This is an “expansion” not a “DLC” according to CDPR. It’s a lot bigger than your normal DLC. Up to you if you think that’s enough.
I think it’s also a chance for them to try to find some redemption. Journalists have a lot to sink their teeth into with the whole meta story of the game so I think that might have added some encouragement.
How is a paid DLC any sort of redemption for shit that should’ve been in the game from the get-go? If it was free it would easier to understand but it seems like it’s 30€?
It’s not a redemption arc to get (years later) fixes to stuff that should’ve worked at launch and game systens that were advertised to be there from the get-go.
Idk if I just hold those companies to higher standard but this doesn’t redeem them in my eyes. This just means they weren’t as dogshit as they could’ve been if they just bailed. But they still lied and released a shit product. That shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
If everything was there from the get-go, how would there be a redemption arc? There would be nothing to redeem.
A redemption arc is when someone or something starts bad or reviled, and eventually comes to be seen through other eyes. Looks like that applies to CDPR and Cyberpunk to me.
Redemption arc would mean from bad to good. Not dogshit to slightly less dogshit. Maybe if they had given the DLC for free as an apology or something, but just fixing some of the issues years later isn’t a redemption arc.
Well I’m having plenty of fun with it, and I haven’t even installed 2.0. If it was a release from this year it would be my second favourite after Baldur’s Gate. So I strongly disagree with your dogshit assertion. If the DLC and 2.0 make it better then it’s for sure a redemption arc. And from the looks of OpenCritic, seems like a very universal feeling.
I’m talking about the company. They’re dogshit for releasing it in the state they did and slightly less so for ultimately fixing at least some issues and giving some of the promised features.
If the DLC and 2.0 make it better then it’s for sure a redemption arc
Not even close. Especially with the DLC, how would making paid DLC in any way redeem the company?
“Slightly less dogshit”? Have you played 2.0 yet? Have you even played 1.6? Doesn’t sound like it. They put in a ton of fixes an QoL in the last two years and this latest patch is just one more FREE update. They didn’t “fix some of the issues years later”. They fixed most of the issues over the last two years and now are providing optional new content. The redemption is that after fixing all that, the new content is apparently free from the issues that plagued the original launch.
And it’s VERY clear from the way you’re talking that nothing they do could redeem them in your eyes. I’m pretty sure they didn’t shit in your breakfast cereal so you can stop acting like they did. It was one bad launch, not a pattern of bad games or anything like that. And they worked hard to remedy the issue. Just because you want MORE free stuff than the content they’ve added in the last two years, doesn’t make them a bad company. Kinda makes you sound bad tho…
I’m just going to quote another comment I wrote about this for starters
I’m talking about the company. They’re dogshit for releasing it in the state they did and slightly less so for ultimately fixing at least some issues and giving some of the promised features.
If the DLC and 2.0 make it better then it’s for sure a redemption arc
Not even close. Especially with the DLC, how would making paid DLC in any way redeem the company?
I’m not giving them kudos for finally fixing stuff and bringing stuff they should’ve had in the first place. Much less calling bare minimum like that a “redemption arc”.
And it’s VERY clear from the way you’re talking that nothing they do could redeem them in your eyes.
They bungled the false advertising, hype and overall the state the game was in launch so bad that it sure is hard. Then again, all big gaming companies are dogshit like that and I haven’t seen anyone else coming back either. And people keep forgiving them, buying their games and nothing changes. CDPR just had a bigger fall than the rest, coming off the Witcher 3 hype and having created the massive hype for 2077.
It was one bad launch, not a pattern of bad games or anything like that.
It was a massive overhyping and misleading of customers. Then releasing the game in a such a bad state. I just don’t like it when any company does that,
Unfortunately, patent trolling means they won’t become mainstream. Companies have to pay to add paddles, so they won’t unless it’s part of a more expensive controller offering.
I think a company sued valve over it hence why they abruptly put them all on sale for 5$ and never made any more. I believe valve ended up winning the lawsuit though hence bumpers on the steam deck
I’m sure it sounds stupid but I’ve been playing less and less switch games because of this. If a game is on both switch & pc (mh rise, indies), in the past I’d usually go with switch because of the portability, but now with a steam deck or ROG ally I go with pc because portability + back paddles. The switch has those hori joycon with back paddles but unless they’ve changed something since they first came out, those back paddles could only be programmed to buttons that are on their respective halves of the joycon (left joycon back paddle cannot be mapped to right joycon face buttons) which is useless to me.
But yeah now whenever I use a gamepad without back paddles it feels restrictive, like I’m missing fingers or a limb.
It totally sounds stupid but somehow I’m guilty of it too. I’ve even rebought games on Steam that I have on Switch because of that and the fact that I know my Steam games will be future proof for new hardware
I’ll give the console version a go. I just wished the console version supported the keyboard & mouse. The Windows version supports the keyboard and mouse, but the Windows version has a binding arbitration clause in its EULA that is not present in the console version, so I won’t buy the Windows version.
If BB had too many RPG elements for you then you might want to skip LoP. To answer your question though, just pick Bastard at the beginning and never look at another weapon other than the rapier you start with. Don’t change your Legion Arm, just use the starter one for damage and poise breaking. Only put levels into Vigor, Vitality, and Technique when leveling for stamina, HP, and damage respectively. Eventually you will be able to buy an item called a “Technique Crank” from a guy whose name rhymes with panini. Put that on your rapier when you get it. That’s it.
Parrying is geared towards Strength builds (Strength is called Motivity in LoP). If you want to do strength pick Sweeper instead of Bastard and level Motivity instead of Technique. Put a Motivity Crank on your weapon instead of Technique.
This is exactly what I was after, thank you! I will probably parry too much coming from Sekiro so the Strength route sounds good - is the Sweeper as viable as the Bastard all the way through (with motivity levelling)?
I think if I’d asked a similar question for BB I would have loved it, but I was stubborn and tried to learn all of it by myself. Instead I learned that I just want to be mastering a few mechanics rather than having open ended options to dozens
No worries, happy to help. Yeah strength is totally viable. Just be aware that in LoP, parrying is just blocking. When you block, you take less damage and you get “rally” like in BB and get that HP back by hitting things. You can do a “perfect block” with good timing and take no damage. There is no Dark Souls or Sekiro-style parry mechanic.
Oh damn. I thought from some gameplay I’ve seen that perfect blocks also worked towards staggering an enemy? Which made me think of Sekiro, just not as pronounced / focused on
I believe perfect blocks do count towards staggering the enemy. I’ve put several larger enemies into the stagger state from perfect blocks. I’m running the Motivity build described above and it works great. I will say that dodging and blocking are both very important. Some enemies are better to dodge and some are better to block.
I’ve just beaten the scrapped watchman and I’m really enjoying it, and having the decisions streamlined by you is helping for sure. The only thing I’ve done differently is change the handle to the baton handle, as it’s a bit faster to deliver the charged hit (which is crucial when I’m going for stagger as often as I can).
There is no name calling involved in calling a bigot a bigot. The whole “polite discussion” thing is at best a thin veneer of respectability slapped on an obvious dog whistle.
Free speech does not mean freedom of consequence and it is well within Nexus Mods’s rights to not tolerate transphobia on their platform. I would even call that the bare minimum, actually.
If OP really wants honest and constructive discourse they should come out and actually express an opinion instead of hiding behind the fallacy of having “constructive” Interactions about whether or not fascism is ok.
While I appreciate your perspective, it seems there’s a misunderstanding. I’m not advocating for bigotry or hiding behind ‘polite discussion’ as a shield for harmful views. My interest is in the broader context of what content is so problematic that it requires removal and under what guidelines. Free speech indeed comes with consequences, which is why it’s important to examine those guidelines and their consistent application. This is not about condoning transphobia or any form of bigotry; it’s about discussing the thresholds and criteria that platforms like Nexus Mods use to make their moderation decisions. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for any community that wishes to maintain both openness and respect.
You talk about the “complexities of the subject matter”. There are none. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the aforementioned mod. It was only created as a dog whistle and a beacon for bigots. Rational discussion cannot and should not be had when one party is not acting in good faith. I see no legitimate reason to dispute that ban, do you ?
There’s very little constructive discussion to be had about this, if any.
Civility is one thing, but there’s not really anything to debate here. What complexities?
The mod’s only function was to hide an options menu. Its only purpose is to hide the fact that other people might wanna choose something else than the default, it literally did nothing else.
It didn’t add any option.
If it added any option at all, like to replace pronouns in dialogues with your character’s name or anything that’d be something else but it’s not.
I doubt that mod was made in good faith, but I don’t really care either way to be honest.
I’m not triggered by that mod’s existence, nor by its removal because it’s all mostly outage bait.
That other poster knew that was going to be a dumpster fire before they hit the button to post.
I honestly doubt this one is meant to do any better.
I understand your perspective on the mod and its likely intent. My original aim was not to discuss the mod per se, but to explore how moderation decisions are made. If we can’t have an open debate, it becomes difficult to understand where we draw the line on what is or isn’t acceptable content.
Shouldn’t users have the liberty to tailor their gaming experiences according to their personal preferences, especially in a game known for its moddability? It’s also important to note that not everyone who might use such a mod is necessarily doing so with the intent of exclusion.
“Why should it be removed?”
Because it hurts real people.
“But shouldn’t people be able to modify the game as they want?”
Sure, they can do it themselves, but no one has to host content that causes real-world harm.
“But why draw the line at this mod?”
See answer 1.
Ya know, I love it when people like you use “civil discussion” as a mask, because it’s always the most transparent thing ever. Your real goals are always on your sleeve, but you just keep pushing the same things over and over again so that, in the end, you can say “Look, I was civil, they weren’t!”
Do you know what gives you away? It’s the way no answer you ever receive is satisfactory. It’s never enough. And it’s usually cyclical, too, which is exactly the behavior you’ve displayed here.
First, the mod in question is not adding a new feature to the game but removing an existing one, a fundamental difference when discussing user agency in customization. If someone finds this feature unappealing or unnecessary, they might opt for its removal via the mod, thus tailoring the game to their preferences. This is in the spirit of game moddability, which celebrates personalization.
Second, the concept that ‘no answer I ever receive is satisfactory’ misconstrues the purpose of engaging in discourse. Discussion is not a box to be checked off but a mechanism for deeper understanding. If the answers received were universally satisfactory, the discourse would be stagnant, wouldn’t it?
Lastly, if a mod does not align with one’s values, the solution is straightforward: do not download it. The presence of such a mod doesn’t mandate its use. Assigning a single motive to all users of a mod is not just an oversimplification but also an assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, as we engage in this dialogue, let’s not make broad generalizations but aim for a nuanced understanding.
Claim whatever motivations you want, but reading through this series of comments does a great job of showing everyone your real motivation. You are not here for rational discussion of moderation policy. Your trying to argue that bigoted materials should be allowed.
I can’t stop looking at this train wreck. But ima try.
Calling people the things they literally are is not name-calling. For example, conservatives tried to overthrow our government, tried to overthrow our democracy, and have been sending elementary schools in my town bomb threats for weeks. It’s not name calling to say they’re terrorists.
Edit: To clarify, the bomb threats are because a librarian joked about having a “woke agenda.” These are the same types of people.
Not at all. I believe that people should have freedom of choice for how they want to play their games. Everyone has a different escape from reality.
I understand that Nexus Mods have the right to choose what they want to host, that’s not the point. I believe that the moderators of the site need to choose what really crosses the line. The mod itself is harmless. Do you agree with hosting the Kill All Children mod for Skyrim still? If so, why?
If the reality you want to escape from is that “sometimes people use pronouns that are different from the ones I think they should use”, you’re an intolerant bigot.
If someone made a mod to remove black people from the game because “sometimes I want to escape from the reality that black people exist” it would be entirely justified to call that person a racist. This is no different.
I’d like to clarify that my argument is centered around the role of platform moderation and how they determine what content crosses ethical or moral lines. While you’ve offered an extreme example with the hypothetical mod that removes black people, the comparison doesn’t precisely align with the mod under discussion.
I used the ‘Kill All Children’ mod for Skyrim as an example to point out inconsistencies in moderation decisions. The objective is to question where the line should be drawn and who gets to draw it, not to endorse intolerant or bigoted views.
No, I haven’t offered an extreme example. I’ve offered an identical example. Escaping from the reality that black people exist, and escaping from the reality that people can in fact just choose their own pronouns are not meaningfully different in any way. In both cases someone is trying to erase from their personal reality the existence of an entire group of people, in a way that is targeted on specific lines of bigotry.
If you’re not willing to acknowledge that simple fact then you’re not ready to have this conservation.
That’s why there is a meaningful difference between this and the kill all children mod. While tasteless and gross, there’s never been any meaningful indication that the people installing kill all children actually want to see children, as a class of people, erased from existence. They’re engaged in some extremely unpleasant roleplaying, but barring the rare exceptions that will exist in any sufficient sample size they’re not actively expressing views about the real world through this choice. OTOH the pronoun removal mod is very much about expressing a desire to, at best, refuse to acknowledge the existence of a group of people, and far more likely a desire that said group not exist at all. And if you don’t believe that desire exists in a not insignificant number of people then I beg you to look outside your window for once in your life.
We can draw a moral line between these two things by applying Popper’s paradox of tolerance; the only thing a tolerant society cannot tolerate is intolerance. There is a clear moral justification for the suppression of expression when it is an expression of intolerance. That is the moral principle that Nexus are applying here (whether they are conscious of it or not).
Not only can you be a defender of free speech and still support the suppression of intolerant speech; it is in fact absolutely necessary to do so. If tolerated, the intolerant will use their freedom of speech to destroy everyone else’s while pushing their intolerant ideals. It is therefore - paradoxically - impossible to support free speech while supporting the free speech of bigots. To be true champions of free speech we must be intolerant of the intolerant.
In response to the point you’ve raised, the issue of platform moderation does involve a complex balance between allowing diversity of opinion and restricting what is considered harmful or intolerant. However, it’s crucial to note that not all forms of censorship or moderation are created equal.
Your argument posits that the ‘Kill All Children’ mod and the pronoun-removal mod are qualitatively different, based on the intent or impact behind them. The latter, you say, has real-world implications, as it aims to negate the existence of a specific group, while the former is seen as “extremely unpleasant role-playing” that isn’t necessarily a call for real-world action against children.
Yet, the stance seems to be rooted in the assumption that everyone who would use the pronoun-removal mod does so with malicious intent to deny the existence of non-binary or transgender people. While that might be true for some, it could also simply be a matter of personal preference for others, without carrying any ideological baggage.
The use of Popper’s paradox of tolerance in this discussion is intriguing but might oversimplify the complexities involved in moderating a digital platform. While intolerance shouldn’t be tolerated, determining what constitutes ‘intolerance’ is often subjective and open to interpretation. Therefore, it’s crucial for platform moderators to engage in transparent and reasoned decision-making processes when determining what is allowed and what is not.
Your last point suggests that it’s not just permissible but necessary to restrict the free speech of those considered intolerant to protect free speech for all. However, this approach can easily lead to a slippery slope where the definition of ‘intolerance’ becomes malleable, potentially leading to an erosion of the very free speech rights that the policy aims to protect.
The issue is not straightforward, and the boundaries of what should or shouldn’t be tolerated in an online community are often fluid. Thus, there remains a need for a nuanced conversation around these topics, which goes beyond labelling something as intolerant and calling for its suppression.
While that might be true for some, it could also simply be a matter of personal preference for others, without carrying any ideological baggage.
Give me one single scenario in which a person needs to remove the option to select your characters pronouns, without that decision carrying, as you put it, ideological baggage.
A scenario that comes to mind is one where a player simply wants to streamline their game experience, eliminating any elements they perceive as non-essential to their gameplay. This wouldn’t necessarily imply ideological baggage; it could simply be an attempt to customize the game to better suit their individual preferences. However, I acknowledge that the topic is complex and there’s a lot to consider in the broader conversation about platform moderation.
Fair point about the default option being prefilled. However, the idea of what ‘streamlining’ means can differ among individuals. Some might want to remove elements they find non-essential, even if those elements are prefilled. It’s about catering to one’s own idea of what the game should be. Why should the interpretation of ‘streamlining’ be limited to your understanding?
Oh, now I see. It was never about the pronouns, it’s just about streamlining the user experience. How could I have been so stupid, thinking that the only intent behind this mod was bigoty, when in reality it was innocent streamlining.
…
Dude, the dog whistle isn’t subtle. Could you stop?
My aim is to discuss what types of content should be removed and why. The mod’s creator did include comments that violate guidelines, so its removal is justified on that basis. However, dismissing the topic as a ‘dog whistle’ doesn’t help us explore the larger questions around platform moderation and community standards.
If you wanted to discuss that, your first step would be to look for Nexusmods moderation policy and read it. Or if they don’t have one published to note that fact.
Then start a post discussing that moderation policy and asking how moderation should be done.
Instead you started your post by focusing on the removal of a particular bigoted mod, which of course makes it a needlessly charged discussion if you’re looking for purely rational discussion about how moderation decisions are made. Then you keep making these absurd arguments — like claiming this mod may have just been about streamlining. This looks like trolling. And it talks like trolling. You claim I’m missing the point. I don’t think I am. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… it’s probably a maga troll that’s “just asking questions”.
While I acknowledge that the discussion started with the example of a specific mod, the intent was to use that as a jumping-off point for broader questions about moderation. However, I concede that the charged nature of that particular mod has perhaps overshadowed the broader discussion I was aiming for. I did review Nexus Mods guidelines, and the mod in question was rightly removed based on them. The idea was to prompt thought about how these policies are crafted and applied across a range of content. The mention of ‘streamlining’ was intended to explore the various motivations behind mod creation, not to justify this specific mod’s existence. I assure you, this is not an attempt at trolling but rather an effort to foster a meaningful conversation about platform governance.
The pronoun mod took away pronoun choices. It was created by an obvious transphobe, and Nexus got rid of it because they have no patience for obvious transphobes.
Ahh nuts, you’re right. It was harder to find the right one than I expected and didn’t even realize it was an April Fools joke. Thanks for the correction!
It took me just shy of 20 hours and that’s mostly because I was so impatient and died a lot. Took me a long time to realize that jumping over attacks was just better than using the dodge for a lot of enemies.
The game almost lost me right away. It gets so much easier after racking up some levels and a fun weapon have been found.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne