teawrecks

Back when Spore came out, I was too young to know about most of the hype around it. It was short, yeah, and the end game was odd, but otherwise I remember really enjoying it.

Cool, didn't know the modding community was the way to go. I would always break it out at a party, it would be fun for a bit, but yeah, eventually it's just the same thing but faster. I'll have to take a look at the mods.

I have to think people have stored stuff in a blockchain somewhere. I wonder what the response to that is.

Ask ZA/UM how it's going for them.

The expected profit margin when you try to make a genuinely good passion project is razor thin, if it's there at all. There are two kinds of games that make money: outliers and whale hunters. When we think of good games proving the games industry wrong, we're thinking of outliers. The rest of the industry is whale hunters.

In theory you could create some kind of game dev collective where a bunch of indie devs all work on their own thing under the same umbrella, and if any of them make it big, they all split the take to fund the group going forward. But you run into all the same logistical difficulties that normal communism runs into: what does leadership look like? how do you hold members accountable? what does contributing look like when development hell can look like not delivering anything for years, or forever? who pays the lawyers who have to figure that all out?

Silicon valley often had "incubators" which are kind of a middle ground between collectivism and capitalism. An investor funds a shoe string budget to several start up ideas to create minimum viable products. If one looks promising they all switch to shipping that and they're all part owners.

I'm kinda surprised we don't see more game dev incubators. Maybe indie outliers are just that rare.

You're saying you see a bunch of login attempts on your router, but you don't think they actually got into it?

Yeah, I generally don't like most rogue likes though, because they often lean on procedural levels and there's usually not an "ending". So I play it enough that I feel like I get it and then I'm done.

Minit is one that comes to mind. It would actually be rad if someone put Minit on an OG Gameboy cartridge. I think it totally would have worked as a Gameboy game with no save data.

Edit: ah I forgot that there is a bit of info retained between runs, like spawn position.

Is the config for the waybar in your screenshot posted anywhere?

I would limit it to the "web" in it's heyday. The internet as a whole is more wild than ever. And there's a chance that the fediverse could be just as thrilling in 10 years as the web was 20 years ago (and could be swamped by corporate interests).

I don't think the internet is getting less thrilling and weird, if anything it's downright scary at this point, it's just really easy to enter a walled garden, never leave, and never find the interesting stuff.

Apart from preferring Kirby in Smash, the only Kirby game I've played is Kirby's Dreamland on Gameboy. They hadn't yet figured out how to persist save data in those cartridges, and it didn't have any codes. So you had to beat it in one sitting, which I could do as a kid, which was no small fear for that era of gaming. Replaying it meant finding where the secrets are, making runs quicker each time.

I kinda like this concept of no save, I think there aren't many games, even retro-themed ones, that make use of it as an element.

Ahh ok cool, I'll keep at it. Thanks for the recommendation.

I do:

• Guess the Game
• Framed
• Connections

I just played today's. Maybe I need to play more to really get it. Is it always this trivial?