Why? “Men” seems more apt and inclusive. Trans men can be rapists, too.

EDIT: I’m an idiot.

Oh, did GTA IV have multiplayer? That’s the one I’m least familiar with. Must not have been nearly as robust as GTA V’s.

GTA V made online the core component of it’s game. So much so, that they innitially considered GTA Online to be a seperate game included with GTA V.

You contradicted yourself there. GTA Online can’t be both a core component of GTA V and a standalone game.

So Rockstar, who already had the most financially successful game of all time in GTA V from game sales alone, put its resources into the online component in order to fund the development of its sequel. It’s not like they needed to attract new players to the single player game, being, again, that it was the most successful game of all time. Technically it was the most successful media venture of all time (it made more money than any movie, music, or game ever).

If they hadn’t done that, GTA VI and RDR 2 would’ve had smaller budgets and likely wouldn’t have been as good.

I see nothing wrong with this.

Only one GTA game has had an online component. Every GTA game since 3 has been a best-in-class, genre/generation-defining singleplayer experience.

You pay for the singleplayer. The online bit is just gravy. Some people like said gravy enough to fund the development of Rockstar’s next game. I see nothing wrong with this.

I, for one, welcome our new cyborg mushroom overlords.

Oh no, the regulators are actually regulating?! What a horrible hindrance to unfettered, unsustainable growth innovation. They must be stopped!

The obvious answer is to abandon GaaS as a concept and focus making more great single player games like the ones that put Playstation into a clear lead in this generation of the console wars.

However, we’ve seen that a massive failure in the space isn’t enough to deter the truly greedy coughWBcough, so who knows?

Man, I thought I’d found my people in this community, but my perfectly civil comment discussing scientific definitions of ‘sex’ was removed. That shows that this is likely just another echo chamber that can’t abide civil conversation around scientific facts when said facts make people feel icky.

The worst part is I’m on your side. I’m all in on inclusivity and representation. I’m trans. I’m bisexual. I’m just open-minded, seemingly unlike whichever mod removed my comment.

You, apotheotic, seem civil enough. I was looking forward to discussing biological sex with you, maybe expanding my understanding in the process, but it’s not worth trying to have a conversation if I have to worry about my responses being unceremoniously removed. For what it’s worth, your reply has inspired me to do some more reading on the subject.

Reddit mod practices seem to have bled into every corner of Lemmy. Community: blocked. Good riddance.

Eek, this reads like a white person getting upset about someone using “black” instead of “African American”

Who’s being excluded here? My suggestion was to change ‘sex’ in video game character creation to ‘apparent sex.’

Removed by mod

Technically there is an extremely small amount of people born as both sexes (intersex), but they tend to have appearances that favor one sex over the other, so from a game development perspective, they’re covered by having two sex options.

To me, the obvious answer is to do away with the concept of “gender” altogether. It’s a societal construct that doesn’t really need to exist in video game character creation, anyway.

Everybody is born one of two biological sexes: male or female. There. Those are your choices. Call it “apparent sex” and include a pronoun option to allow for players who want to roleplay gender nonconforming characters.

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

The way I understand it, generative AI training is more like a single person analyzing art at impossibly fast speeds, then using said art as inspiration to create new art at impossibly fast speeds.

chomping at the bit

FYI, the term is “champing at the bit”

Article about it

Of course. He’s a US politician. Can’t get into US politics without being a zionist. Sure, there are some who pay lip service to basic human decency by suggesting that maybe genocide isn’t okay, but I suspect they’re acting as controlled opposition, just to show the mostly-anti-genocide populace that not all politicians are zionists, that maybe it’s okay to do nothing since there are at least some people in power who acknowledge reality.

No, the whole “Wikileaks is a Russian asset” story is a farce used to unjustly discredit them, since they’ve published some extremely damning documents.

Because they would actually publish it.

Gestures broadly

Cold, actually.

I don’t know the game well - never played its original release and I likely won’t play this remake - but from what I understand, the women in question are zombies, so consent isn’t really a factor.

If anything, removing this feature slightly reduces immersion and significantly changes the main character’s personality. I can understand why someone who was a fan of the original would be hesitant to get the remake, since the main character is a different person, morally speaking.

It’s like Star Wars - Han shot first, and changing that doesn’t change the story in any real way, but it significantly changes Han’s character.

Is that a bad thing? It’s a different medium that can reach a much wider audience. I’d bet that at least 80% of people who enjoy the BBC miniseries have never heard of the radio program.