Be careful when you use "自強不息" though. I have never seen any native speaker who is also a sane person use it in daily life without sounding sarcastic.
This word does mean what you say, but it probably one of the overused, insincere, and meaningless words in government speeches.
It's like people roll their eyes when tech giants says "make the world a better place" for the past 30 years. But instead of 30 years, this came from 《易经》,which was roughly from 5,000 year ago, and has been constantly used in a similar fashion since then. So imagine how a Chinese speaker will think of it.
Personally, I’m thankful that they’ve locked down as long as they have. We’ve already had our share of death, long Covid cases and stress on our public health system. Simultaneously, people are generally free to choose whether or not they want or be vaccinated, and there are no heavy handed lockdowns like many other countries. It’s inevitable that Covid will still spread even with our best efforts, but not overwhelming hospitals and avoiding needless death and disability is very important. I think that Japan‘s response to this ongoing crisis is not perfect, but well balanced overall.
When tourists do return, I hope they respect the norms here and wear masks in public spaces, disinfect their hands, and do their best to avoid risky situations… and don’t act like Japan is a giant theme park where Covid doesn’t exist.
I’ve given up, and I dislike having content pushed to me in general.
I use a combination of Remove YouTube Suggestions[1] and prefacing “intitle:” before any YouTube search to avoid weird matches that point me to irrelevant content.
I think it’s ridiculous that I need to constantly click “show less like this” and exert so much effort to train YouTube. I also hate how they’ll insert random unrelated videos “For Me” or “Watch it Again” in my search results. It’s all designed to keep me on the site and distracted… better to avoid it entirely.
This is the correct take. SQEX has a pretty poor reputation when it comes to outside studio management in general (both domestic and international). Their in house development has produced the most hits.
Also, SQEX desperately wants a Destiny style live game that they can run for many years, like the domestic mobile titles that keep them afloat. Marvel Avengers, Outriders, and Babylon’s Fall were all attempts at this model but none of them captured a significant market.
They’re also pushing harder in the mobile space, trying to get at least one international moneymaker. We’ll see if their bets pay off in the next few years.
Thanks, this comment really made me think. I noticed a lot of the same things you did, but my impression was much less negative.
Maybe it’s because of the presentation. In many open world games the UI makes it clear that there are “X towers to climb” or “Y camps to clear”… there’s a checklist of goals. Elden Ring just lets players stumble on things as they will. Even as the map design may be similar to other open world games I feel less pressure to “do all the things”; as a result my personal journey feels more organic.
I did recognize the template pieces used in caves/mines and it did turn me off a bit. But because I’m not guided to clear all of them checkbox style it was less offensive. In a way it’s smoke and mirrors: a lack of information makes the design more mysterious than it really is.
A sibling comment mentions that the length makes multiple playthroughs a pain, but I generally am a one and done for souls games.
In another thread I commented that the open world gives a casual player more options instead of getting forever stuck on a single challenge. I think that feeling of freedom combined with faster (but buggy) movement is responsible for the broader appeal and high scores. Oh and the art direction doesn’t hurt.
You have a good point.
I imagine the author tried many of the older open world games of the previous generation, like Farcry 3, Assassin's Creed 2 games, and likely GTA4 and 5. They were incredibly novel for the time.
Now we're at a point where open world games are a dime a dozen, and for good reason: they sell. They're easy to understand, simple to drop in and out of, and many of them now have multiplayer. Rather than aiming to make an immersive world to get caught up in, companies run them as live service games with a drip feed of content―essentially a big sandbox that I can mess around with my friends in. On the flip-side, Breath of the Wild is strictly single player, but it has a lot of fun systemic features that combine in interesting ways (weather, elements, physics, etc), making it feel like an experimental sandbox of its own.
Elden Ring is basically a Souls game with two major innovations for the series:
- Previous games had mostly linear progression. Elden Ring opens up the world to the player and gives them tools to explore without penalty from the start (fast travel, for example).
- Outside of interiors, the player is afforded much more mobility because of their mount. They can outrun almost all overworld enemies, and do hit and run attacks (Interiors are traditional Souls challenges).
These two points, combined with a generous allied NPC summon system, means that the player has a lot more options in how they want to approach the game. In previous Souls titles if you reach a boss you can't defeat, the game is over for you. Elden Ring is structured in a way where you can just go in a different direction, and warp back to that boss when you feel more confident. The environmental storytelling, cryptic NPC dialog, and multiplayer systems are nicely tuned to fit the different affordances Elden Ring provides, but they're not wildly different from previous Souls titles.
Some people really don't like 1:1s and that's down to individual personalities. Also company culture can make 1:1s feel meaningless if the conversation that happens is never actionable.
I try to see where the person is coming from and adjust my approach. If their concern is not in my power to change, I escalate to my lead when appropriate.
A sibling comment mentioned that chatting about how you're stressed or frustrated can be used against you... I've had that experience and it was terrible. I think it all comes down to having a good manager, and unfortunately you can't always choose.
I disagree. I approach 1:1s as an opportunity to just shoot the shit if that person is interested, or if there is something on their mind they can choose to chat about it. As the article states, it's that person's chance to completely dictate the conversation.
I think the best is to personalize things as best you can (depending on your team size). Some personalities are less interested in talking, which is fine―I just try to make sure nothing is blocking them or they're not dissatisfied. Some people love to talk about their life, and I usually have to time-box that.
I genuinely care about how my team is doing and want to help them grow, so 1:1s are my main opportunity to figure out how I can help them... especially in the era of remote work.
I am glad for your team, that you genuinely care. There are enough people stuck in management positions that should sit locked in the basement instead of managing people and making their lives miserable. Currently my one-on-ones are 20 minutes meetings once a year where manager reads from paper what he thinks about my performance last year. I have no right to question his decision. I could open a case with HR to review my review, but it will not improve anything for sure. As long my reviews are good I am good.
自強不息, or “Pushing forward to better yourself without ceasing,” I think? Maybe there’s a better way to put it?
Another poster mentioned 点滴穿石 which is my second favorite. It puts things in perspective quite well.