I 100% tell people "I play D&D" or answer "are you busy this weekend" with "I've got D&D" even though I haven't played D&D since COVID and even before then I had done multiple campaigns and one-shots in other systems.
Ok? And the relevance of that small minority to either the principles of good urban design, or to the story in the OP is?
But that’s not changing the design, really
Depends on what one means by "change the design". It doesn't make a fundamental change to the deeper architecture of the game, no. But it does require some relatively superficial changes, which are themselves a design problem of sorts.
There are, it may surprise you to learn, different types of game that have online connectivity for different reasons. And the appropriate EOL response may differ across those games.
"Live-service" games where the main gameplay is singleplayer but an online connection is required so they can enforce achievements and upgrades (...and "anti-piracy" bs) may be best served by simply removing the online component so it can all be done locally.
Online competitive games can be switched to a direct connection mode.
MMOs and other games with large numbers of users and a persistent online server can be run on fan-operated servers, so long as (a) the server binary is made available, and (b) the client is modified to allow changing settings to choose a server to connect to (it could be something as simple as a command-line flag with no UI if the devs are being really cheap).
Devs have numerous options for how to address the SKG initiative. The top three that come to my mind are:
- Release server binaries (along with modifying clients to have a setting to connect to the right server)
- Modify multiplayer to work over LAN (good when the server's only/main job is matchmaking)
- Modify the game itself to no longer require online connectivity
In the case of live service games, I would suggest option 3 is the most appropriate. If the main gameplay is singleplayer, but it's online so you can dole out achievements and gatekeep content, the answer is simple: stop doing that. Patch it to all work in-client. And keep in mind that this will be a requirement at end-of-life from the beginning. If it's an unexpected requirement, that's going to be a huge development cost. If it's expected, making that EOL change easy to implement will be part of the code architecture from the start.
Happy cake day!
If it takes you 3 hours to walk a return trip to the grocery store, you don't just live in run-of-the-mill car-centric design, you live in an absolute barren food-desert hellscape. Which is precisely the sort of thing people in this Community advocate against.
There's a big difference between what's "comfortable to carry back by hand" and "what's feasible to carry to a bus stop 100 metres outside the store, and then 400 metres from where the bus drops you off to your home". That's if we're assuming a situation where you did drive to the store, planning to drive home, but an emergency means you can't drive the return leg.
But also, if you do have good public transport, it becomes much easier to adjust your schedule to more frequent, smaller shops, where it's not just feasible but easy to carry the groceries. Or in a good city for cycling, to drop the groceries in your paniers, basket, or even full-on cargo bike.
I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't hold out Australia as some bastion of urbanism. I simply reinforced OP's point that North America is bad.
Australia is also terrible at this. It just wasn't relevant to mention.
There are lots of logical reasons why someone would take a car to a supermarket in a city. Even in a well-designed city many people will choose to do it.
The lady in this story got stranded when her car broke down after she drove it to the store. That should not happen. She should have alternative options.