I mean Disco Elysium had over a million words... *sighs dreamily*.

I don't have to send my player to therapy or BE therapy. I just have to ask questions that make them uncomfortable in where they sit in their own identity. I don't have to proselytise them.

I just have to make them say it aloud and then let them... sit.

Now we add an interrogation of 'want' and 'do' and 'I':
Is this what you want to do or -
- what others have told you to do?
- you're afraid to try anything else?
- you're afraid of the other options?
- you don't know what else to do?
- you refuse the other options?

'It's what I wanted to do' is an incredibly vague sentiment depending on where the emphasis lies, for example
It's what I 'want' to do
It's what I want to 'do'
It's what 'I' want to do
These inflections create different sentiments.

Incarnal's dialogue is not just choice-based responses. The game will use the romances to interrogate the player's decision and force them to think about why they chose something. Of course I cannot anticipate every response. The idea is to be vague enough to be broadly applicable.

On the surface, the outcome to others is the same - the altruistic behaviour. But the three variations are three strikingly different personal progressions, and each leads to a fascinating potential dynamic shift for the player.

For example, an altruistic dialogue tree could lead to a schism in internal behaviours, where a person is performing this behaviour because they believe in it, vs a person who is performing because they think that is what good people do, versus someone who is doing it because they want to be good.

Do you realise how cool a branching narrative game I could make if I wasn't limited by something as stupid as *money*?

I am literally puzzling out how a choice-based morality system could have different representations based on how it represents internal contradiction in the player character.

Hey man, we cool? I just noticed that when I look at you the reticle turns red.

Ngl, if this begins the end of American monopoly on this sort of stuff I'm tooootally fine with that.

'We must become less reliant on American tools': Windows 11 is so bad the French government is switching to Linux — and Microsoft should be worried Is 2027 set to be the year of Linux? There are signs that this might actually be the case, this time.

This article is weird. France isn't switching to Linux because Windows is bad - it's switching because Microsoft is a US company, US companies fall under US law, and thus simply cannot be trusted with EU data. Windows can't "solve" this. There's no "fix" here.

www.techradar.com/computing/wi...

Fellow Traveller Storyteller’s Starter Pack on Steam Step into worlds where every every word carries weight, and every story lingers long after the credits roll. The Storyteller’s Starter Pack brings together four acclaimed narrative experiences that…

The Fellow Traveller Publisher sale is now live on Steam! 😍

If you're new to our games, The Storyteller’s Starter Pack includes four acclaimed narrative experiences, each with a unique atmosphere – all for 20% off

Travel across the cosmos 🚀, frosted seas 🥶, and creepy woods 🌲 The choice is yours!

ahmagad what a good boi

THIS IS THE POINT. OH MY GOD I AM LITERALLY RESEARCHING THIS. THEY WANT TO CENSOR THIS BECAUSE IT MAKES MEN HEALTHIER AND HAPPIER. THEY WANT THESE SPACES DESTROYED BECAUSE MEN ARE HEALTHIER AND HAPPIER.

AND HEALTHIER AND HAPPIER MEN DON'T GO TO WWWAAAARRRRRR

THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THIS SHIT BECAUSE THE SPACE FOR THESE CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY CHALLENGES HETERONORMATIVE AND TOXIC PATRIARCHAL IMPERIALISTIC DOCTRINES AND IT IS WOOOOORRRRRKKKIIIINNNGGGG.

THE POINT IS THE CONVERSATION.

THE POINT IS THE CONVERSATION. I NEED SOMETHING BIGGER THAN CAPS.

THE PATRIARCHY AND POWERFUL ELITE WANT TO CENSOR THESE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE WORKING.

TRANS IDENTITIES. SMUT. ROMANCE. LISTENING TO WOMEN TALKING ABOUT THEIR LIVES. 'CHOOSE THE BEAR'.

Oh my god this IS LITERALLY MY LIFE'S WORK AT THIS STAGE.

THIS IS WHY THEY WANT TO CENSOR THIS SHIT.

BECAUSE IT CHALLENGES THE PATRIARCHY AND MEN REALISE THEY ARE HAPPIER WHEN THEY DO THIS.

AND WHEN MEN ARE HAPPIER THEY DON'T GO TO FUCKING WAR.

WHEN MEN LISTEN THEY DON'T GO TO WAR.

I am also *directly* addressing the fact that you were using the demonstration of intellectualism to denigrate another person, and when I turned it on you, you became irate.

Maybe examine that a little.

You used 'crazy person' to reduce the validity of what I said rather than address what I said.

*I* addressed *only* what you have said and not said. Not you as an individual. You inferred a determination of your intelligence, which I did not, at any point, address.

You are *performing* as an intellectual based on the evidence you have put forward. Whether or not you are an intellectual is impossible for me to say via the evidence I have. I am stating that your performance is inconsistent. I am asking you to be consistent, not selective.

Nothing I said made me 'sound like a crazy person' beyond your determination. Even if I did 'sound like a crazy person', 85 people at least agreed with me. Which means that I made sense. Thus you are the one using the identifier of 'crazy' to reduce the validity of my comment.

Therefore ad hominem.

I've been sewing random bags to practice and be creative and get away from my PC.

Does anyone want a random tote bag...?

Ad hominem.

GET HIS ASS

Me: Opens PDF to read a journal article.
Google: Hey there buddy wuddy, here's a handy dandy AI summery wummer-
Me: *BANSHEE SHRIEKING*

I'm going to lead a fucking creator's revolution do not tempt me.

Many great writers have given good and positive advice, but if all else fails here is a secret evil truth:
If you go and read something by an overconfident straight white dude who failed upwards despite producing inescapably mediocre work, you may find that spite can be a horrible motivator

"People speak highly of you, Voidra."

WHYYYYYY THO!?