Is it really that mind-boggling? ST has always seemed to me to read whichever way you are already predisposed to. How does everybody dying make it an anti-war movie? I would be shocked if the kind of person who believes in the good of a war machine were surprised that lots of people die in war.
Maybe my memory is a bit hazy, but the bugs actually annihilate a city, right? What is the human response supposed to be? The extreme nature of the government and military only come across as insane if you’ve already been educated about fascism. Desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures, which muddies the antifascist message in my opinion.
It’s a great movie, but anyone who thinks it’s going to change anyone’s mind from their preconceptions is fooling themselves.
"I want to make a movie so painfully obvious in its satire that everyone who understands it lives in perpetual psychological torment inflicted on them by all the people who don’t."
Paul Verhoeven, director of Starship Troopers
The movie makes it clear that:
The bugs were responding to human colonization
Humans fired the first shots
The government is lying to everyone claiming the bugs are mindless. They overjoyed shouts of the soldiers when they learn the opposite is true - is only because they learn that the bugs are terrified.
The endless over the top propaganda is supposed to be a pretty fuckin heavy clue that it’s a fascist state.
4 in particular I think is more open to interpretation based on ones existing biases than people seem to think. Being over the top doesn’t necessarily have to be mockery and authorial intent is peanuts to a random personwatching a movie.
The other points IIRC are individual moments rather than recurring themes. It’s not surprising to me that significant numbers of people overlook them.
One of the hallmarks of fascism is that the enemy are simultaneously too strong - so we must militarise - and too weak, because we are the superior race and destined to prevail.
The movie point blank states towards the beginning that the Bugs were flinging out their pods/eggs/whatever into space looking to land on worlds to colonize
The movie gives all appearances and inferences that the Bugs attacked first. Not the humans. This makes further sense by point 1, and how far away the bugs home world actually is.
The only announcement made of a bug being afraid wasn’t all bugs. It was only the large “thinking” bug at the end of the movie, after it had its mouth cut off and it was strapped down and being experimented on in the lab. There was no inferences at all of any other bugs being made. So no, the government wasn’t depicted in the movie as lying about knowing of any bug intelligence. I didn’t know of any intelligent bugs, and by the end of the movie it was only known that the one type of rare smart bug captured was the only intelligent one, and that it was able to possibly psychically control the other dumb bugs.
The propaganda films say that the bugs are attacking by flinging asteroids from the other side of the milky way, do you know how long that would take? Also we never see any bugs in space, just the plasma getting thrown, never see how they are supposedly throwing these asteroids.
There’s also no presentation that it isn’t true, and by whatever means, we do know for sure that the Bugs are attacking earth. Retaliation or not, so either way it’s people stuck having to fight in order to save humanity.
Maybe my memory is a bit hazy, but the bugs actually annihilate a city, right?
The bugs were alleged to send an asteroid from another solar system and hit Earth. Logically, the bugs would have to know hundreds of years that they were going to get in a war with the Humans, know how to shoot an asteroid across the galaxy, and know exactly Earth was going to be for the asteroid to hit.
The bugs don’t launch the asteroids ballistically, they are launched superluminally as can be seen by the gravity singularity that Denise Richards detects when they (almost) avoid the asteroid.
Reasonable question! It was a sub called “the_donald”. It started with a bunch of folks saying outrageous things that were satirizing Trump and his followers. Unfortunately it wasn’t outrageous enough because it was slowly taken over by true believers who spouted the same outrageous shit because they actually believed it.
I’ve seen this a few times, ca you explain this to me? Is it a way of talking about people that consider themselves capital G gamers without having them come in and ruin the conversation with whining or gamergate bs?
NGL I'm still a little salty at OWI only making the Extermination game after the Troopers Mod for Squad took off so hard. No credit to the hard work on that mod that rekindled the interest at all.
Oh gosh yes! It's popularity has dropped a bit since OWI's little stunt, but you should check it out on Fridays when we try and get the OG's to come back and show us how to kill some BUGS.
My first viewing I did mostly take it at face value. But in my defense, I was a dumb 11 year old kid. It wasn’t until Neil Patrick Haris came out in full SS uniform that I started asking questions.
Same, if only to keep fulfilling a childhood commitment to myself of owning all consoles after seeing some friends of mine having a Sega AND a Nintendo.
I could see the appeal of consoles back in the day, when they were weaker specs but much cheaper and the games just worked right out of the box. But nowadays it seems like they’re just as expensive, still not as good for specs and the games are just as bug-riddled as PC games half the time. And Sony has been releasing all their big hits on PC anyway so yeah really no reason for me to get a PS5 that I can see.
But nowadays it seems like they’re just as expensive, still not as good for specs and the games are just as bug-riddled as PC games half the time.
No they aren’t ‘as expensive’, LTT did a video a while back where they tried to build a PC that could beat a PS5 for a similar price. They had to buy used parts to match the price and the PC did not include a controller ($69). If you’re going to use used parts, then also compare it to the price of a used PS5.
And Sony has been releasing all their big hits on PC anyway so yeah really no reason for me to get a PS5 that I can see.
Sure, if you want to play old-ass games, get a PC.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Gaming PC’s are expensive and a luxury! It makes sense economically. With consoles there’s an incentive to sell hardware cheap to get people into the ecosystem. With the exception of the steamdeck, there’s no such incentive for PC’s: if the hardware is worth x amount, you can bet your ass you’ll have to pay at least that. Yeah games are generally cheaper on PC, but not by much, and the barrier to entry is much lower for consoles. Hell, the PC I just built from used parts and Amazon deals cost me $800 (not including accessories), and while the processor and ram is almost certainly better than the ps5’s, the graphics are about on par, if anything slightly worse. You can find used ps5’s for less than $400. Is there really a used PC out there that can touch that?
I think the offsetting cost factor basis is that a PC is a computer that can be used for more than gaming and the console is pretty much useless after 3-5 years (considering the PS4 @ 2013, PS4 Pro @ 2016, and the PS5 @ 2020, and how PS4 Pros are beginning to struggle today, and OG PS4’s being obsolete). Are PC’s more expensive upfront now? Sure. But you also don’t have to re-purchase your games each generation at the whim of the publisher, like you’re likely going to end up doing with Sony and Nintendo, with the added benefit of being able to use it for other projects after its contemporary gaming lifespan.
Basically, if you built a PC in 2013 you’re probably still able to use it today as a server or hobby project PC (digital art, music, etc). PC’s were also cheaper back then before NVIDIA made GPU’s cost $1,000. Good luck re-using a console.
I see you don’t replay games, so why even own a console if you only play a game once?
For self-hosting I have several Linux and *BSD machines, but that’s server-grade hardare, not gaming hardware. None of those machines even has a GPU.
Drawing I do on my iPad Pro, for everything else I have a MacBook Pro. If I got a desktop PC it would only be used for games, I have no real need for non-server PC hardware.
Sounds like what you enjoy are shallow, linear story games. To each their own, of course. Glad you’re happy with what PS5 offers you in that regard. But the industry has a lot more to offer than that.
How are story games shallow? They are much deeper than the next generic multiplayer shooter. I happen to like stories in all forms, books, movies, series and video games. Video games are unique in that they allow you to be part of a story. For me the story is the single most important thing of a game. Often I simply play games on easy or story mode, mainly to keep up the pacing of the story.
I never said story games are shallow. But if the games you like are ones where you can feel like you’ve experienced all the game and the story has to offer in a single playthrough then they are, by definition, shallow. Even a great movie is worth watching multiple times of its story has any appreciable depth. Video games, even more so since there should be more to the story to experience.
I guess it’s possible you are correct and like the bulk of people who have ever studied film, literature, and art more generally are wrong. That seems unlikely. More plausible is that it’s common for people to experience a given work multiple times and get different things out of it.
That’s not even accounting for the “Reading Lear as an old man hits differently than reading it when I was a teenager” factor. That is, who you are changes over time and that affects how you experience art.
More broadly, games with different narrative choices (eg: Witcher 2 has two mutually exclusive middle acts).
And also more broadly, games with different mechanical choices (eg: many RPGs).
There’s also games where the process itself is fun (eg: Tetris).
Also, as many humans have imperfect memory, after enough time has passed a game may feel fresh playing it again. It may also land differently playing it at a new stage in life.
More broadly, games with different narrative choices (eg: Witcher 2 has two mutually exclusive middle acts).
I kinda like it that it makes my decisions in the game more impactful. If you’re going to go back and play the other option anyway, then it kind of makes the decision meaningless.
I hâte to agree with the other person here, but I’m a big roguelike fan and I rarely dust-off one that I have played before. I go through a period where I play a game quasi-exclusively until I burn out, then I will probably never touch it again.
I don’t think that’s especially common for roguelikes. I played a lot of crawl: stone soup and it was pretty common for folks to go for a win with every species, god, and class.
Out of curiosity, what about games that update? Crawl gets a new release like every six months where they often make big changes. New gods, species, other changes (like when they removed food, or added shapeshifting talismans)
Hmmmm. Not sure I’ve been in that situation too often. But honestly, as a young parent, my gaming time is very limited. Even if there is an important update to a game I’ve played in the past, chances are I’ve got my eyes on another game I’ve been waiting to play instead.
I’m not sure why I’d want a PS5 when there are zero games that interest me on it, and most of PC games I do want have very modest requirements. A Steam Deck is overkill for most of them.
Because my pc uses 4-5 times the power to run the same ps4-era game. (Especially nice when it’s hot in summer)
So I play it on my ps5, which offers me quick resume as well.
I love pc gaming, been building pc’s for over a decade at this point, but I do also see the advantages my ps5 has over my pc.
Could I build a more efficient and quiet pc, attach it to my tv and use that? Probably, and it’d be quite good with steamOS on it, but it’d be finicky to get sleep/resume working on it, and it’d probably cost me more.
ARM isn’t more efficient than x86 at that scale. Below 15W or so, it is, but not scaled up. I think there are other good reasons for it–like having more than three companies that can produce them–but not that.
Exclusives, simplicity, ease of use. I had a gaming PC, but switched to the PS5 only because I realized I’ve been using my PC like a PS5. I only play like fifa and gta now since most new games don’t even excite me anymore.
I’m a technical person and I’ve tried a lot of different methods to do couch gaming with a PC. From having some sort of lap tray to various wireless mice and keyboard solutions. I’ve currently landed on having my gaming desktop just stream with Steam Link to my living room. As long as I’m selective about which games I want to play, I can usually get a good experience. But I still have at least 60% of my steam library that isn’t a good experience doing that.
Having a dedicated piece of hardware with a custom OS that is designed around a controller is a huge difference maker. Plus you add in how ridiculously expensive it is to get either a USB external optical drive or internal SATA drive to watch DVDs and Blu-Rays. Heck, even just watching Netflix or YouTube in the living room is easier on PS5 than a media PC for the average user.
There’s a reason Valve tried to make the Steam Machine.
The “article” reads like a drama. The dude has all original code and artwork and a different game engine. The screenshots show a very simplistic thing… you would sue someone because their stickfigures look too much like yours. If the game was copied that quickly there wasn’t much substance there to begin with imo.
I feel like it matters that he’s not selling it though… He liked the idea, added features he liked and is sharing what he made. He also mentions that it’s a clone. He sounds like a jerk, but like…
Ok, so imagine that you’re hungry and you come across a sandwich shop that has your favorite sandwich for $15, but the shop next door has the exact same sandwich for free. Which sandwich are you gonna eat?
No, wait, that’s not important. Most people are gonna eat the free sandwich, so even if you eat the $15 sandwich, you’re statistically irrelevant.
Yeah, maybe some people that weren’t hungry are gonna get a free sandwich, but the people who were hungry are also getting free sandwiches, which means that the guy trying to make a living selling $15 sandwiches is gonna have to close shop unless he starts lacing his sandwiches with cocaine.
Maybe I’m bad at itch.io but it looks like they are both free. Lemme offer another analogy.
Your and your friend have sandwhich parties and one day you compare notes. Your friend’s sandwich is really good, so you make it yourself and add some things. Now you really like the sandwich so you throw a sandwhcih party with the new sandwich and tell everyone it’s based on your friend’s sandwich.
Then your friend asks why you coppied his sandwich and you’re a jerk about.
I didn’t realize he wasn’t trying to sell his game, so I guess we need a different analogy.
Ok, imagine you and your brother are making a website where friends can post about their lives and keep up with each other during and after college. You’re pretty open with your project and then one day the one weird guy in your friend group launches your project without consulting you. The project takes off and makes billions of dollars. You sue the weirdo and he gives you some money, but you’re still pissed about it. Did you get Zucked?
Exactly. It feels more like making a snake clone with fun features. Second guy learned some stuff, but was a dick about it. Ultimately no one was hurt tho and this doesn’t seem like a big deal
I agree that it’s all original code and art, I would even say that he’s well within his right to post his clone since there doesn’t seem to be any copyright-able IP he could be infringing on.
But I wholly disagree with the notion that “if the game was copied that quickly there wasn’t much substance there to begin with”. There are limitless examples of world changing inventions that were trivial to build, but no one had thought to do it, and the same goes for art. The difficulty of making something isn’t what makes it genius, in fact it’s usually the simplicity of a genius idea that makes people go “damn, why didn’t I think of that, it’s so genius!”
It sounds like this guy accomplished little more than burning the few bridges he had, and dragging his own name through the mud. Just…not a smart move.
Not the person you initially asked, but a good one is Eli Whitney’s cotton gin that made separating the cotton fiber from the seeds much easier. It had traditionally been done by hand, which is very time consuming. Whitney’s invention greatly simplified the process and made cotton farming much more economically viable as an industry, ultimately leading to an extreme expansion in chattel slavery in the Southern United States and serving to solidify a planter aristocracy that would eventually seek to split with the United States in order to create its own slaveholding empire, triggering a Civil War that would decimate a large chunk of the country and kill three quarters of a million people.
A lot of stationary: paper clips, staples, pencils, sticky notes
A lot of toys: yoyo, slinky, hula hoop, Play-Doh, crayons
Packaging: cardboard box, plastic bottles, plastic bottles with the lid on the bottom, aluminum cans
You use inventions all the time that you could probably just build from home now that you know what they are. But there’s nothing that says you/we are already aware of every simple invention. Just think about all the simple, yet revolutionary ideas no one has thought of yet…and if you can do that, you’ll be a billionaire.
But games and art aren’t exactly like that. People train by copying great art, and code and games especially are iterative. It’s not like he took a super useful thing and made millions by claiming he invented it. He took a game, made a clone and added features, admitting it was a clone. Like snake and pong and brickbreaker.
No. I work as a game designer, and I can just straight up tell you that you are dead wrong. Ideas have both quality and value, and they interconnect to make the backbone of interactive experiences
Ideas have both quality and value, and they interconnect to make the backbone of interactive experiences
That’s it exactly. The way the ideas interconnect and the way they’re presented to the player is everything. That’s execution, that’s everything - the ideas are just what’s in your head
What is the difference? You can buy a smaller PC, install Bazzite OS on it and plug it into your tv. Voila, you now have a steam console. Quite literally. lol
He told his friend about the game. I don’t think he would have done so if he copied or felt he had “stolen” anything. If he remade the game with this own code and assets then he put a lot of work into it and he can be proud of that (and telling his friend shows that he was). Comparing the game, i do think the clone is better made / more polished. So he really like the game and made a better version of it. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. IP has to be respected (can’t just copy assets or code) but if that’s the case then anything goes and that’s a good thing, it gives us better games.
Think PalWorld, for example, Nintendo, one of the most copyright abusing companies in the world, doesn’t sue them and it’s arguably a better game than anything Nintendo has come up with recently (no new / modern / good / 3D Pokemon games).
I don’t respect the way IP is abused by large companies. I support short-term IP as I think it does help individuals in a net-positive way for everyone.
I could be convinced that short-term IP is bad too, but regardless I think long-term is the the big problem. Games from the 80s should all be public domain by now.
If you have any interest in playing a good Pokemon game, Pokemon Legends Arceus is excellent. Palword may be just a bit better, but if you have a lingering nostalgia and a desire for some fresh and well executed mechanics in the Pokemon universe, PLA slaps.
This looks much more egregious than palworld/pokemon. Palword has very distinct gameplay from pokemon and adds many features and gameplay elements that nintendo has never done. It’s much more similar to Ark if anything in terms of gameplay. The only thing it takes from pokemon is the fact that it’s a creature collector game and a couple of the pals look like they were generated by ai trained on a database of creatures from other games, but even that isnt conclusive. It definitely takes inspiration from Zelda, but again thats a few gameplay elements, not the whole game.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne