This isn’t a PS2 game, it was a Win XP game – hence why this specific screenshot was taken in 1200p. There is, though, a separate version available for PSP that looks like this, and that’s way more low-poly.
That said, yeah. There’s a huge noticeable difference between today’s high res, high refresh rate graphics and the PS2.
Nah, finishing games is overrated. By the time you’re halfway through a game, you’ve seen a lot of what it’s going to offer in terms of style and gameplay. For sure, you’ll miss some amazing stuff if you don’t get to the end, but it’s hard to believe you miss as much as the new other game you could have half-completed in the same time.
There are exceptions, and I defintely think completing at least a few games is important. But if I had the choice of only having fully played 20 games in my entire life, or 40 halfway, I’d defintely have learned more, experienced more and enjoyed myself more with the half-assed approach.
I tend to not finish games because I don’t always have as much time to commit to some games, loose steam a bit. then I jump into the next game that my friends want to play together. It can be frustrating sometimes but I think I have accepted it as my cycle now.
I’m older than you my friend, and it’s acurallt only something that I came to terms with in my 40s. When I was younger I did feel that pressure and expectation to complete stuff. Now I have no issue switching a movie off after an hour or stopping a book before the end. Life’s too short! And sure a story game I’m really enjoying, why wouldn’t i finish it? And play the sequel! But if I’ve played 100+ hours of skyrim without geting close to the end, and I don’t think it reduced my enjoyment. And if I’m getting bored of a metrovania I don’t see the point in grinding til it’s done.
not finishing so many of your games shows some kind of problem
If they’ve played 23%, that’s a lot of games, as in, well over 1k. Thy said nothing about how many they’ve finished, but I don’t think “finishing” is all that important.
What I’m more interested in is how much time they have for playing games. What’s they’re lifestyle like that they can play nearly 2k games while also accomplishing other life goals? It’s not an unreasonable amount, just sufficiently high that it raises some eyebrows.
I feel like it’s an obligation for me to finish a game unless I don’t like it.
If OP isn’t finishing any games, yeah, I agree. But there are a ton of games that I don’t find worth finishing, in any sense you define that, but that I still find worth playing.
For example, I didn’t finish Brutal Legend because I really didn’t like the RTS bits at the end. I still love that game and recommend it, but I only recommend it w/ the caveat that the ending is quite different from the rest of the game and it’s okay to bail. That type of game isn’t going to have an amazing ending, so the risk of not seeing the ending is pretty small (and I can always look that up on YT or elsewhere if I want). I did the same for Clustertruck because the ending had an insane difficulty spike on the last level and I just didn’t care enough to finish it.
However, other times I have pushed through, such as Ys 1 Chronicles, which has an insane difficulty spike on the final boss. I am happy I pushed through, because I really liked the world and the ending, which feeds into the next game (in fact, on Steam, it automatically started Ys II after finishing Ys 1). I ended up not liking Ys II as much (still finished), but I really liked the tie-over from the first to the second.
So yeah, I don’t fault someone for not finishing games, but I do think they’re missing out if they never finish games.
What I’m more interested in is how much time they have for playing games. What’s they’re lifestyle like that they can play nearly 2k games while also accomplishing other life goals? It’s not an unreasonable amount, just sufficiently high that it raises some eyebrows.
I’m lucky enough to work for myself at home, do things in my own time. More importantly, my work is entirely data driven—I rarely interact with people.
It is not exciting work. Actually, it’s quite boring. But it puts food on the table, pays bills, and gives me time to do things I enjoy.
I kinda feel like I should finish the games that I start, but I often don’t. I don’t get a lot of screen time so if a game becomes hard work or I lose interest - I move on to something else. Feel a bit bad about leaving it unfinished tho.
It’s relieving to see that they calmed down in the end, but I don’t think that makes up for being a dick when feeling frustrated.
I wish the gaming community would teach people to take pride in good sportsmanship. It’s arguably harder than mechanical or strategic skill, and it’s usually more valuable.
Who? I seriously have no idea who you’re talking about.
I honestly think that the main reason this has kicked off is that up until about a week ago it wasn’t really advertised. I didn’t even know that it started the petition up again, I knew the original one failed because parliament closed and for some reason that meant the petition had to end.
PirateSoftware (Thor) is a streamer and a game developer who is a narcissistic asshole. He’s been very against the SKG petition since I think the start since if it passed he would be forced to keep supporting his games once they fail (it’s happened before) and made a video trying to torpedo the petition some months ago by spreading disinformation that’s easily disproven with a halfway decent level of reading comprehension. Recently the guy who runs the SKG petition announced that Piratesoftware was successful, which caused a lot of big streamers and Youtubers to catch on and call PirateSofware out while endorsing SKG, including MoistCritikal. Since then the number of signings have skyrocketed.
B) procuring software is a two-way street … the producer assigns terms by which access is obtained, and you agree to those terms in exchange for that access. If the software is SaaS then if the producer chooses to shut down the service then you are SOL. If the software is provided with a long list of terms via Steam, then you are basically buying SaaS with local caching and execution. Maybe don’t reward producers by agreeing to one-sided deals like SaaS?
This kind of headache is what prompted Richard Stallman to come up with the idea for the GNU license. Maybe you think that is too radical… but maybe imposing your ideas of what licensing terms should look like on (only?) game developers is radical also.
For the same reason I think software developers have the right to choose to release under copyleft, I think they have the right to release under SaaS or copyright. I don’t think it is fair to take those rights from them. (I may choose to avoid SaaS or other proprietary models where possible, but I am not pure about it… I just do so recognizing that proprietary tools are a band-aid and could become unusable when any upgrade or TOS changes.)
As one example, keep in mind that some governments may choose to punish a software developer for making “offensive” (by whatever their standards are) content, and rather than fighting a losing battle in one jurisdiction so you in some other jurisdiction can keep using that controversial software the developer may just choose to cut their losses and turn it off for everyone. If you force them to release it anyway then said punitive government may continue to hold the developer responsible for the existence of that software.
There are rights and responsibilities associated with a proprietary model… and IMO you (and your permissive government) should not be overriding those rights for your own short-sighted benefit.
There are rights and responsibilities associated with a proprietary model… and IMO you (and your permissive government) should not be overriding those rights for your own short-sighted benefit.
Kind of sounds like you misunderstood the initiative to be honest. This only affects games which have been abandoned by the developer, the proprietary model stays perfectly intact as long as you actually keep selling your games.
also, no modern game companies with any relevance use a FOSS license.
so the way i see it, gamers have two options:
stop playing videogames or
only play supertuxkart and dwarf fortress
neither of these would happen at a scale large enough to force game studios into making their games FOSS.
the only way i can see of making this happen is by either:
a series of very popular, targeted boycotts at studios, or
making governments regulate the industry.
and with the second option, history has shown that only small changes have a chance of passing. effectively abolishing copyright law for software is not something the EU will ever do, no matter how many signatures a petition gets.
I don’t think they need to make their games FOSS to do right by the consumer. If you have an online game and no longer want to support the server part, it would be super cool to share that code, but at the very least companies shouldn’t be trying to shut down community servers. The same goes for the game itself, the source code would be very cool, but not going after people who still want to play the game they’ve chosen to no longer support seems reasonable.
If a company is ending support their ability to enforce copyright should also end, outside of people that are trying to profit off trying to resell the game as their own (which probably doesn’t happen all that much).
Dwarf Fortress is not free open source software! It's a great game and runs natively on Linux. You can download it at no cost. But it's not open source.
The argument here is that they don’t need to open source or switch over to an FOSS license.
They just need to not actively prohibit people from doing custom servers and they need to release their own server files wheb their support period ends.
If that ends with violating a license agreement they have with another company that is exclusively a that company problem because as shown in the past, law supercedes agreement and contracts.
It will basically put branding companies at a either they don’t agree to let their stuff be used in games and not get the money for it, or they decide that it really doesn’t matter all that much if a community project can use their stuff. Simple choice
They can still release their bespoke parts without any of the third party licensed stuff. Even without instructions on what needs to be gotten and put back in. It’d allow the smarter guys in the community have a headstart to figuring it out anyway. Most licensed software can be replaced, look at the recent decomps like the Lego island one.
To address your first point. Yes it applies to other software, this initiative applies to games because the “buyer purchases a license to allow the seller to remove your purchase at some indefinite time later” practices have been most prevalent in gaming.
Extending the scope too far will bring in more opponents than allies and muddy the discussion. Getting a decisive answer here will inform laws on how other industries should be regulated in separate but parallel legislative processes.
Do they still need to get the minimum in at least 7 countries? Anyone happen to know? Ive only been loosely following and i don’t want to stress the website more than it is suffering lol.
No, that requirement has already been met. The final requirement (which has just been met now) is to reach a total of 1 million signatures. Basically, all requirements are now satisfied
In a way, focussing on the countries was always ultimately pointless (aside from encouraging votes througj country rivalries). It’s almost impossible to not have required countries after the million votes milestone. You’d have to male something very specific like “make dutch the only language in the EU” in order to not make that cut.
Exactly. I have something like 10-20 “complete” games because they either give 100% completion for rolling credits or I really enjoyed the game and ended up completing the achievements anyway. Of the rest, I’ve probably rolled credits on 80% of my “played” games, because sometimes I just lose interest before I reach the end, while still enjoying my time w/ it.
Games should be fun, and if they stop being fun, move on.
At the current rate (which may or may not hold and may or may not be legitimate) the initiative should beat “One of Us”, the biggest one yet with 1.9M signatures (pro-life, ultimately did nothing).
That's definitely a stretch goal. But at least if we can start by stopping them from killing something innocuous like games it shows that we still maybe have some power over them.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne