I got permabanned from /r/askhistorians for posting a link to reveddit, a site where you could view deleted posts. I did that to inform people that they could use that site to see all the posts that the mods remove (in that subreddit they remove any post that does not provide references).
I thought that the worst case would be that my post would get deleted and I would get a warning. No, they just permabanned me.
I was mad so I appealed telling them that it's wrong to permaban people for reasons like this. I understand permaban for offensive content. But I still don't understand their action.
Discussing with them proved that while one of them one reasonable and understanding, the other was completely mad about my action and wanted me to be almost on my knees pleading to remove the permaban. Eventually they "did a vote" and I stayed permabanned. I tried again one year later to no avail - I figured, maybe one year later they would get over it. Nope.
I just stopped checking and recommending /r/askhistorians ever since.
I have played the campaign of Diablo 4 - I did not have much expectation but I got bored fairly early in the game. With each new game, franchises are supposed to get better, but I am not sure that is the case with Diablo.
Here are all the points where I think D4 is actually worse than D1, even though it was released 27 years later
Variety of enemy in terms of gameplay
In D4, there are more or less 5 archetypes of enemies:
- melee who runs fast and chase you but are weak
- melee who walks slow and are more sturdy and hit harder
- ranged who does nothing but shoot
- ranged who circle strafes and shoots
- enemy spawner that you must usually kill first
Enemies end up having different bodies of course, but in essence that's really all they give and you update your gameplay based on which of them you face.
In D1, there are many more:
- fallen ones who hit you then retreat when one of them dies
- skeletons that are almost "typical" melee except that they hesitate and don't engage instantly
- bats that teleport to you when you hit them
- goats (melee or archers) that try their best to surround you by circling you
- scavengers and gargoyles that heal up (on carcass for scavengers) when you stop chasing them
- mages that teleport around and flash you if you get close
- balrogs that cast inferno, making it dangerous to escape (if you escape in the same direction as inferno you get a ton of damage) and tricky to beat
- vipers that can rush toward you and double strike you
In D1 there are so many enemies to get to know, you really need to change your playstyle based on the enemy you face (unless you are high level enough of course) which makes it all the more thrilling and interesting to play the game. In D4 I just played the same way for each enemy really, more or less.
Variety of dungeon layout
That one is easy. In D1 you have no idea where the stairs can be. Or where rooms are. You can find anything anywhere. The labyrinth can take endless shapes (well, up to 32 bits anyway). You are always hyped to enter a new level because you don't know exactly what shape it's going to be or how enemy packs will be organized. Sometimes you get a really nasty selection of enemy and you get a hard time. Some other times it's a breeze. The randomness of enemy selection further increases the thrill of getting there.
In D4 almost all dungeons are : do something on the left of the dungeon. Do something on the right of the dungeon. Press on to the boss area. It's boring and I think that's part of why I just stopped doing side quests after a while.
Oh, I did forget one other possible thing to do in a dungeon: "Look at all clues in a room". I'm not sure it has a place in a game like Diablo where it's supposed to be hack'n'slash ; not hack, look around, and slash.
Difficulty progression
In D1 you get a progression wall at each new zone. Church is fairly easy albeit with difficulty spikes on Butcher and Leoric. Catacombs is where players start to struggle with all the goat men, nasty dogs ; vicious monsters start to get introduced. Caves is another ramp up in difficulty as you are forced to fight in a mostly open area with little cover and tons of elemental damage. Hell is the ultimate test, you need to single out most enemies to beat them (until you get strong enough at least).
In D4 it's all.. the same? I never got the impression "Wow that content is harder now". All acts have been more of the same in difficulty. The only exception is the Capstone dungeon because I tried it at clvl 46 (I was too eager to ramp up the difficulty, I could not set myself to wait to clvl 50).
Character progression
Again, in D1 you do have strong character power spikes. Like getting that first tier 2 armor (changing your look). Or getting a good weapon. Or getting that nice +40% fire resistance ring. Such drops allows you to kill monsters more easily, and you do feel the difference!
In D4 it's "Oh cool I have +3% crit damage" and it's unnoticeable. The only noticeable effects are from legendary items (I only speak of the items you get through the campaign) but it's not like a big power spike neither, it's more like a cool gimmick. Also, you never really say "I used to have trouble killing these monsters and now it's easy" because it's always easy.
I keep hoping that one day, there will be a game that surpasses Diablo 1. But so far, D1 remains the best experience I ever had in the genre.
At least you are going to the dentist. My uncle was not brushing his teeth. And never to the dentist. Eventually they had to remove all of his teeth because it was all infected and it was too unbearable for him.
I had a depression period of my life where I was doing the worst possible treatment to my teeth - was eating a lot of sugar and would skip brushing here and there; also I was not brushing effectively. My teeth are not in very good condition right now. I wish I had kept a good mouth hygiene even when I was depressed.
Maybe in your country. Here in France AirBnB are both cheaper and the rooms are nicer than hotel. Some of them could be landlords and profit.. but some others rent something that would not be fitting as a location (like a vacation flat or a subpart of a house) but is OK for staying just a couple of days.
So I disagree heavily with your generalisation
I disagree that you owe a face to face conversation. No one should forced to go meet someone if they don't feel like it.
In the context of dating, if you get ghosted, consider that the person is not interested in you after all - and just move on. No big deal.
Negativity. It's ok to criticize, but there was something about Reddit that encouraged people to bash each others until one side wins instead of agreeing to disagree and move on.
I don't want them making money out of the content I voluntarily and freely created. I was contributing in subs like C_programming to help newcomers. I have been thinking that all these posts I made will help the next AI - and Reddit (not me) will get paid for it.
So I mass edited each post and comment I made. They won't get away with my data. My data belongs to me, not them.
I am comparing a drug to a drug that's the whole point. Phones are drugs. For adults and children alike.
The problem is not in the phone itself. It's in the lack of doing things that kids should normally be doing at that age. They will play with their phone instead of playing physically (less tonus), sleeping (constant tiredness), talking with their parents (learning) or other kids (socializing).
I know kids like that in my family. You can tell from the dark lines under their eyes that they spend most of their day staring at a screen. And if you ask them to play outside they just don't know what to do, they need access to a screen even with other kids. It's really a scary sight. And its a drug yes
I'm all in to get programming classes where children learn to code on PCs. That's a high pass for me. But AFAIK children aren't doing programming on their phones.
In general i doubt using a phone at school is going to help them program or teach them about technology. They have plenty of time to explore phones on their own when they get home, especially now that kids don't go much outside anymore. It's not like a school ban would be cutting that away from them.
We can all agree that alcohol isn't bad by itself and that we can learn to use it safely (don't drink too much, knowing when we had enough etc..). And yet we keep away alcohol from children. Why? Because it is a well-known fact that children may not have the capability to limit themselves; they might very well become addicted and fall into it.
Why should it be any different for mobile phones? We know it can become an addiction. And we also know that children do not have the means to limit themselves because of their young age.
Deliberately letting a kid having a phone for an indefinite amount of time is being irresponsible. What would be responsible is only allowing to use the phone for a limited time.
Schools banning phone could be one way towards that. It would be a good way too because the kid would not be suffering from any social pressure from their peers as everyone would be concerned with the ban.