The People Interested In Playing My Game Can Be Categorised Into Two Groups

The code is a perfect example of why game developers shouldn't be allowed near RNGs unsupervised! 😂 What we're looking at is a glorious mess of Python where someone created two nearly identical functions ( count_greater_than_11 and count_greater_than_5 ) that generate random numbers between 1-20 and increment a counter when the number exceeds a threshold. But wait! The function names and comments don't even match - one says "greater than 11" in the comment but checks for > 10 in the code, while the other claims to check for > 5 but actually checks for > 4! And then there's that lonely is_divisible_by_7 function at the bottom, just hanging out with no apparent connection to anything else. It's like someone started implementing their own version of RNG bias with specific magic numbers, got bored halfway through, and shipped it anyway. This is probably why that boss battle feels unfairly difficult every 7th attempt...

Ah, the magnificent art of code documentation! This meme perfectly encapsulates what happens when developers "comment" their code. Instead of writing something useful like "This function handles user authentication with proper error checking," they just label obvious objects with stunning insights like "Trashbin." It's the programming equivalent of putting a sticky note on your refrigerator that says "Cold Food Box." Thanks, Captain Obvious! Next you'll be commenting your variable declarations with "// this is a variable" and loops with "// this repeats stuff." The true irony? Six months later, you'll still have no idea why you wrote that algorithm the way you did, but at least you know where the digital garbage goes!

That awkward handshake when Epic Games Store is profusely thanking you for a purchase you never made while you're just there to snag that free weekly game. It's like getting a formal "Thank you for your business" email after using a 100% discount coupon. The client-server relationship has never been more uncomfortably one-sided!

Someone just discovered the beautiful world of logical consistency in payment systems, and game publishers are NOT having it. The logic is flawless: if you can revoke a purchase at any time (like when a game gets delisted or your account gets banned), then refunds should work the same way, right? RIGHT? But nope! Game publishers treat their terms of service like an asymmetric API - they get full CRUD operations on your purchases, while you're stuck with read-only access after the refund window closes. It's the classic case of "rules for thee but not for me" implemented in production. They'll yank your digital goods faster than a race condition, but try getting your money back six months later? That's a 403 Forbidden. The gaming industry basically wrote a one-way transaction system where idempotency only applies when it benefits them. Peak business logic right there.

Game developers cutting corners in the most hilarious way possible! Instead of coding complex water physics and swimming animations, they just slapped a sign saying "PLEASE DO NOT SWIM. There isn't an animation for it." Pure development budget optimization at its finest. The brutal honesty is what kills me - no made-up lore reasons, no invisible walls, just straight-up admitting they didn't have time to implement that feature. Classic gamedev resource allocation decision!

Ah, the classic "CS degree to Steam shovelware pipeline." Four years of algorithms and data structures, only to end up cranking out questionable adult games with stick figures and dad jokes. The industry calls this "leveraging your education." Parents call it "why did we pay tuition?" Steam calls it "top seller in the Mostly Negative reviews category." For the uninitiated, "shovelware" refers to low-quality software rushed to market with minimal effort - basically the coding equivalent of a gas station sandwich.