

Damn, that’s a choice. How is it?
Damn, that’s a choice. How is it?
Honestly just pile up containers in a cave and store the waste there. It’s highly unlikely you’ll run out of storage before winning the game.
I actually like the lack of aim dot. A lot of the archery feels like it would be sort of trivial with an aim dot?
While it doesn’t make archery feel like real life, it does add to the feeling of starting out as a useless peasant.
I don’t think I am… Would you care to offer an actual argument? Declaring the equivalence of turning off life support and euthanising an infant doesn’t seem genocidal. Could you elucidate how it is? Is turning off the life support equal to genocide, or are they not equivalent?
First of all: the arguments on charity can be evaluated quite easily on their logical merit without any reference to Peter Singer himself. And if done so, I can’t really see how the logic should be “loopy”.
Second: Ethically allowable euthanasia is not the same as genocide. Let’s hear what Peter Singer’s got to say on the matter:
It’s standard practice in neonatal intensive care units pretty much everywhere, that if a child is born with a very severe disability, doctors will ask parents whether they want to put the child on life support or not — or if the child is on life support when the disability is discovered, whether they wish to remove life support.
If you have, let’s say, a premature infant who’s had a massive brain bleeding, a hemorrhage in the brain, which does happen with very premature infants, and the doctors say, “Would you like to take your child off life support? This is the prognosis. Your child will never be able to live independently, will never be able to recognize the child’s mother or father, will basically be needing complete care. Would you like to take this child off life support?” That’s a decision to ask: “Would you like the child to die?” There’s no other way of glossing that.
That happens all the time. Parents very frequently say yes, and the child dies. So the difference between what I’m suggesting and what is happening is that, if the child is not on life support, when the disability is discovered, the brain hemorrhage or whatever it might be, and therefore you can’t end the child’s life by taking the child off life support, parents should still have the option of saying, we think that it’s better that the child should not live, and doctors should be able to make sure that happens, to give the child a drug so that the child dies without suffering.
I continue to think that it’s okay for doctors to offer to take the child off life support, and it’s okay for parents to accept that offer. And I continue to think there’s no real ethical difference between bringing about a child’s death by turning off life support than by giving the child a lethal injection.
I’m not sure which of those elements people think I should change, but I don’t think that I should change any of them.
What is true is that on the range of disabilities where I think parents may properly say, “We want our child to live” … I’ve broadened my views somewhat on that.
I’ve talked to people in the disability community, and I accept that there are all kinds of worthwhile lives. I used to say the parents should discuss it with the doctors, if there’s some uncertainty about the condition. I now say parents should discuss it with the doctors and with representatives of people who have the disability that their child has. Depending on the nature of the disability, that may be people with a disability themselves who’ve grown up and lived that life, or it may be the parents who are living with a child.
But I certainly accept the point that doctors themselves may have a prejudice against people with disabilities, and that therefore it’s good to get a wider range of advice.
Peter Singer convincingly argues in “The life you can save” that the utilitarian benefit over time of spending money to save a person today, who can then do good for themselves and their community, is almost always greater than the utilitarian benefit of letting that person rot for now, investing the money and saving more people for the returns on that investment when you die.
Plus free beer and food. Can’t beat that.
The question is, do Scanians speak proper Swedish?
Make Scania Danish Again
Giving it a replay on realistic mode, it’s good fun! I like not fast traveling, and having to figure out where you are by actually reading the map is fun.
It has its jank, and the silly macho-vibes suck, but it’s a really interesting and unique game. Try to lean into its oddities, they actually work quite well when you give them a chance. The saviour schnapps saving system is not that punishing, but it does mean you either have to commit your early economy to saving/stealing schnapps or accept that you will fail quests and die in combat without being able to quickly reload a recent save.
Ultimately, I enjoy games that force me to take failure seriously, but that’s a matter of taste. It does make riding through the woods pretty intense with the threat of getting ambushed.
Try to use the combat skills you’ve unlocked instead of spamming thrust.
General combat advice:
Unless the rules are something like “you fall in love with what your eyes first find”, and he was just alone with the potion.
Tunic has an incredible mystery element, with many layers and a very satisfying conclusion. The combat is juicy enough but still pretty forgiving, and the meta-narrative of playing that’s “already been played” is very interesting and nostalgic. Highly recommended!
TBF, upgrading from Windows 10 to Windows 11 is free, so it can reasonably be called a rolling release.
It’s called RockShotgunPaper
Happy to hear it! It’s very different from the other Hitman games, but maybe that works for you?