Not adding a nonbinary does not make him a transphobe. Not every game, movie or story need a trans sexual character. It’s fair to ask for an addition in a “roleplaying” game (which it is here to be fair), but its not fair to call someone transphobe if he or she does not do it.
Going straight to “you’re a transphobe” undermines the actual fight when real transphobia occurs and fucks it up for people who are seriously being harmed by actual transphobia. You aren’t helping anything with that. Considering the mechanics of the game, I could see where adding the option could take a lot of work. Maybe it does maybe it doesn’t, but that doesn’t equate to transphobia, you’re just being an asshole.
Would it be nice in the base game? Sure, but it’s not there, and speculating that he’s a transphobe because of that seems like a hell of a conclusion to make.
Edit: I should add that the game via its special dialogue tokens, but not in the UI. This shows at least some level of support explicitly added by CA.
Why not a separate update cross reference update between both games? I can imagine something Haunted Chocolatier related content (not the entire game) to be added into Stardew Valley that acts as a sort of “advertisement”, to get people familiar with the new IP. Or not. Just an idea.
As much ad that would be cool, I want ConcernedApe to make it its own game. I don’t know how much net income he made from SDV, but he DESERVES another payday with HC.
Also, he may have changed enough engine/code stuff in HC so SDV and HC aren’t compatible with each other to bundle together.
That’s true. My machine doesn’t have a TPM. I understand they are trying to make things easier for their team, but I agree I’d rather have wider support.
Counter-counterpoint: Linux users are no users if a game is brimming with cheaters. Who the fuck plays a competitive multiplayer game full of cheaters only because it runs on Linux?
If we had private dedicated servers and the ability to play without anti-cheat, Linux support would be a non-issue. But because we don’t have that, anti-cheat is seen as a necessity, and we don’t have Linux support.
There’s lots they could do to minimise cheaters that they’re not doing. The main one being not sending the cheaters information in the first place.
The wall hack cheat works because for some bizarre reason the server sends players information about the position of other players they can’t possibly see, players on the other side of the map for example, there’s no reason for the client to have that information. The cheaters cannot access information that isn’t given to them.
I agree that only sending absolute needed data is a great policy for stopping all sorts of cheating. I could see them skipping this step if they don’t have a way of doing it fast enough that won’t cause other issues like player pop in. That’s what it’s have to assume.
Yeah it’s not supported for my system so I can’t even launch it. But I was watching some friends stream it and it crashed for three out of four of them within two games. I don’t think any of us will be getting it after release.
Oh yeah, probably my favourite squad mod. A little hard to believe that people will do that kind of quality work for free and consistently update it when any patch can and will invariably fuck mods up.
They’re really trying to keep the server load low on launch are they. There’s gonna be a nice 6 players on a 64v64 map in a game mode that’s riddled with bugs.
For some reason I have a bigger urge to jump in the Atlantic than to buy this game.
And I’m saying this as a former battlefield fan, they’ve thoroughly run the series into the ground. It’s genuinely impressive, it’s not even lucrative anymore I don’t think.
another former fan here, could you pls expand a bit on what you’re feeling with these points and what it means? i don’t know enough about each of them to realise what you meant?
the previous games i’m 100% with you, 2042 was beyond embarrassing. the publisher, nothing need be said lol. the dev cycle i’m going to assume is suspciously fast?
Well the price is $80+. GAMES with higher prices tend to do poorly a lot of the time. Additionally, this is a multiplayer game, so less people buying for the high price also means lobbies might be more on the empty side, which takes away the fun. And then there is also an argument that high prices cover a lower expectation of sales. Although this one might be my naivity about causality.
They talk about the game in abstract terms, and in a way where the hype seems to be more important than the content of the game. Which to me is always a bad sign. If the game is good, why not talk about specifically what the must fun parts were for you?
And even the leak itself suggests at least one person knows the price is a bad look for the content. So that person who has insight, knows it sounds bad. I will boldly infer, that that’s because it’s not worth $80. Which makes it also very probable that it’s far less than even a “moderate” $60, I can’t believe I’m saying this because that’s still an unbelievably high sum of money for a game.
And with all these points remember, battlefield does not have the best track record, so only some of these details indicating a fishy smell will sound the alarm and make me reconsider buying. I don’t have enough trust to extend towards games published under EA, for obviously reason.
I’m very curious to see if they’ve learned their lesson from 2042, or just trust that it’ll sell with reputation alone. The development cycle doesn’t give me too much hope unfortunately
gamesradar.com
Najnowsze