That’s a false dilemma. One can oppose DEI initiatives that sacrifice meritocracy and individual achievement without rejecting the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion in their purest forms. A system that prioritizes individual ability, effort, and competence over group identity is the foundation of real progress and innovation.
We need to be fighting nepotism, not implementing DEI policies that replace one form of favoritism with another. Nepotism undermines meritocracy by prioritizing personal connections over competence, but DEI hiring, when based on demographic factors rather than qualifications, does the same by shifting the bias to identity. The goal should be a system that rewards individual ability, effort, and achievement—ensuring opportunities are earned, not granted based on who you know or what group you belong to. True fairness comes from eliminating favoritism altogether, not redistributing it.
It seems we are forgetting the folly of the greater good.
That being said, everything I’ve read about companies that implement DEI—aside from some questionable journalism in the gaming industry—suggests that they are actually about 27% to 30% more profitable than those that don’t.
I just don’t like this post in general; it seems like one large logical fallacy.
Was playing Sims 2 last night. Managed to make a family but didn't get far enough to buy a house because the game crashed.
Went to sleep.
Today I'll be scouring the internet for the real reason people play Sims 2. Ya... You know why.
I'm only 39 ☹️