hey now that's not very nice. if you want to suck off Nathan Grayson that's your problem not mine. I guarantee you it being a Nathan Grayson article makes it even worse.
Civility is for the case of people trying to have genuine conversations. There is no civility in people blatantly saying something untrue. There is no conversation. He has stood up on his soap box and declared a lie in the hopes that he could trick unsuspecting people. He deserves no civility because he has none of his own.
The rules are the rules.
They were collectively written to keep conversation as non-toxic as possible. If you wish to change them, feel free to create a topic on the matter.
In the meantime, my work is to upheld them.
Who actually cares? A niche group of people want to curate their games based on a personal preference. Nobody has the moral authority to tell them what they should or shouldn’t spend their money on.
Except they’re not just saying “we don’t like this” and moving on. They’re using dogwhistles (“woke” is only the first one) and 4-chan level type of slurs in their cries of conspiracy. It’s a thinly disguised hate club, games are only an excuse.
They tried to progressively hide it from their group’s front page, editing its language several times, but it was still there in the discussions in and around the group.
why are you just totally ignoring how this whole thing started in the first place with a sweet baby employ trying to take the group down and the account of the creator. yes editing it for people exactly like you that cant handle words on the internet and that needs to call everything hate so that you can get your way but that's not going to work anymore now like how it always should have been you are just very very funny.
I don’t really know much about the sweat baby controversy, but whenever I see “bless your heart” it just comes of as weak tea as it avoids engaging with premises or arguments and condescends and I think it generally loses the argument from a third party perspective. At least I’ve never read it and thought, wow they really got them.
It might be trite but I always preferred agree to disagree as a disengage tactic. That’s just my two cents on internet discourse though.
That’s no excuse to try to get a user’s account banned. You might want to read up on some of their tweets. The ceo is also a sexist and a racist. The steam group had like 1000 people now it has almost 200,000 after the whole debacle. Reputation is earned not given. SomeOrdinaryGamer made a good video highlighting stupidity from both sides.
If they are proud of their work, why try to hide it.
In an ideal world, yes.
But unfortunately these days people prefer to follow blindly their bias and people validating said bias instead of investing the time required to investigate by their own mean, with least biased sources.
I’d blame social medias that make everything quasi instantaneous, but it is just a component of a whole, not the only cause.
That’s no excuse to try to get a user’s account banned.
I'd say it is. They highlight the part of Steam's rules against harassment, and while that's always subject to interpretation, they feel that this counts, and I'm inclined to agree.
The steam group had like 1000 people now it has almost 200,000 after the whole debacle.
Before this group blew up, YouTube channels with hundreds of thousands of subscribers were already making their bullshit conspiracy theories. People try to paint this as Streisand, but that's ridiculous. The Streisand effect is trying to hide something, which you still seem convinced they're trying to do despite highlighting their clients on their web page and getting listings in the credits of the games they work on. What it looks like to me instead is that:
sensationalist YouTubers paint this company as the devil
this curator is made in response
it gets a natural, human reaction from the people targeted by this group
the YouTubers from step 1 use that reaction to mean whatever they want it to mean
In no way did I foresee a way that this group didn't continue on the same trajectory with or without Sweet Baby responding to its existence.
SomeOrdinaryGamer made a good video highlighting stupidity from both sides.
I've seen one video from SomeOrdinaryGamers, and it was too many, but he's cited in this article as perpetuating the bullshit conspiracy theories, so I'm good.
When I was still buying new games, I’ve had development studios I preferred, and others I avoided. Those were simpler times (and simpler games), when one small studio did everything.
Later, additional external companies got involved, and some tried to hide their presence. I remember when The Adventure Company started using a very customer unfriendly sort of copy protection, and I started using a list of affectted games, so that I could avoid them.
These days, multiple companies are involved with game design. As a consumer, it’s only normal that I’d like to know who had their hands on developing a game I’d be interested in. I haven’t played any games Sweet Baby was involved with, but if I did and had a strong opinion (negative or positive) about their work, I’d appreciate a list of games they worked on, to make a purchase choice that would suit me best.
Awesome writeup. I had heard that some very special individuals were trying to paint this company as “pro-woke”, and therefore any game they touched should be avoided – and that’s obviously going to be nonsense, but it’s good to see the full story.
Small, weak people need an excuse for why they feel so small. One that deflects the blame from where it truly belongs–on them, for lacking the strength and courage to be better than they are. For lacking the spine to take a more difficult, more noble road.
So just believe it’s not your fault, it’s some mighty shadowy conspiracy thing of great darkness. Not just you being a coward and weakling. Much more preferable.
I understand both sides. Busy people love to save their game at any point in time, as they might get interrupted. But I also understand the point from the devs and I also like it sometimes when I cannot save constantly. Obviously both sides could now be less stubborn. Busy people can just pause the game and resume later to just exit the junction and the devs could implement a quick save feature.
Dear game designers, how about you let the user decide what they like most, a very easy or hard game? Usually with difficulty settings, only damage/health numbers get modified. But you could also enable quick save in easy mode, and disable it in hard mode. Take a look at the difficulty settings of Grounded. Easy to implement and you automatically reach a bigger user base. And while we are at it, busy people sometimes cannot play games for a longer time, let’s say 4 weeks. After 4 weeks I have forgotten all the controls and game mechanics again. TV shows play a recap if a new season comes out. You should do the same. A super short introduction of what happened story wise and how the controls and game mechanics are working.
There are definitely technical reasons why saving mid-run is a lot more complicated. With Pacific Drive, right now when you save, it'll save:
the state of your car - this will likely be done by looking each individual "equipment slot" the car has, assigning them a number, assigning each possible upgrade for that "slot" a number/letter, and storing its damage state (which is probably just a scale of 1-5 or whatever). So the game will store everything about your car in the format off "slot x, upgrade type y, damage z", which can just be three values.
your quest state. The game won't remember what quests you've done or how you've done them in the way that you remember it - it'll just store that you've completed quest step 14a and that 14b is your active objective.
It makes for a fairly simple, small save file. Being able to save mid-run would add a lot of complexity because it'd need to save a complete map state, including:
the map layout
your position in the map
the enemies and hazards in the map - their positions, states, etc.
what's happened already in the map
the loot in the map, and whether you've collected it or not
And so on. Not only does it massively increase the complexity, it would also increase the size of save files a lot and make saving and loading a lot more cumbersome. And that's just a simplified breakdown; there are definitely other factors that can make it much, much more complicated.
There are definitely some games where "easy mode" save systems could be implemented without much changing on a technical level, but I don't think Pacific Drive is one of them.
Makes a lot of sense, though I'd say that implementing a "save on exit, delete upon resuming" should be a higher priority than it usually is in games that like to restrict saving. Having to stop and do something else might mean a lot of wasted time, and I think that not being able to drop an anchor point to come back to would be a possible dealbreaker for some and really hamper enjoyment of the game for others.
There have been a good few games where I wanted to play them, but didn't because I wasn't sure I had the time to make real progress, or that I'd make real progress, but have to stop just before a save point, and lose it all. It can mean that an otherwise great game gets left on the shelf in favor or something that better respects my time.
Thanks! Just read and it’s a downer, that game did look pretty cool but the save system they’re talking about would be a deal breaker for me too, I don’t have tons of uninterrupted gaming time.
Aftermath is a writer owned website with plenty of interesting stuff. I understand we dread paywalls, but at home is one of the few websites we support due to the quality of the content.
I was completely sold after the Alan Wale Fortnite article.
Can someone explain to me how we got here? We were the pioneers of video game ratings in this industry. Having a game rated as a “A tier" was the mark of ultimate quality. Then, out of nowhere, someone else introduces a game with a DOUBLE “A” rating. Did that intimidate us? Absolutely not. Because we came back with something even more groundbreaking – a rating system that includes a THREE “A”’s. But what happened next? Just listen—I’ll tell you what happened. The competition jumped straight to four "A"s. Now here we are, looking foolish with our outdated system, no matter how cutting-edge it seemed at the time. Suddenly, we’re the underdogs. Well, no more. We’re jumping to five "A"s. That’s right, four "A"s and an additional level of excellence.
Sure, we could have followed the natural progression and moved to four "A"s, just like our competitors. That would be the logical step, right? After all, three "A"s were quite effective, and four is the next sequential number. So, why not play it safe? Why not just add some minor enhancements and call it a day? Because we’re in the business of innovation, that’s why!
You think adding a fifth “A” is madness? It might well be. But I couldn’t care less. From this moment on, we’re the trailblazers in the video game rating game. Are four "A"s the peak of gaming excellence? Not by a long shot. A game with five "A"s is the new pinnacle.
What’s not clicking here? If two "A"s are good and three "A"s are better, it’s obvious that five "A"s would set a new standard for gaming excellence. You get me? We didn’t climb to the top of this industry by sticking to the status quo. We got here by daring to be different. And this, my friends, is our biggest gamble yet.
Here’s the memo from the Development team. Someone put it in the break room: I want to use it as a coaster. They don’t tell us what to innovate—we tell them. And I’m telling them to push beyond the four “A” boundary. I don’t care how they do it. Make the criteria for the fifth “A” so stringent it’s almost unattainable. Let’s redefine what it means to achieve gaming excellence. I don’t care if they have to overhaul the entire rating system, just make it happen!
You’re thinking too small, stuck in the “safe zone” of video game ratings. Break free. Let’s do this. This is our chance to redefine what gaming excellence means. Let’s dream bigger. All we need to do is believe that a five “A” rating is possible, and it will become a reality. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. And if you’re part of this decision-making process, then you’re either with us, or you’re holding us back. If taking risks means I stand alone, then I’m more than happy to bask in the glory when our five “A” rating system becomes the new gold standard in gaming.
People doubted the feasibility of moving beyond three "A"s. “It’s too complex,” they argued. “It’ll be too difficult to implement,” they said. Well, we proved them wrong. And now, someone out there is saying, “Five 'A’s? That’s lunacy!” Perhaps they’d be more comfortable in a less ambitious setting, fussing over trivial updates. Not us, though!
Maybe I’m out of line. Maybe we should just coast along, content with being followers. Not a chance! The day we settle for mediocrity is the day I leave this industry, and that’s not happening on my watch!
The market? We define the market. All it takes is to introduce our new system with a bit of flair. It’s as simple as saying, “Playing a game rated with anything less than five 'A’s is like accepting mediocrity.” Or, “Experience unparalleled excellence with our five ‘A’ rated games.” Imagine the buzz it’ll create.
I know what you’re thinking: “What will people say?” Forget about them. When you’re leading the pack, you’re bound to be a topic of conversation. That’s the price of innovation. And we will continue to lead, now and always, amen—five "A"s, by all that’s holy in gaming.
Hold on. I’ve just had a groundbreaking idea. Get ready for this: Add an exclusive recommendation alongside the fifth “A”. That’s right. Five "A"s, plus an endorsement that sets it apart. You heard me—an added layer of distinction. It’s a whole new era in video game ratings. Don’t question it. Just get on board, because we’re pushing the boundaries like never before, and I’m ready to lead the charge.
This seems like something Kojima would say haha !! But it applies to every new “next-gen” game/console convention/livestream with big publishers/editors.
Tired of those fumbling buzz words that doesn’t reflect the actual real gaming experience anymore, but rather the investors deep pockets.
Thankfully we have indie games and they mostly have way better time/investement/amusement ratio !
I didn’t know about this game. I love pirate stuff. The boats and aesthetics of that era, the natural environments of the Caribbean, the relevant sociopolitical developments at the time, and of course the stories and mythologies… but Skull and Bones fails to interest me even the slightest bit.
It appears to be an arcade game where you just press keys to move your ship around, shoot at things until their health bar depletes, and go around playing minigames to collect loot/resources. I don’t know anything about the story content but I’m willing to bet there’s at best some passably written character arc but nothing resembling a deep commentary on the relevant issues of that time (nor our time).
I’m almost laughably far from being a representative of the average gamer but the number of 'A’s assigned to titles (so far) hasn’t been indicative of quality as I perceive it. Budget and effort is mostly orthogonal to the artistic and creative value of a work.
aftermath.site
Aktywne