Is there a source for that? The game is over a decade old, so I imagine at some point you stop posting devlogs because there's no longer any development to blog about.
Gotcha! Sorry to only see this just now. I too would be hesitant to post anything of substance online since scraping anything on the internet is legal and/or easy to hide that a closed dataset LLM was trained with it after-the-fact.
Sorry it is more related to AI clones. He doesn't want people cloning his ideas before his games are published. I just wanted to bring the fact that Lucas Pope had taken a stance on those clones.
I thought he wound down publishing devlogs before AI clones, were there more than the ones on https://dukope.com/devlogs/ I can try to hunt down to read?
I found the document management way too confusing. There's no clear game loop and I'm kinda lost what signatures mean, what the other documents are what success is.
I think they mean tested by asking people to play it and observing them + getting their feedback before release. There was a time when all software testing worked like that.
A great example of this is the developer's commentary on Portal. They had to slowly introduce concepts and subtly (and not subtly) draw the user's attention to important items.
1) It does too much too quickly. There's no acclimatisation ramp.
2) The examination area's too small. Almost every document is too large & has multiple pages. Navigation through documents is broken, with some not draggable back to the booth if clicked on.
3) Question responses are likewise too small for their dialogue boxes. They need to be in one box, either with larger boxes or smaller fonts.
Would be interesting if we could plot the average amount of time spent on the creation of showhn stuff that gets to the front page, over the past years.
The primary game mechanic of stamping 'Pass' to fail a funding application is a bit confusing; should label that stamp 'Fail'/'Decline'/'Deny' or even 'Do not fund'.
Pass as in to 'pass on the opportunity to fund' i.e. to not agree to fund, is not the same as Pass as in 'passed the criteria for funding' i.e. to agree to fund.
To many people, Pass and Fail are antonyms, not synonyms.
This looks awesome! Playing it now. It's a really good idea.
Edit: I looked at a few pitches, I thought they were very realistic. For the Pointer acquisition it only listed the requested round size, not the valuation, which I think is really important for investors. It didn't completely make sense to me why they would need an investment for an acquisition, but when a company gets an acquisition offer is a pretty good time to raise money.
Feedback: I'd recommend using a different branding rather than Y, since YCombinator invests at the seed stage using standard terms, and doesn't make follow-on investments as far as I know. (I could be wrong.) It's better if you make it a hypothetical VC rather than use YC's branding.
I mean, technically you didn't recreate anything. You had the LLM pattern recognize something that already existed and it copied it. I don't mean to sound harsh, but create something new.
Didn't used to be that trivial and effort-free to have a machine do it. Back in the day you at least had a lot of typing, or even the need to go out and do what you thought the other thing was doing, giving rise to useful variation, weird offshoots and failures that became things in their own right.
That's 'create'. LLM output doesn't at all have to be 'create' in that sense, and often isn't.
I see so much creativity in some of the things people are getting llms to do. I love that we are getting to see so many unique takes on things without it requiring someone expend x% of their life achieving something they want to share. But, that isn't for you, and that's fine - it is for me though
LLMs can't create anything. They aggregate, distill, rearrange, etc. but those have always been borderline plagiarism. Sampling in music had similar controversy 40 years ago, but only barely escaped judgement when it was parody-like. I'd consider this a parody.
People are such blind consumers sometimes that they forget what it takes to make an original. Even worse is that the reviews at the time were mixed and calling Papers Please "low effort SJW nonsense". We had no idea how much worse it would get!
I'm not sure that kind of middlebrow rebutal makes sense here. I took issue with the content of your critiscism, you with the fact that they were critical at all.
You might want to avoid reusing reddit phrases like "let them have their fun". That was probably the bigger source of agitation that anything you actually meant to say.
HN wants to hear you elaborate your own take rather than just blindly defend things on moral or ethical grounds. The comments are the lifeblood of this site and a lack of nuance ruins discussion. All anyone can do is either agree or disagree with you at this point, and that's no fun for anyone except bots and people who have no life.
I love how quick you decided to paint me with the Reddit brush. I'm sorry my comment didn't meet your satisfaction, but I gotta say, the "this is the way we do things here" is the most Reddit thing I've seen
Why? Why does everyone always need to create something new? Shouldn’t we be focussed on creating value? This site definitely made me smile regardless of its derivation which in a world of AI slop more than meets my expectations…
Ironically, I know my mom can create a pretty good quality painting in a few hours, which is about the amount of time photographers had to spend early on getting a good photo, what with the limitations of long exposure time and the developing process.
Having an LLM one shot something and put a few rounds of modification to touch it up compared to manually designing and coding a project is a way bigger gap of skill mastery and effort required than painting versus early photography.
Oh I get it, “recreated X but with Y” is not self-flagellatory enough for you. How about “duplicated X with a sprinkling of hallucinated Y variation”? Does that pass the moral vibe check?
"if you don't like me calling you names, maybe you shouldn't be here"
This is bullying.
You folks do not have to be so negative and sour and dismissive. Especially when you all are saying the same exact thing that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
If you don't like what someone is creating and you don't have anything nice to say, maybe don't say anything at all.
I don't think any of you realize what steering agentic systems is like because you haven't tried to do it yourselves. There is equally as much work, it just looks different to the work you're familiar with.
It's a neat idea, but it's obviously vibe coded with no playtesting.
The character dialog advances automatically and too quickly. One aspect of papers please is actually being able to read the character dialog and deduct if they are lying.
There is also the word vomit of text everywhere. There was no thought put into the flow of reading the text on the documents.
I imagine that comes before a billion. If I had even just $3 million dollars, I think I'd worry less. Or two or even one! Billionaires are another category entirely.
Yes, but at 3 million you'd probably still know the cost of things.
It's when you get to billions that the dollar is just some abstract concept. If you ever listen to trump talk, its pretty clear knowing the cost of things is a poor mans game.
The dollar. It means way more when you have to choose things to eat in a grocery store and all you have is 5.
Changing the subject matter is not inherently a problem. It becomes a problem when the remake cheapens the original subject matter (the apparent AI usage doesn’t help in that regard) and shows a lack of either understanding or respect for the weighty artistic statement of the original.
It would be like saying “I remade Sophie’s Choice but this time instead of choosing which of her children would be murdered by Nazis she was choosing which job offer to accept”. That would be repulsive. However I would have no problem with a remake that switched the subject while maintaining the heft of the original by setting it around some other serious issue like Gaza, ICE, or whatever other political topic that involves lives literally being destroyed.
I’ll admit this is all part of my ongoing frustration with the tech world’s inability to actually understand or respect seemingly any piece of art and this game is simply just the latest example of that.
> I’ll admit this is all part of my ongoing frustration with the tech world’s inability to actually understand or respect seemingly any piece of art
The original game is impressive and as you said it is art and there is
a question about parodying art (or also constant references or
imitations) devaluing art, but I think this is a western problem full
stop though tech is very bad at the moment what with AI being able to
devalue artistic works.
Don't have a problem with this myself as stated in my other comment,
but I agree disrespect for art (and many other things) is an issue but
it's western wide and in my opinion inherent in the way the west has
chosen to understand itself as democratic this is a nasty poison and
destroys all that it touches, just ask you self how many times
anti-elitist language or the idea of 'democratization' is used to
justify such evils. The solution lies in rejecting these lies but
accepting that any society and system requires inequality only what we
have today claims to be different and has failed in it's supposed
goal, it can be assigned to the scrap heap of history so to say.
I basically agree except isn't this making fun of how self-important and pointlessly grim silicon valley VCs are? That is, it's the VCs themselves who would compare their own lives to communist oppression. The joke is actually comparing them.
I mean, per your repulsive hypothetical parody...if the person choosing jobs is your prototypical TC-obsessed, Blind-posting solipsistic narcissist tech bro, and the joke is that this archetype can't tell the difference between choosing a FAANG offer and choosing a child...that would be an effective way of making fun of that person, I think.
If your point is that silicon valley and the people in it are too vapid and socially irrelevant to be credibly parodied that way...that's fair, I guess, but also this is hacker news? If anyone is going to be interested in making fun of these people and institutions, it's us.
The ick is from making light of other people's suffering. Paper's Please is about Soviet communism where people died. Term sheets for AI so some people can be billionaires? Rich people eating cake?
I agree. I wonder if part of the artistic intention here—the provocation—was to draw parallels.
I, for one, feel a lot of ick at the foundational functions of both systems. Icky stuff, it’s got to be done (or does it?), it’s never pleasant or unambiguous, it brings out (and rewards) perverse behaviors, it demands tradeoffs that exploit power asymmetries, it exists partly to preserve and empower the actor in the position of strength, the decisions have high stakes for individual supplicants but the system itself is indifferent...
And both seem to try and slather lipstick on their ick by way of ever-thicker layers of bureaucratic (and often self-contradictory) “tweaks,” in successive attempts to correct for past icky outcomes, even though at the bottom, the ick is really inextricable from the basic nature of the enterprise…
I agree that an individual family’s fate at the hands of a government (especially in border conditions, where its monopoly on violence looms so concretely) feels to me much more morally weighty than the life or death of somebody’s, you know, get-rich-quick business enterprise. But I also wonder if part of the parallel being drawn here is to point at the way the whole “startup” system functions by making it feel totalizing and weighty to individually-mostly-powerless participants. (Who, like others feeling the desperation of totalizing stakes, frequently do desperate and damaging and morally corrosive things to improve their odds in front of the bureaucratic judge…)
Yeah. The original was social commentary on the role of immigration enforcement as a tool of state oppression, with the brutality that sometimes occurs centered prominently and jarringly against video-game pixel art.
This is tech bros recycling the same exact structure but making it about getting billionaires to fund their latest "Uber but for AI-powered false advertising."
It's like if Flock wrote a version of 1984 where the heroic protagonist was trying to rise up against a regime of local activist groups who opposed installing Flock's mass surveillance products.
It also spits in the face of the gameplay side. The whole point of Papers Please wasn't pixel art work simulator, it was the pressure of the timer and being forced with making complex choices of doing helping others, helping yourself, and doing a proper job. Those gameplay decisions further strength the social commentary and how that kind of system is bad for everyone.
It was also about how poverty enables cruelty, juxtaposing your struggle to pay for rent and food with the demands of the state. The incentives are very different from people like Paul Graham and Gary Tan who can flip through a hundred folios without being forced to pick anything. The procedural tragedy of the game is lost if you're Joe Capital with a $3M fund at your disposal.
It's playfully provocative, perhaps one could argue making any kind of
game on any kind of topic is trivializing, their are many WW1 and even
more WW2 games. Do you find the C&C red alert games offensive as you
play as Stalin? I personally would say these things are perfectly
allow able as is this game.
On an aside this is the first game in a while posted on Hacker New
that looks well made and not a soulless sloppy mess.
I apologize for assuming people could extrapolate more from my original comment. Once I realized I was mistaken, I wrote three other paragraphs to clarify my thoughts before you replied. So if we’re being critical of each other’s behavior, you should consider reading the whole thread before assuming you know where someone’s “thoughts start and end”.
Doesn't credit the original creator at all in the actual website?
Strongly agree.
Bo, this looks very cool, but I'd encourage you to immediately add "Based on Papers Please by Lucas Pope", with a link here:
https://papersplea.se/
Should/Did id software have given the same kind of credit to the creators of the first first person shooter game?
Why or why not?
They copied the art style / assets, not just game mechanics
And the name itself!
Are you familiar with Papers, Please and did you open the link you're commenting on?
I don't recall Commander Keen crediting Nintendo/Mario.
I don't remember Commander Keen using Nintendo/Mario art assets either though.
Satire is protected by copyright law and does not require permission or attribution.
That doesn’t seem to be the claim they were making. Regardless of legality, I’d argue that it’s the right thing to do in this case.
https://youtu.be/uQl5aYhkF3E
("You're not wrong Walter, ...")
That's like sticking a finger in front of someone's eyeball and saying "I'm not touching you, what am I doing that's illegal?"
The request in comments above is to do the polite thing and share credit for those not yet aware of the game.
Not quite. Your example could quite easily be considered an illegal form of harassment or intimidation,
But I agree with the principle, you don't have to be nice only when it would be illegal not to be.
The defense is that it's not literally illegal? Good lord, the bar is in hell.
Too many people conflate legality with morality.
Agree, and in my experience, the challenge is that they understand legality but do not have good moral instincts.
Lucas Pope (the author of papers please) has stopped publishing devlog for this exact reason.
Is there a source for that? The game is over a decade old, so I imagine at some point you stop posting devlogs because there's no longer any development to blog about.
This is more about his future games: https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/papers-please-creat...
Gotcha! Sorry to only see this just now. I too would be hesitant to post anything of substance online since scraping anything on the internet is legal and/or easy to hide that a closed dataset LLM was trained with it after-the-fact.
Can you elaborate? I can't immediately see the connection between publishing a devlog and people not attributing one's work.
Sorry it is more related to AI clones. He doesn't want people cloning his ideas before his games are published. I just wanted to bring the fact that Lucas Pope had taken a stance on those clones.
I thought he wound down publishing devlogs before AI clones, were there more than the ones on https://dukope.com/devlogs/ I can try to hunt down to read?
Ahh, I see.
No he has not.
Lucas Pope is concerned about new games being copied by AI.
NOT about someone making a sendup which is a fun nod to Papers Please.
Lighten up.
Cmon everyone knows.
There's not the faintest hint here of nefarious ripping off.
It's light hearted fun - this is not stealing Lucas Pope's game.
I don't think it's nefarious, probably just forgot to mention it. It's the polite thing to do.
Lol, barking at the wrong tree here, this AI/crypto bro central.
I found the document management way too confusing. There's no clear game loop and I'm kinda lost what signatures mean, what the other documents are what success is.
Papers please has a much simple mental model.
Papers please wasn't vibecoded but developed and tested across years.
I don’t make games. Do creators roll their own analytics for game testing/iteration, or are there standard tools?
I think they mean tested by asking people to play it and observing them + getting their feedback before release. There was a time when all software testing worked like that.
A great example of this is the developer's commentary on Portal. They had to slowly introduce concepts and subtly (and not subtly) draw the user's attention to important items.
The major game engines come with optional analytics.
1) It does too much too quickly. There's no acclimatisation ramp.
2) The examination area's too small. Almost every document is too large & has multiple pages. Navigation through documents is broken, with some not draggable back to the booth if clicked on.
3) Question responses are likewise too small for their dialogue boxes. They need to be in one box, either with larger boxes or smaller fonts.
Would be interesting if we could plot the average amount of time spent on the creation of showhn stuff that gets to the front page, over the past years.
You don't think this is going to be a Steam bestseller?
Shameless plug, if you think this is funny you will also enjoy merging startups to create new fever-dream companies! https://studio.sonyasupposedly.com/startups/
For example, Tailscale meets Supabase: https://studio.sonyasupposedly.com/startups/m/supabase+tails...
gotta admit, that's very entetaining to play with. turns into an onion article fast...
https://studio.sonyasupposedly.com/startups/m/deepseek+frame...
The primary game mechanic of stamping 'Pass' to fail a funding application is a bit confusing; should label that stamp 'Fail'/'Decline'/'Deny' or even 'Do not fund'.
Pass as in to 'pass on the opportunity to fund' i.e. to not agree to fund, is not the same as Pass as in 'passed the criteria for funding' i.e. to agree to fund.
To many people, Pass and Fail are antonyms, not synonyms.
Pass is one of many contranyms, they are good fun to study.
Maybe I'm stupid but I quit after 5 minutes because I had no idea what was going on with the documents.
This looks awesome! Playing it now. It's a really good idea.
Edit: I looked at a few pitches, I thought they were very realistic. For the Pointer acquisition it only listed the requested round size, not the valuation, which I think is really important for investors. It didn't completely make sense to me why they would need an investment for an acquisition, but when a company gets an acquisition offer is a pretty good time to raise money.
Feedback: I'd recommend using a different branding rather than Y, since YCombinator invests at the seed stage using standard terms, and doesn't make follow-on investments as far as I know. (I could be wrong.) It's better if you make it a hypothetical VC rather than use YC's branding.
Game was very fun, thanks for making it.
I mean, technically you didn't recreate anything. You had the LLM pattern recognize something that already existed and it copied it. I don't mean to sound harsh, but create something new.
Almost everything ever created is "like x but y", let people create what they want without trying to steal their joy
Didn't used to be that trivial and effort-free to have a machine do it. Back in the day you at least had a lot of typing, or even the need to go out and do what you thought the other thing was doing, giving rise to useful variation, weird offshoots and failures that became things in their own right.
That's 'create'. LLM output doesn't at all have to be 'create' in that sense, and often isn't.
I see so much creativity in some of the things people are getting llms to do. I love that we are getting to see so many unique takes on things without it requiring someone expend x% of their life achieving something they want to share. But, that isn't for you, and that's fine - it is for me though
Can you point to a couple of these very clever creative things, since you see so much of it?
LLMs can't create anything. They aggregate, distill, rearrange, etc. but those have always been borderline plagiarism. Sampling in music had similar controversy 40 years ago, but only barely escaped judgement when it was parody-like. I'd consider this a parody.
People are such blind consumers sometimes that they forget what it takes to make an original. Even worse is that the reviews at the time were mixed and calling Papers Please "low effort SJW nonsense". We had no idea how much worse it would get!
People can and do use ai to create what they want for themselves. When they drop their stuff on showhn it obviously invites feedback.
And those comments invite their own feedback.
I'm not sure that kind of middlebrow rebutal makes sense here. I took issue with the content of your critiscism, you with the fact that they were critical at all.
And, it's feedback turtles all the way down.
You might want to avoid reusing reddit phrases like "let them have their fun". That was probably the bigger source of agitation that anything you actually meant to say.
HN wants to hear you elaborate your own take rather than just blindly defend things on moral or ethical grounds. The comments are the lifeblood of this site and a lack of nuance ruins discussion. All anyone can do is either agree or disagree with you at this point, and that's no fun for anyone except bots and people who have no life.
I love how quick you decided to paint me with the Reddit brush. I'm sorry my comment didn't meet your satisfaction, but I gotta say, the "this is the way we do things here" is the most Reddit thing I've seen
You're thinking of the Reddit of 10 years ago.
You don't create any of your thoughts or words. You just reassemble what you saw.
This is just false. Did AI tell you to comment this?
Why? Why does everyone always need to create something new? Shouldn’t we be focussed on creating value? This site definitely made me smile regardless of its derivation which in a world of AI slop more than meets my expectations…
> Why does everyone always need to create something new? Shouldn’t we be focussed on creating value?
Man, what a bleak life: don't make something new, just keep coping the widget someone else laid down ages ago.
I wonder if first photographers were saying "I painted this picture".
Ironically, I know my mom can create a pretty good quality painting in a few hours, which is about the amount of time photographers had to spend early on getting a good photo, what with the limitations of long exposure time and the developing process.
Having an LLM one shot something and put a few rounds of modification to touch it up compared to manually designing and coding a project is a way bigger gap of skill mastery and effort required than painting versus early photography.
Oh I get it, “recreated X but with Y” is not self-flagellatory enough for you. How about “duplicated X with a sprinkling of hallucinated Y variation”? Does that pass the moral vibe check?
It's more honest, if nothing else
This incredible; i will have a lot of fun with this
UI is too little, can't really read it.
This is a good way to explain the term sheets and the things to check.
Quite a slopcomplishment.
Took way more effort than posting the word slop for the millionth time.
If you don't like it, just stay out of the comment thread.
If you don't like people calling slop "slop" -- maybe stay out of the comment thread? How do you like this type of argument?
"if you don't like me calling you names, maybe you shouldn't be here"
This is bullying.
You folks do not have to be so negative and sour and dismissive. Especially when you all are saying the same exact thing that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
If you don't like what someone is creating and you don't have anything nice to say, maybe don't say anything at all.
I don't think any of you realize what steering agentic systems is like because you haven't tried to do it yourselves. There is equally as much work, it just looks different to the work you're familiar with.
It's a neat idea, but it's obviously vibe coded with no playtesting.
The character dialog advances automatically and too quickly. One aspect of papers please is actually being able to read the character dialog and deduct if they are lying.
There is also the word vomit of text everywhere. There was no thought put into the flow of reading the text on the documents.
BGP, I wish this had something like the BUM.... BUM.... opening sound of papers please
So nostalgic. I had fun declining founders because of their various frauds/schemes.
Care to tell a story or two?
Missing the music :)
turn up your volume! there should be music haha
Ha Spelunker would be great but they might want $$$
damn at least here i can be post economic
Is post economic a term billionaires use to describe not having to care about the actual value of a dollar?
I imagine that comes before a billion. If I had even just $3 million dollars, I think I'd worry less. Or two or even one! Billionaires are another category entirely.
Yes, but at 3 million you'd probably still know the cost of things.
It's when you get to billions that the dollar is just some abstract concept. If you ever listen to trump talk, its pretty clear knowing the cost of things is a poor mans game.
The dollar. It means way more when you have to choose things to eat in a grocery store and all you have is 5.
At one million you get worried about losing it.
Yeah, it's what happens when you're agentic enough.
This feels icky considering the topic of the original.
Doom had demons, chex quest did not; derived works change subject matter all the time, I don't see why it's icky
Changing the subject matter is not inherently a problem. It becomes a problem when the remake cheapens the original subject matter (the apparent AI usage doesn’t help in that regard) and shows a lack of either understanding or respect for the weighty artistic statement of the original.
It would be like saying “I remade Sophie’s Choice but this time instead of choosing which of her children would be murdered by Nazis she was choosing which job offer to accept”. That would be repulsive. However I would have no problem with a remake that switched the subject while maintaining the heft of the original by setting it around some other serious issue like Gaza, ICE, or whatever other political topic that involves lives literally being destroyed.
I’ll admit this is all part of my ongoing frustration with the tech world’s inability to actually understand or respect seemingly any piece of art and this game is simply just the latest example of that.
> I’ll admit this is all part of my ongoing frustration with the tech world’s inability to actually understand or respect seemingly any piece of art
The original game is impressive and as you said it is art and there is a question about parodying art (or also constant references or imitations) devaluing art, but I think this is a western problem full stop though tech is very bad at the moment what with AI being able to devalue artistic works.
Don't have a problem with this myself as stated in my other comment, but I agree disrespect for art (and many other things) is an issue but it's western wide and in my opinion inherent in the way the west has chosen to understand itself as democratic this is a nasty poison and destroys all that it touches, just ask you self how many times anti-elitist language or the idea of 'democratization' is used to justify such evils. The solution lies in rejecting these lies but accepting that any society and system requires inequality only what we have today claims to be different and has failed in it's supposed goal, it can be assigned to the scrap heap of history so to say.
I basically agree except isn't this making fun of how self-important and pointlessly grim silicon valley VCs are? That is, it's the VCs themselves who would compare their own lives to communist oppression. The joke is actually comparing them.
I mean, per your repulsive hypothetical parody...if the person choosing jobs is your prototypical TC-obsessed, Blind-posting solipsistic narcissist tech bro, and the joke is that this archetype can't tell the difference between choosing a FAANG offer and choosing a child...that would be an effective way of making fun of that person, I think.
If your point is that silicon valley and the people in it are too vapid and socially irrelevant to be credibly parodied that way...that's fair, I guess, but also this is hacker news? If anyone is going to be interested in making fun of these people and institutions, it's us.
The ick is from making light of other people's suffering. Paper's Please is about Soviet communism where people died. Term sheets for AI so some people can be billionaires? Rich people eating cake?
Emotions are weird.
I agree. I wonder if part of the artistic intention here—the provocation—was to draw parallels.
I, for one, feel a lot of ick at the foundational functions of both systems. Icky stuff, it’s got to be done (or does it?), it’s never pleasant or unambiguous, it brings out (and rewards) perverse behaviors, it demands tradeoffs that exploit power asymmetries, it exists partly to preserve and empower the actor in the position of strength, the decisions have high stakes for individual supplicants but the system itself is indifferent...
And both seem to try and slather lipstick on their ick by way of ever-thicker layers of bureaucratic (and often self-contradictory) “tweaks,” in successive attempts to correct for past icky outcomes, even though at the bottom, the ick is really inextricable from the basic nature of the enterprise…
I agree that an individual family’s fate at the hands of a government (especially in border conditions, where its monopoly on violence looms so concretely) feels to me much more morally weighty than the life or death of somebody’s, you know, get-rich-quick business enterprise. But I also wonder if part of the parallel being drawn here is to point at the way the whole “startup” system functions by making it feel totalizing and weighty to individually-mostly-powerless participants. (Who, like others feeling the desperation of totalizing stakes, frequently do desperate and damaging and morally corrosive things to improve their odds in front of the bureaucratic judge…)
Yeah. The original was social commentary on the role of immigration enforcement as a tool of state oppression, with the brutality that sometimes occurs centered prominently and jarringly against video-game pixel art.
This is tech bros recycling the same exact structure but making it about getting billionaires to fund their latest "Uber but for AI-powered false advertising."
It's like if Flock wrote a version of 1984 where the heroic protagonist was trying to rise up against a regime of local activist groups who opposed installing Flock's mass surveillance products.
It also spits in the face of the gameplay side. The whole point of Papers Please wasn't pixel art work simulator, it was the pressure of the timer and being forced with making complex choices of doing helping others, helping yourself, and doing a proper job. Those gameplay decisions further strength the social commentary and how that kind of system is bad for everyone.
It was also about how poverty enables cruelty, juxtaposing your struggle to pay for rent and food with the demands of the state. The incentives are very different from people like Paul Graham and Gary Tan who can flip through a hundred folios without being forced to pick anything. The procedural tragedy of the game is lost if you're Joe Capital with a $3M fund at your disposal.
It's playfully provocative, perhaps one could argue making any kind of game on any kind of topic is trivializing, their are many WW1 and even more WW2 games. Do you find the C&C red alert games offensive as you play as Stalin? I personally would say these things are perfectly allow able as is this game.
On an aside this is the first game in a while posted on Hacker New that looks well made and not a soulless sloppy mess.
Don't worry, the original is widely described as an 'empathy' game. Not something you'll need to consider here.
you should consider why your thoughts start and end with what 'feels icky'
I apologize for assuming people could extrapolate more from my original comment. Once I realized I was mistaken, I wrote three other paragraphs to clarify my thoughts before you replied. So if we’re being critical of each other’s behavior, you should consider reading the whole thread before assuming you know where someone’s “thoughts start and end”.