![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/fed50129-04e7-4dbc-8f54-4ba5bae58370.png)
how would your reputation carry over when nobody in the universe knows who you are? it sounds like you’re just inventing a new thing you have to grind
how would your reputation carry over when nobody in the universe knows who you are? it sounds like you’re just inventing a new thing you have to grind
if RPGs have done this plenty of times, then it’s not a new idea, and why are we talking about it in the context of the new ideas starfield had?
people replay games for the gameplay. bethesda wanted a game you could replay for the story, and then have it still work as a story when the player deliberately sequence breaks everything because of their omniscience
i know but i’m roleplaying a semi-informed fan
i think it’s fair to say that at least a portion of bethesda’s reputation is built off that game
I don’t even mean I wouldn’t trust Obsidian. I mean I wouldn’t trust the specific team they had working on New Vegas, which was an absurdly stacked deck that they seemingly haven’t been able to re-create since.
Films you can re-watch twice and have it be just as good the second time are rare. Bethesda wanted a film you could rewatch ten times while simultaneously larping as a cosmic god and trying to break everything you could.
Dark Souls lore seems deeper than it is because it’s less coherently presented than in TES.
All the new ideas in Starfield fall into one of two categories:
The Bethesda response to fans saying their main storyline was trash was to make a game where the main storyline is the primary focus and draw of the game? That’s a bold move.
The NG+ stuff is a cool idea, but again, Bethesda just fundamentally lacks the talent to implement it. You can’t hit what they were aiming for with a handful of gimmicks. I wouldn’t even trust the team behind New Vegas, or whoever writes at Larian, to do it justice.
It feels like Skyrim was the game they’d (and by they I mean Todd) always wanted to make, and Skyrim was the first time they had the resources and technology available to make it more or less exactly as they envisaged.
Fallout 4 probably would’ve been in the exact same situation of the technology finally catching up to their ideas, except they completely botched the landing by adding in voiced characters.
It takes a certain amount of energy for water to exist as water, a certain amount of energy for oxygen to exist as oxygen, and a certain amount of energy for hydrogen to exist as hydrogen
The amount of energy it takes for water to keep being water is less than the sum total of the energy it takes for oxygen and hydrogen to keep being themselves.
When you burn hydrogen, it combines with oxygen in the air and makes water. But that requires less energy to exist, so where does the excess energy go? It’s released as heat.
To split water back into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to re-add that same amount of energy again.
Hydrogen as a fuel isn’t so much a source of energy as a store of energy. A battery doesn’t make energy. You charge it with energy so that you can retrieve that energy later. Similarly, a big power plant electrolyses a bunch of water and makes a bunch of hydrogen. Later, you can use that hydrogen in your car without having to be connected to the big power plant that made it.
this is all probably largely wrong and you should ignore it chemistry SUCKS
What’s an alternative that features the presents-giving at the same time of year
Festivus is explicitly non-commercial
It was basically an aeroplane flying with dead pilots before then
aren’t we all
And “the highest price before it’s too expensive and loss of sales cuts into revenue” is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly. Meaning the “highest cost” is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
As an addendum, you haven’t really mentioned anything past a vague idea of “maximum cost” until now, so I’m not really sure what you mean about repeating yourself. Are you okay, friend?
So “highest cost” isn’t set by “what the consumer is able to spend”? So what’s it set by?
if that’s how you want to define “highest cost”, then goods absolutely aren’t priced at highest cost in a duopoly
they aren’t even priced at highest cost in a monopoly, because “all the money a person has” is just cartoon logic
I don’t know what this means
The “highest cost possible” is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
My point being that while a duopoly may seem like a worst case scenario, it very much isn’t.
beats out the brick and mortar store**s**
???
Yes I’m sure the prices will be the same after there’s absolutely no competition at all.
ahem actually people only need to exist and survive until they work themselves to death getting tangled in the gears of my spinning jennys