• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 29th, 2024

help-circle
rss

  • I played and enjoyed both. They feel very different. Divinity was built without the pen and paper foundation and solasta is very true to DnD 5e. While 5e is nice for roleplay where in theory everything is possible, it lacks in a videogame setting. I don’t go into detail here but in all DOS2 feels more like a complete game that isn’t hold back by sticking to a rulebook that was designed for something else.

    As already mentioned, DOS2 also has premade Characters on with the story builds. Solasta focuses on ‘White Canvas’ characters which I like.






  • It looks like a strategy game but actually isn’t. The strategy part just isn’t developed enough. It’s a story and RPG style game with a strong focus on economy management. The game discourages strategy by telling you how strong an army is (as a number) and giving you no tactical option. Meaning higher numbers will always win.

    The (new) DLCs are mostly very bad and short so the game as a whole is in a strange state where you can play a good game with missing features without DLC or you play a bad game with lots of features that is very expensive with all the DLC.

    I kinda hope that the game dies soon because the frequent game breaking updates and optional (and disadvantages) DLC makes modding annoying even though there are extremely fun mods, even better than the DLC.




  • I always wondered what would happen if you cite an original source of something we consider common sense now. What would nature say if you use conservation of momentum and cite Isaac Newton and the Principia Mathematica.

    What if you quote something in latin. For most of science history this was completely normal.






  • That is a strange take because economics builds on this principle to function. If you found a producing company today it will have to buy a material and - by the magic you apply to it - sell it for more. Like a refinery buying crude oil and selling gasoline. Or a goldsmith buying gold and selling jewellery. It’s how everything works.

    On a broader take it reveals a Marxian perspective on a market where every item looses its value to the cost of the labor that goes in it. For the alchemist (if everyone found out his Pb->Au secret) the price will drop until it’s worth the labor that went in it because everyone else also can’t sell cheaper.

    So labor is all that has value. And owning the means of production hasn’t.




  • In similarity to coffee: Consider very small producers. The problem with coffe and chocolate is that the real taste only results from the last production steps (after fermentation and roasting). That means that companies that buy from many small farms (sometimes hundreds) have no clue which farm did it the best and thus the farmers also don’t know it.

    But because only the farmers have a really strong influence on the quality of the chocolate they need to know if what they did was right.

    Now a small company might have their own farms or work with very few suppliers they can give feedback about the quality. The farmers can produce better raw chocolate beans and the chocolate tastes best.

    Also because the farmers learn their worth we westeners can’t exploit them so nicely and we avoid slavery.