I don’t understand people who complain about things like this.
Just don’t play it. Easy as that. No conversation needed. Go play something else. There’s only an infinite number of other options that you can spend your time on.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this of late, mainly around TV series and movies.
(As a side note my own morality on all of this is comes from having lived my early adult years in The Netherlands: for me all sexual orientations are normal things, same as eye colors, height and so on, so there is no “right” or “wrong” sexual orientation, just like there is no “right” or “wrong” eye color, and sexual orientation is not even important outside a sexuality context)
I agree with you on that: show it as normal and people will start seeing it as normal rather than give some disproportionate importance to what is just another human characteristic that varies from person to person, which IMHO the best way for everybody to treat people equally independently of sexuality - only a nutter would treat somebody differently because of, say, eye color, and as I see it in the ideal world it would be just the same for sexual orientation.
That said, forcing displays of sexuality or sexual orientation isn’t the way to go, IMHO, because it keeps the whole thing in this special pedestal and goes against normalization of it because it does not treat it as normal.
Unfortunatelly a lot of TV series and Movies of recent have forced displays of non-majority sexual orientation rather than just having it as just as normal as all else - say, some otherwise asexual character is made to explicitly be gay or some other non-majority sexual orientation for no actual story-related reason - although there are a few that just portray it as “just another bunch of people” (say, one of the couples in the neighbourhood happen to be gay, and they’re living life like everybody else or somebody just happens to be attracted to somebody else of the same gender and it makes sense to show it as part of the story) which is how it is in real life, at least in civilized countries.
It all feels like the makers are preaching to us through this medium rather than the whole thing just being a representation of “normal life” (in the story setting) with all the range of normal characteristics that humans have (which naturally includes a range of sexual orientations).
(Mind you, I also think unecessary emphasis on the sexuality of straight characters is ridiculous: beyond what is relevant for the story in terms of how it affects how characters relate, I don’t see why straight people’s sexuality has to be highlighted).
I think we should strive to display the variety of the human condition without actually putting things like sexual orientation in a pedestal and treat it all as special (hence, by implication, not normal). It’s not easy though, especially in countries like US where morality has been picked up by Politics and thinks which are absolutelly normal human characteristics have been fetishised beyond all logice and turned into battlefields.
All that said, in story-driven games and other media, were there is emphasys in human relations, you’ll almost always end up with sexuality involved, if only because sexual attraction is a frequent drive for the how people relate and act around each other so it’s a bit harder to have a normal range of human behaviour there without seeming to be forcing anything.
I found the corporate greed jokes overdone and the humor and commentary very shallow. The skill progression was boring (just numerical stat increases mostly), itemization basically nonexistent (just one overall outfit armor slot, also with minor stat increases?) and the combat was tedious. Maybe the story gets better later but I wasn't a fan of the overall lore or the way dialogue choices were written either.
I really wanted to like it since usually I'm a sucker for "own a spaceship and explore the world with your crew" stories and games but I bounced off OW so hard. Glad to hear other people had more fun with it but it's definitely not for everyone.
I was so immensely bored playing OW, I just remember something about space gorillas on a moon being my walking away point. I also could be misremembering, that game didn't stick very well.
Heard the same from my partner. She loves Mass Effect, Starfield, liked Elite:Dangerous and No Man’s Sky for a while and, ironically, Outer Wilds is her favourite game now. Outer Worlds didn’t click.
The anti capitalism jokes are just as relevant and funny today as they were back than
I agree they are just as relevant today, probably even more so, however I didn't find them that funny since they are just making the same "joke" all the time. They don't really say anything or go deeper into the situation beyond "haha corpos are cartoonishly evil", over and over and over again, there was no nuance and I expected more out of an obsidian game. It's all just a themepark with throwaway jokes.
Again, maybe it gets better later and I didn't get there, I only visited one or 2 planets after the first one and I couldn't stand it anymore so I never finished it.
Titanfall 2. Its the only game I’ve ever played to successfully integrate time travel in a way that makes sense and feels good. They could have built an entire game around that mechanic alone and you only get it for a single level.
Also, the campaign in general is top-notch storytelling for an FPS.
Titanfall 2 is an amazing game. It’s single player is one of the best - it never gets stale as there’s always a new mechanic, both as a ‘pilot’ (soldier) or in a titan, to master or a twist you didn’t see coming. The story itself is top notch, and it’s length is good.
If I remember right, you can pause at anytime, even in cutscenes. They’re not long though.
Plus, the multiplayer has been fixed just recently so you can vs others in some of the best feeling combat any game has to offer.
I’ve never played the others though, so feel free to go with them.
I’ll second this. The gameplay is super tight and intuitive, and easy to play in bite-sized chunks. The story is more thoughtful and interesting than it has any right to be. I was really shocked how much I enjoyed this game, it completely took me by surprise. Only downside imo is that the actual storyline is short, like just a few hours. Pretty good replay value though.
Only downside imo is that the actual storyline is short, like just a few hours.
People tend to understate how short the campaign is. Phrases like "it never gets old" are used, but it's true because, as you mentioned, the campaign is one of the shortest you'll find in anything close to a AAA game.
Edit: Not to say it's not a great game, because I think it is. But it's a great game that you'll finish in potentially a single sitting.
Edit2: Jesus people, please engage with the actual argument… not some strawman argument I didn’t make.
I must be missing something here.
Company buys land, designs and builds theme park
Company operates theme park.
Theme park isn’t profitable.
Company closes theme park
???
Company must give away designs and schematics to theme park rides for free so people can build theme park themselves that might be in direct competition with new theme park company is trying to build???
Edit: I do think that abandonware should be opensourced at some point… but I don’t understand this level of entitlement.
Good analogy. The battle shouldn’t be about forcing abandonware to be opensource. We should focus on DRM, it makes games almost impossible to play when servers shut down.
OP should have compared it to other medias such as movies. When you buy a box copy, you expect it to work long after the authors/studios/etc. are gone.
The issue is about the lack of legal ways to play older games as time moves on. It will only grow bigger in the next few years with even more games relying on DRM and online servers.
Online only play models are difficult for the consumer. I personally don’t play that many online only games for partly this reason… and partly because I don’t play many online games at all.
It still doesn’t seem entirely equivalent to me. We’re not talking about them giving out the source code. We’re talking about how shit it is that something like software already installed on your computer just no longer will work.
Or let’s use your analogy; why not just abandon the facility instead of shutting it down and chasing everyone away?
Like, don’t get me wrong. I understand that this is the nature about always online stuff and that it can always be closed down like a theme park, but I feel the conversation is more about “why did they design this like a theme park without an abandonment clause instead of a shut-down clause. Historically, most other theme parks have been fine with being abandoned”
And I mean, I’ll agree with you that it’s nothing new, we saw it with Overwatch 1 and countless others, but I feel it’s a conversation one should be able to have without it being dismissed?
(I may have read too much into your comment, but it felt like it was dismissing it as a non-issue since theme parks work like this, when this is not a theme park)
After reading the rest of your comment, you are reading the wrong thing from it, the physical parts of the amusement park would be the extant binaries you already have. They still run the same as they did before, but without maintenance they will deteriorate and become non-functional or only partially operational. In an online system there are server bits that might not be available to the end user and those pieces also need an operator.
To make a slightly more specific analogy, with a water park we could imagine a separate water treatment facility that would need to be run to keep the water in the water park safe. That treatment facility could also have plans and schematics.
The actual facilities in these cases are not independently valuable in the software case. It’s the plans and schematics (the source code) that has value… but in both cases you only need the facilities and operators/maintenance to allow people to attend the water park/play the game.
Could the game company also give away a physical treatment plants so that an independent organization could buy their own servers and run their own game servers so that they could still play in their own private water parks? Sure.
Should they? Maybe. But it’s specifically the entitlement to the plans/schematics that gets me…
Why would I need to elaborate on an argument I didn’t make? I don’t understand? I made my argument, if you don’t understand it, I don’t know what you don’t understand?
It doesn’t matter. Whatever argument you’re making, you’re missing the point of the OP.
Because the analogy I drew was in line with the OP. And you said you were making a totally different argument. So whatever argument you’re making is irrelevant.
My argument directly engaged with the original post that game developers should be forced to open source their software. The analogy you made has nothing to do with open source software, it has to do with payment models…
Edit: and ops position doesn’t make any claims about payment models…
The underlying analogy was totally wrong though because it misses the point of why people are so angry about it. The payment model is integral to understanding the entire point of the discussion.
People have been saying this game is exciting because of the lack of mtx, but it seems to me that any big rpg gets a lot of attention. Eldan Ring got similar praise last year. Bioware was making these kinds of games fairly consistently about a decade ago and then stopped to make shit like Anthem. It’s a design decision not a budget problem.
Microtransactions come with specific challenges. Specifically, you have to give the players a reason to pay them, and that’s usually done by making the game purpously worse for those who don’t pay.
Or the other trend these days, Wich is to remove content from the base game and sell it as dlc or just money-gate it even if it’s on the base disk/release.
I don’t necessarily believe this to be universal. I’ve played plenty of games with cosmetic mtx that I can absolutely play without the desire or need to spend money.
lemmy.world
Ważne