I don’t mean less casual in that sense. I actually had 3 main points in mind that make satisfactory more casual.

First are the aliens. The evolution and pollution doesn’t stop which means in a way you are fighting against time. If you don’t keep up with it the aliens will attack and destroy your base. I know they can be turned off but the game is designed with their attacks in mind and you’re skipping entire production lines if you turn them off.

The second reason is factory building. I think the extra dimension in Satisfactory makes factory building much easier. If you run out of space horizontally, build up. In Factorio you better plan out how big your factory is going to be because if you run out of space you’re probably going to start spaghettifying your factory or you need to start tearing down parts of your factory to make more space. In my current satisfactory factory I just built a whole new level ontop of my old factory because I couldn’t be bothered to clean it up.

And the last point goes together with the previous point. You have so many things you need to produce. The entire belt production thing for example. If you want express belts you need to build the fast belts which needs the basic belts. If you want express splitters you’re going to have to build the fast splitter, which needs the basic splitter which requires basic belts. Meanwhile in Satisfactory if you want a faster belt you just need the new material for the belt. Factorio production pipelines are like a deep well while Satisfactory production lines are more like a wide puddle (that only towards the very end can go deep, like ficsonium fuel rods). Satisfactory has overall a wider variety of things to produce (if we exclude the tiered items in Factorio), but they’re much less dependent on each other. For example if your industrial beam production isn’t at peak performance that not going to stop you from getting the higher tier belts because they need aluminum which are built from a completely different raw material. Solve aluminum production and you get new belts. Compare that to Factorio where, lets say you want to start using express belts but you’ve been kinda winging your belt production. Well first you need to fix your fast belt production, which then means you need to fix your basic belt production which means you need to fix your iron production which means you have to scale up your iron mining.

The factory can grow over your head but Satisfactory still has easier production pipelines, easier factory planning and you can take however long you want to figure out how to build your factory. To me all of those things indicate that Satisfactory is a more casual experience.

I would personally recommend Satisfactory over Factorio. I think it’s a more casual experience while still scratching that factory building itch.

I’m genuinely curious what game needs a different version of Steam.

Different versions of Steam? What the fuck are you on about? You must be making your Linux gaming harder than it has to be. I’ve done all sorts of weird shit to install games and mods on Linux but I have never even seen an installation guide that requires somehow creating a different version of Steam.

Even with launch scripts and wine versions Lutris usually covers almost every game I’ve wanted to install. Lutris makes setting up right scripts and wine versions as easy as it is to install runtimes on Windows.

Well I tried and failed to find any other reason for your comment beyond plain spite. Maybe instead of trying to put others down you take a hard look at yourself, because you’re coming across as a complete piece of shit.

I know, but it still something developers need to do to support Linux

They still have to make sure their anticheat works on Linux. That’s the biggest missing support.

YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELT OF ELDERBERRIES!

Also the game itself is very much an allegory about life itself. The entire game can be a profound experience if you let it.

I would say so. I can’t put my finger on what the problem is but whenever I hear Silverhand I just feel disinterested about everything he’s saying.

WE’RE WATCHING YOU. SCUM.

Why would it? If they’re open for discussion there’s clearly something to discuss.

Actually, without any other context, I would. I would label them as misguided. Just because they believe in what I believe as the wrong thing doesn’t mean they’re automatically toxic. If they’re unwilling to even consider alternate perspectives or decide to just be antagonistic then they’re toxic.

to apply adequate pushback to erroneous understandings of the world. the goal isn’t to convince the interlocutor. it’s to encourage the people reading to investigate the topic. on many of the topics in question, the history and ideologies involved take entire books to deconstruct - doing so in an internet comment is extraordinarily difficult. the people we’re talking to don’t even agree with us on the meanings of basic words - there’s not even a basis for debate. because such debate is so unproductive, the aggressive tone encourages many people to stop and ask more serious questions. this undoubtedly works because so many of the posters on hexbear responded in exactly that way here or on reddit at some point in the past. and when they asked those questions, they got detailed answers, including links to sources so they could investigate for themselves. in actual fact, many of the people on hexbear received exactly the kind of aggressive pushback you’re decrying and ended up eventually convinced that our viewpoint had something to offer.

Maybe at one point but if recent events are of any indication that is hardly true anymore. The reason these defederation threads prop up if your aggressive presentation made people inquisitive. It’s an indication that people respond negatively to such behavior. And I’m inclined to believe people respond more negatively than positively because the responses I’ve seen about subject I know about have been less about making people inquisitive and more about just throwing in their face that they don’t understand something the same way you do without explaining anything.

lastly, civility is not an unmitigated good unto itself. civility is the false peace – it masks tensions, pretending they don’t exist. real peace is not civility – it’s a state in which tensions are brought to the fore so they can actually be resolved. civility is a white, middle class sensibility – our world is incredibly fucked up and the people affected by it do not owe anyone that masking of the horrors of our world.

I disagree. Yes, there’s no space for niceness as you need to be ready for conflict to test your ideas and beliefs. But it doesn’t mean we should completely disregard civility. Are you really going to take me seriously if I call you shitstain in this post, bitch lover the next, steamy turd the next etc? I know I wouldn’t take anything you say seriously if you came with such disrespect. Similarly I have no problem trolling the living shit out of you, but that already means I have zero respect for you or your beliefs and nothing you say or do will even get true critical examination, outside of how to better troll back. I could easily derail this discussion, drag you down into shit slinging contest and then sling shit until you stop responding but that’s pretty far from civil discourse and not at all constructive. Discourse needs to have some mutual respect and if none is given then none is received, which means the discussion will go nowhere. The world is fucked but slinging shit between eachother doesn’t really unfuck the world.

nor do we owe anyone an education they will neither ask for nor appreciate

And this is probably where we completely disagree. Your stance is that nobody asks or appreciates it so we shouldn’t give it unless they really ask. I believe we should give it regardless because it’s still a chance for them to open up to something new. I would’ve never familiarized myself with Das Kapital if not for someone else explaining to me that Marxist understanding of “capital” is not the same as “capital” taught to you in school. Had someone told me “How did they get the fucking money mf?” I would probably still believe capitalism is not that bad. Explaining socialism to someone who won’t listen doesn’t take a piece out of me, so why should I act like it does? To me it’s a net positive. If someone listens and becomes a socialist that’s good and if someone doesn’t listen then really nothing actually bad happens because as you said, the world is fucked regardless.

Let’s forget forget about the rest of our discussion and focus solely on the very first response you wrote to me. Based on that response I could’ve applied that same thought process you just described, decided that you’re here in bad faith and respond in the way Hexbear users tend to reply. And all this current discussion wouldn’t have ever happened because based on that response you’d believe I’m here in bad faith and responded in kind. In fact that way no discussion would’ve happened.

The way we communicate is prone to errors and misinterpretations. It’s why I’m focusing on your your first response because it’s an excellent example of miscommunication. You used “you” which implies it’s directed at me, but in a later response you clarify that it wasn’t directed at me. Thus discussions require a certain level of benefit of doubt, because it’s actually very easy to misrepresent what was said and just as easy to misinterpret what was said. I gave you that benefit of doubt and we seem to be having a rather civil discussion. And I’ve already somewhat explained what would’ve happened if I hadn’t given it. That benefit of doubt is crucial if you’re wanting to discuss in good faith, because you need to give a chance to correct miscommunications.

And that’s why I think the thought process you’ve described is a bad faith thought process, because it doesn’t give the benefit of the doubt. At least that is my general experience with Hexbear users. Someone says something disagreeable in a manner that could be misinterpreted in the way you described and it’s very rare to see a Hexbear user give the benefit of doubt. Instead you see, well everything here. One guy says Hexbear is a cesspool and seemingly only one of you gives him some benefit of doubt, the rest very much troll, antagonize, make snide remarks etc. The vast majority of you responded in the same way you’d claim someone else is responding in bad faith. What if he previously had a miscommunication that Hexbear users didn’t give benefit of the doubt either? He gets piled on in a manner you’ve described as bad faith. With those bad faith responses he now believes you are all acting bad faith, hence the cesspool remark. And what is the response he gets? More bad faith responses from Hexbear users because the vast majority don’t give him any benefit of doubt.

You think others act out in bad faith so you respond in bad faith which makes others believe you act in bad faith which prompts more of you to act in bad faith. It’s a a bad faith feedback loop. Genuine question, what’s the goal of such behavior?

Alright, so others are in “bad faith”? How do you know? Just based on one interaction with them?

And how do you know I’m not interested in the response?

It’s bad faith to automatically assume someone being critical is doing it in bad faith.

So as long as they don’t ideologically agree with you it’s acceptable to be toxic towards them, because their “wrong ideology” makes them toxic?

Are you also aware that most of the proletariats unknowingly uphold capitalism? Considering you say they’re toxic are you against the proletariat or are you a fake socialist trying to create a class divide, the ones who agree with you and the ones who don’t, within the proletariat?

You think collectively antagonizing, using “libs” in a derogatory form and calling others “imperialist running dogs” constitutes as defense and not toxic behavior?