The clip doesn’t make any sense. Cate Blanchett is shooting people standing up, then she’s suddenly inside of a box? When does she gets in the box, why is she suddenly in that box? She doesn’t get out of the box either. She’s teleported from there box to somewhere else. But now she has a flamethrower.
Yeah I had the exact same confusion, so I watched it again and she gets tackled into the box, then stands up from inside it.
If this was all in one continuous shot, it would probably be kind of funny. Quite why directors are still making the exact mistakes called out by a 9 minute youtube video 9 years ago is beyond me.
So it looks like bad editing is another thing to get excited about.
The game has settings for tweaking aim assist and such. It is exceptionally well done. As OP said they ask you if you’re playing on a Deck when you boot up, and it even has a Deck specific options menu for tweaking aim assist and what not. I played the first level on my Deck last night on regular difficulty and had a blast. Then I switched over to my PC and upped the difficulty and also had a helluva time there. It’s a phenomenal shooter.
I saw the picture and hoped they had finally added some depth, or at least some interesting interactions, to romantic relationships (once they’re established).
Then I saw the headline. Oh well. It’s still a fun game.
You have one story, thats it. They can update that game til PS7 is a thing and you will have 1 story. I love the game but the replay value is minimal, at best
I understand the basic idea of being upset that someone with a large platform isn't using the platform "for good", but this whole article reads like the journalist was foaming at the mouth with vitriol that a popular host wasn't posting about what they wanted him to post about. It makes me... Uncomfortable
The problems also goes beyond just the layoffs, but his overt coziness and preferential treatment of large studios, over even the ones that actually won the award he is presiding over, and are supposed to be celebrated:
So you did no research, gained no understanding, didn’t follow any of the linked resources and instead decided that you feel uncomfortable.
Keighley has a history of standing out in front of larger issues, only a few years he literally castigated Konami at his awards show for how it fired Hideo Kojima and then celebrated the man in his absence.
This article makes clear the nature of his so called convictions- they are for sale. If that doesn’t make you uncomfortable but a cited article written by a respected journalist does then I would say you might want to think more about what makes you uncomfortable and why.
I suppose the idea of someone's convictions being for sale isn't really a new idea, and I don't follow Keighley, I just found the writing style of the article interestingly venomous. I didn't place any value in his opinions as it was, so there's nowhere for my opinion to really go to given the new information, but I'm certainly not saying it doesn't matter.
I understand that given context, and agree that sounds shamefully cynical and a fall from grace for certain.
Keighly has a history of working in games media to publicise games. He was never an investigative reporter publishing things the industry didn’t want talked about. If you read his writing from before starting the game awards, it was like most gaming media, little more than third party advertising for upcoming games.
The thing with Kojima wasn’t some principled stance against injustice. He gave the award he was scheduled despite konami’s decision. That’s showbusiness. The awards are the result of a vote. Had konami allowed Kojima to attend, he wouldn’t have mentioned the firing.
Many asked Keighly to mention the layoffs at his show. Those familiar with his work knew not to expect it. The show is funded by games publishers. Calling out one publisher is fine in some circumstances. Calling out the industry as a whole is a good way to make this show your last.
He didn’t just give Kojima an award in absentia, he very directly and deliberately complained that Konami would not let Kojima attend to receive the award. He makes comments and has strong opinions when it’s safe for him to do so.
You’re not wrong about his press-as-marketing nature but in no way does this mean he shouldn’t be criticised for his actions in this case, in fact I would think these actions bolster the critique.
If you look at this from an entirely cynical lens, backing Kojima is the sensible choice. Kojima wasn’t leaving the industry. He would have a high level, influential job wherever he ended up.
At the same time, Konami was publicly backing out of the games industry. Konami is a multimedia company with many divisions. Their casinos are far more profitable than their games, so they were making major cuts to their gaming division.
Backing the major industry figure against the company that doesn’t want to make games anymore is what anyone running a show like the game awards would optimally do. That’s why you shouldn’t consider it a principled stance.
I don’t consider it a principled stance, quite the opposite. I think Keighley is mercenary. The point is that the article repeats and solidifies those concerns - it accurately calls him out for both his silence when people are suffering and his faux interest when he can push a product (in this case a recruiter) who benefits himself. My point raised about Kojima is that he complains about things when he’s safe to do so and then will even go beyond complaint to grandstanding using the full weight of his awards to make it seem like he has a concerned moral position to share.
First I’ve heard of that term, and after looking it up, I like the term Game-as-a-Service way better.
Seems like a perpetual fee if you want to keep playing. I guess I’m missing something, but I think I’d rather pay a monthly fee of I dunno $10/month to play, if there is a $0 cost to install the game.
So to be clear, none of this $60 game purchase and a $10/month subscription, it’s one or the other. For most games that are decent, I get into binge playing and beat the game within a month anyway and then never play it again. I win in this scenario, since I’m not coughing up ton of cash.
For exceptional games, I generally reinstall maybe 1-2 times a year and do another playthrough, which means after 3-6 years then I’m in the hole. The other huge case where I’d lose out: Playing more than one game in a given month. I typically have 2-3 games installed at a time to mix things up in a given month, which would mean being out in the hole way quicker. There’s also the being a “patient gamer” and buying shit on extreme sale, which I’d be fucked by GaaS too.
So I suppose I’d rather than buy my games outright, and say fuck that rent bullshit.
I like the idea for AAA games that I know I like. I play sf6 daily and have played sf5 for years. However, id probably stop of ot was that cost monthly as it would seem poor value, knowing my habits. Saying that, I pay for ps+ monthly for online play. I’m considering getting a steam deck on the future to cancel that subscription.
The great thing about buying a game vs a service is that pricing tends to stay the same, subscriptions start out as compelling deals but can soon skyrocket, beyond that subscription tend to be with the publisher apposed to a single product so you’ll mostly pay more to access more, then we are left with the Netflix, Prime, Disney plus issue of multiple subscriptions at inflated prices for products we aren’t interested in using.
Things like DRM is also an issue, want to play your subscription games without networking? I doubt it’ll be possible.
Personally I am focused on avoiding the subscription hell scape that has been pushed so hard recently.
I’m quite comfortable not owning Ubisoft games, and have been for years. It helps that other than one Switch game that I have physically, they haven’t released anything really worth purchasing.
I've got a friend who waits for a sale and then buys games like this for White Elephant parties at the end of the year. Often times he buys them for himself because he just has a burning curiosity for bad games.
Haha that’s at least an understandable behavior. What blows my mind are people who buy these games expecting them NOT to be anything but micro transaction live service infested dogshit.
Or people who LIKE micro transaction live service infested dogshit.
I don’t understand the fascination. From what my son once told me, everyone has the same advantage, you’re just paying for looks and individuality. I see that as a waste of money. Paying out for licensed characters is just a way to keep that going.
The only part I found interesting was when it shut down for a few days to have that major upgrade. All that was left was the black hole. That was quite fun watching everyone react.
I think you’re being disingenuous, you perfectly understand this phenomenon but it doesn’t appeal to you. Paying for pixels will always be dumb anyway.
At the end of the day it’s the same as something like FunkoPop, you are paying for a digital or physical piece of nostalgia. Neither are for me, but it is what it is
Do you wear jewelry? Do you have a nice watch that tells time just as well as a casio? Does your car feature upgraded wheels or upcharged paint? Have you paid more for fancy curtains when basic ones do the same job? Have you repainted a room just because you wanted a different color? Art, collectibles, novelties? Video game cosmetics are valuable to anyone who wants to express themselves the same as any other real life cosmetic. It can be especially important to young people who don’t have other avenues.
That being said, fortnite is predatory as fuck and is one of the worst offenders for addictive design, FOMO engineering, and maximizing DLC purchases. It’s what the annual sports games wish they could do. It’s what CoD started to do. It’s fueled by social media and by glimpses of random players in each match with the latest skins.
kotaku.com
Ważne