My new pet theory is that CS:2 came out so that Valve had all their IP sitting at 2. So then at some point, when their audience is too old to play games anymore, and the youth don’t even know that Valve ever made games, they’ll release a 3-box with HL3, Portal 3, LFD 3, CS:3, TF3, and DOTA 3.
As the first of these is a platformer, the second is a topdown shooter, and the third one is a match 3, so commercial success was not that expected anyways, but I really think they excel at what they were set out to do.
I feel like Dustforce got decent buzz when it came out. I imagine it was helped by its phenomenal soundtrack. The game was too hard for me to really enjoy. But that soundtrack, I still listen to it occasionally.
The same artist did the soundtrack to Tunic, and while not as good to listen to outside the game, it adds so much to the ambiance of the game and elevates it.
What I usually tell people is "set a budget". You can always fall in to the trap of $20 more here, $40 more there...etc and explode your budget.
If you can keep moving the needle, you can keep dumping more into better components in different areas.
Use PCPartPicker to make sure everything is compatible, check the price history to see if there's a similar component available for cheaper or if you're getting a good value, and make decisions on what is necessary. Also, pick a date. You can hang around for MONTHS waiting on a certain part to hit a price drop.
Going back through your specs...bro a 4090 costs basically the same as my whole PC that's running games at 120 FPS+ on a 4k monitor with no issues.
Check out combo deals on Newegg for Mobo+RAM+CPU, or Microcenter if you have one nearby (I don't). Your biggest factor for gaming will be the GPU. You can run 60+ FPS on a 1080P monitor on 5 year old midrange GPUs. If you need 4k res, ask on PCPartPicker forums.
The above build (with a suitable NZXT H7 case) can be built for around £3,800; such a generous budget might be doable but deep down I know this build is over the top and that I cannot really justify ploughing that much into something like this. Thank you for the PCPartPicker recommendation; I will try that.
I got mine for just under $1800 US early this year, with just online deals available at the time, no waiting for better pricing (honestly PSU prices were INSANE at the time and that made a difference). I wouldn't change a single part today. It does everything I need (including video editing/rendering)
It sounds like you keep dying early on in your runs, which might be keeping you from seeing the main thing that is going on in the game.
Very Minor SpoilerThe sun is dying and is about to go supernova, you will die in about 20 minutes, even if you don’t get yourself killed via dumbness. Your job is to figure out why you keep respawning, why you get to keep your memories when you respawn, what is causing the sun to go nova, and how to stop it.
You should primarily be using the console inside your ship, which keeps track of the web of information you’ve already learned and helps you figure out where to go next. A lot of the game is using the translator to read ancient writing, so if that’s not your thing it may just not be for you.
I mean, it’s the main mechanic of the game, and happens in the first 22 minutes of the game. I would not describe that as a “major spoiler” but it is neat when it just happens suddenly.
I didn’t mean to offend. But what’s a minor spoiler for some might be a major spoiler for others, which is the case for the OP. It’d be pretty sad to miss out on the “when it hits”-moment
Well, OP was talking about putting the game down, in which case they never would have seen it anyway. I’d rather someone know it’s coming and stick with the game than not know about it and stop playing
It’s definitely interesting but it’s totally okay if it’s not for you. I really didn’t like it personally but it’s a bit disappointing when everyone and their mother is recommending it saying it’s the best thing ever.
The season of CRPGs continues for me, and I’ve started Divinity: Original Sin 2.
I didn’t go with a custom character, but chose to play as Beast instead, because dwarven supremacy of course (also it seems like I’m actually working towards that). While it doesn’t really fit with his whole vibe, I went with a Summoner build. Playing around the different surfaces, so your summons get different elemental buffs, is pretty neat.
As for the story, I finished Act 1 yesterday and made it to the mainland. I like that there are a bunch of mods integrated in the game, but it sucks that those also disable achievements, so you gotta re-enable those with a different mod. I activated a few QoL ones, like faster movement speed out of combat, which is a lifesaver, or a repec mirror in Act 1, which let me try out some stuff. It’s kinda weird that that second one isn’t added by default, considering you get a permanent(?) repec mirror after you leave the island.
Anyway, I’m having a lot of fun and this turn-based combat is definitely more up my alley than RTwP.
Guessing you played BG3 and wanted to check out Larian’s other stuff? I always had Beast as summoner whenever I used him. He’s a battlemage by default so summoner isn’t too far off really. Summoner is also REALLY REALLY good, even without the gift pack mod buff. Since summoner stuff only relies on your skill points and not attributes you can basically dump intelligence for constitution/strength/memory if you need it too. Faster movement is basically necessary to me too, I’ve sunk so many hundreds of hours in that game and missing so many trophies just because it feels so slow without it.
BG3 started my current run of CRPGs, but I was already familiar with Larian and D:OS. I played through the first one and about halfway through the second when it originally came out. I didn’t remember Beast at all, so I got no idea what his default build is. However, for some reason back then I also decided to completely ignore the origin companions, because I didn’t want to deal with their personal quests, and just roll with a party of four custom characters, so maybe I just never met him.
I’m not using the Summoner changes from the gift pack and haven’t looked too much into builds or min-maxing, just some basics. At first I wanted to go Summoner / Necromancy, so maybe I can have more minions, but I guess you can have only one “real” minion active at a time, so I got away from that (also Necro wants Warfare I guess, so that’s out anyway).
Unlike BG3 DOS2 is undeniably better playing as an origin character. They tell you their default classes when you recruit them for first time. Larian games are easy enough that you don’t have to min max at all, just do what you like and you’ll have a smooth time regardless of difficultly
Larian games are easy enough that you don’t have to min max at all
Including BG3? Because there have been a lot of challenging fights so far. And I only got a handful of hours into D:OS 1, but I remember hitting a pretty difficult fight there as well.
Yeah including both. If you’ve ran them before and you know the systems they’re surprisingly simple. If you want a REALLY really easy time with DOS2 just go two Lone Wolf and you’ll clear half the enemies before they can sneeze. If you’re going into them 100% blind I can see tactician being tricky though yeah
Well, it may surprise you to find out that plenty of us don't find these games to be easy if BG3 is the easiest one. One friend of mine bumped it down to narrative, and the rest of us are finding plenty of challenge on balanced.
Pillars of Eternity is the only real-time-with-pause game I’ve played, and honestly I don’t get it. It’s too chaotic for me to absorb everything that’s happening. If I play another I’m just going to drop the difficulty.
Pillars of Eternity was my first RTwP game, and they’re fine, but I definitely need some AI for party members. Ain’t nobody got time to micromanage six characters.
I’ve only played a few RTwP games, but Tyranny was probably my favorite. A smaller party, so it’s more manageable, some AI, on the shorter side, and I liked the setting.
I kickstarted that game, after I had a good time playing Pillars 1, so I’ve had it since launch, but haven’t played it yet, since I wanted to finish the first one. A few weeks ago I finally beat the base game, and after Divinity 2 I’ll go back to the expansions, and I can eventually start Pillars 2 (not before I check out Pathfinder though, and maybe Rogue Trader, if it’s out by that point).
Pillars 1 was more than a bit of a mess. Pillars 2 I love. It has problems on console but I love it despite them. It is a badass fucking pirate RPG sim at the least lol.
Rule number one when buying tech is your always get ripped off. There is always a better deal two weeks from now. You just have to get a feeling when timing is good enough for what you want.
Cyberpunk 2077! Update 2.0 really turned the crafting and perk systems on their heads. I was quite resistant to the weapon/crafting progression that’s now in place, but it’s growing on me.
Battlefield movement is much better with dodging/dashing and air dashing. I’m not even playing a melee build and it’s still great being able to close gaps quickly and zip around the battlefield.
Vehicle combat is fun, but it hasn’t come up too much just yet. Hope that changes at some point. Haven’t determined if the weaponized cars are available in races, that’ll be amazing if they are.
All in all, great update, can’t wait to see what all Monday’s DLC adds to the game.
It did finally click for me, but it took well over a year. Someone told me to play for a couple weeks with no goals, and that finally made it happen. I didn’t put it down for another hundred hours.
I guess TF2 is good fun… Then old nintendo games… CS when not taken too seriously/is an older version than GO… TF|2 (Titanfall 2) Halo custom games… ect
OK, I’ve read all your comments throughout this thread - I’ve responded to quite a few of them - and now I’m going to say this, and sign off.
Even assuming - as I have tried very hard to do so far - that you’re asking these questions in good faith, there’s very simple reason why no one wants to engage with you, why you’re getting down votes and tired, dismissive answers… this is a settled issue.
There is no meaningful or useful new debate to be had here. You’re turning up in the middle of a PhD physics lecture demanding to have a discussion about whether the Earth orbits the sun. We’ve been there, we had that argument, and the fact that you’re not willing to educate yourself sufficiently on the subject does not mean that you get to throw it out to the floor for fresh discussion as if there’s anything to be gained from that.
That’s why no one wants to have a thrilling intellectual debate with you about this. Because it’s boring, it’s old, and you have not raised a single new or interesting point in this entire thread. And while you’re treating this as intellectual exercise, real people’s lives are being destroyed by the bigots that you are - knowingly or unknowingly - carrying water for.
If all this is news to you, if you thought you were somehow at the forefront of cutting edge intellectual discussion here, then please take this as an opportunity to do some learning and growing. Spend some time listening to marginalized voices. Ask questions - respectfully and without making demands of people’s time - instead of asking for debate.
If you really do mean all this in good faith then I wish you the best and I hope to see you grow and learn from the experience, for your own sake as much as anyone else’s. We all have to start somewhere.
The intent of my posts was not to reopen settled debates, but to explore the principles that underlie how moderation decisions are made on platforms that host user-generated content. I believe this is a worthy subject of inquiry because it can affect various communities in different ways. While you see this issue as settled, the modding community is ever-evolving, and new scenarios that challenge established norms will likely continue to arise. I assure you that my intent is to engage in good faith, and I am open to learning from this experience. If you choose not to engage further, I respect your decision.
You’re coming at this from the angle that this is some strange new reality that the world has never encountered before, but it truly isn’t. This is not an “evolving new situation”, we’re not on the bold frontiers of strange new norms. It’s just bigotry. Bigotry isn’t new, it’s as old as mankind.
There’s a reason we’re all citing philosophical principles laid down in the 1940’s, almost like the world suddenly had a pressing need to reckon with the true cost of allowing violent intolerance to grow unchecked… Maybe some recent event prompted that?
The fact that bigots are communicating their bigotry through mods for videogames now doesn’t change what bigotry is, or how we fight it. This shit is older than any of us here, and the tools and principles are well established.
And the fact that bigots will frame their bigotry in dog whistles with just enough ambiguity that people like you can say “Maybe this was completely innocent” isn’t an accident, it’s by design. That quote from Lee Atwater I shared earlier? He’s talking about the politics of the early 1970s. Most of us weren’t alive then. Again, this is nothing new. The only change is that right now their target is trans people, because they always point their hate at the target society is least willing to defend. Pick off the weak from the herd.
If you’re trying to better understand how this stuff works, I respect that. Just because things have been understood for a long time, doesn’t mean everyone knows them. I didn’t start out magically knowing this stuff either. In my college days I styled myself as a free speech absolutist, someone who would on sheer magnificent principle defend the rights of a Nazi to be a Nazi. I learned better when I actually met and talked to the people that my “principles” were actively harming. So yes, I get it, and if you’re here to learn I commend that.
But please, don’t frame it as a debate. “Should we tolerate the free speech of bigots” is only a debate for the bigots, because like any guilty party they will never stop trying to relitigate their case. They can only benefit from this “debate” and the rest of us can only lose.
They will say things like “You’re just as bad as us if you censor us” to which we say “No, we are not, because our refusal to engage comes from clear moral principles, while yours comes from hatred.”
They will say “If you censor us, where do you draw the line?” to which we say “At the limits of your intolerance. We will tolerate, within reason, everything that is not an expression of bigotry and hatred.”
They will say “You cannot judge our intent or know our souls. How can you assign blame to our actions?” to which we say “We will judge you by your actions. The drunk driver doesn’t mean to cause harm, but we still criminalize the behaviour because it is harmful. If you do not intend to be a bigot, but you choose to actively express bigotry, we will hold you accountable for your actions all the same. A racist prank is still racist. Saying ‘Just kidding’ doesn’t undo the harm spread by your words. It is on you to learn these things and be better.”
They will say “But you could get it wrong. What if you misjudge the innocent?” to which we say “This could apply to any action of society. The innocent are convicted of crimes they did not commit, but this does undermine the value of having laws, it only reinforces that we must apply those laws as carefully and as justly as possible, that we must never forget the human cost of these decisions. It does not invalidate the decisions.”
They will find every angle, seek every accommodation, because they have nothing to lose by trying. They will never stop, and we can only let their arguments fall on deaf ears.
I’m not saying that there is absolutely no room for discussion to be had within this realm. There is always room for discussion in any subject. But you need to be mindful of the difference between “I think our models of climate change could be improved in this specific way…” vs “Is climate science real?” You won’t get any traction by arriving at a school and trying to dig up the foundations. Educate yourself on the fundamentals, and from there you can seek out specific areas where meaningful argument can be made, without needlessly relitigating core principles.
Your detailed response outlines a nuanced stance on the issue, framing it within a long historical context. However, I believe that framing the issue as ‘already resolved’ dismisses the evolving complexities of online moderation, and how it intersects with the fluid nature of speech and social norms.
Historical Precedence: While it’s true that bigotry has existed throughout human history, how we engage with it has evolved, especially in the digital era. To suggest that the ‘tools and principles are well-established’ may not fully capture the complexity of online spaces where interaction occurs asynchronously, across cultures, and without the benefit of vocal tone or facial expression.
Freedom of Speech: You critique the notion of debating whether we should ‘tolerate the free speech of bigots.’ However, even well-intended moderation can have a chilling effect on speech. How do we prevent the slippery slope where the bounds of acceptable speech continually narrow?
Intent vs Impact: You suggest judging people solely by their actions, but this discounts the complex interplay between intent and interpretation. Who gets to define what constitutes bigotry in a statement open to multiple interpretations?
Potential for Misjudgment: You accept that innocent people could be wrongly accused but say that this doesn’t invalidate the act of moderation. While true, this doesn’t address the ethical dilemma of sacrificing individual fairness for collective security.
The Role of Debate: The dismissal of debate as a tool available only to bigots undermines the basis of democratic society. Even well-established principles benefit from regular scrutiny. Shouldn’t we always strive to challenge our existing models to account for new variables?
Moral High Ground: Your argument assumes a moral high ground, positioning any differing opinion as inherently stemming from hatred or ignorance. This approach precludes constructive discussion and leaves no room for the reevaluation of norms and rules.
In sum, I respect your position but believe that it does not leave room for the complexities and nuances of this discussion. Insinuating that only ‘bigots’ would want to engage in a debate about freedom of speech and platform moderation is reductive and does not further a meaningful conversation about how we navigate these tricky waters.
bin.pol.social
Ważne