This will be a really short one as this is just something that’s been bothering me ever since I started working corporate.
Like most offices, relies on air conditioning to keep everyone inside cool and fresh. Instead of a centralized cooling system, our office is equipped with multiple individual air conditioning units to keep the air cool. Therein lies the problem. Everyone obviously has their own temperature preference and of course not everyone will be pleased by what setting you turn the air con on.It’s been said before that air conditioning at workplaces is sexist, at least in corporate America. It was something about how men in America intentionally lower the temperature knowing that women have a lower tolerance for the cold so as to oppress them. Now, I don’t know how much of this is true (I don’t live in America and I’ve never worked there once) but I doubt anyone would have such a sinister motive behind keeping the office cold.
My opinion on the matter is simple. It’s fairer to keep the temperature cold rather than to warm up the room. Why? Because when one feels cold, one can always put on more layers to keep warm, whereas when a co-worker is warm, he/she does not have the option to shed clothes in an office setting. I mean, I wouldn’t mind it if I could work in my skivvies but I’m sure plenty of people would take issue with that.
Where I work, I usually retain control of the air conditioning unit closest to my desk.Personally, I like to keep the thermostat as low as it can go (I sweat easily and this is how I stay cool). The stations next to me, however, are all occupied by people who get chilly if you so much as blow them a kiss. They actually have their air con set to FAN, meaning not only does it not cool the air at all, their unit actually blows hot air from the outside. Let me reiterate that. It blows HOT, TROPICAL AIR from the outside. Jesus, talk about a waste of electricity.
So here we see the dilemma. We now have to air con units competing with each other,one is trying to control the temperature inside the room while the other is essentially a giant hair drying trying to make our office as arid as the Sahara. For fuck’s sake, if it’s really that cold for you, put on a jacket and turn off your air con. Don’t make it worse for the rest of us that have sweat problems. Again, I’d like to point out that I can’t undress in here. No one wants to see that.
On our last podcast, we discussed whether multiplayer was a necessity to extend the life of video games. I’d just like to double down on the topic again on this post.
On the surface it seems that multiplayer indeed extends the lifespan of a video game. Many examples abound to support this: StarCraft, Halo, Call of Duty, to name a few. A couple of posts back, I talked about how I got caught up in the multiplayer craze. I mentioned how I’ve logged in more than 100 hours in Overwatch despite essentially playing “the same experience” over and over again. However, is it fair to say that multiplayer is guaranteed or even necessary to prolong a game’s life?
It makes sense, though, why publishers decided to tack on MP modes to these titles. Video games are expensive, so purchasing one is quite a heavy investment. One of the metrics we gamers use to judge if a product is worth a buy is the number of gameplay hours we can squeeze out of a game.Obviously, a game that’s 100 hours long must be better than a game that’s only 7 hours long, right?
If we look back at the last generation of video games, there are a number of titles that run contrary to this philosophy. Bioshock 2, Spec Ops: The Line, and even some of the Assassin’s Creed games featured multiplayer modes and yet no one plays these games anymore. In their case, they were all single player oriented and their main selling point was their stories.
There are also a number of titles that have gone beyond their expected lifespans without the use of multiplayer. Case in point is Skyrim. TES V was released way back in 2011 and yet its user base is as strong as ever. In fact, the game is so strong that Bethesda decided to release a re-mastered version of it titled “Skyrim Special Edition” just last year. Skyrim is a strictly single player existence yet its community has kept it thriving for over 5 years already. Bethesda’s Creation Kit that they released to the public has kept the game alive by continuously providing the game with new mods that add fresh content to the game. Because of community created content, it’s easy to crank out hundreds of hours on Skyrim more than was originally designed. Time will tell if Bethesda’s other flagship title, Fallout 4 will also stand the test of time but if Skyrim and its prequels, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, are anything to go by, mods will keep Fallout 4 alive for a long time, without the need for multiplayer.