Absolutely. I hear Witcher 3 is good, and I believe that it is… but after playing it for 5 hours and feeling like I got nowhere, the next day I just genuinely didn’t feel like playing it as I’d felt very little character progress, and zero story progression.
Games are continuing to market towards younger people - especially kids - with spare time to burn. They consider their 120+ hour playtime to be a selling point, but at this point that’s the reason I avoid them. If I’m going to play for an hour or so at the end of my day, I want that game to feel like it meant something.
I prefer my games to feel dense, deliberately crafted, minimal sawdust padding. I’ve enjoyed open-world in the past but the every-increasing demand for bigger and bigger maps means that most open-world games are very empty and mostly traversal. Linear worlds aren’t bad - they can be crafted much more deliberately and with far more content because you can predict when the player will see them.
Open worlds that craft everything in it deliberately are very rare, and still rely on constraints to limit the player into somewhat-linear paths. Green Hell needs a grappling hook to leave the first basin, Fallout: New Vegas fills the map north of Tutorial Town with extreme enemies to funnel new players south-east.
And what really gets me is that with microtransactions, the number of games that make themselves so big and so slow that they’re boring on purpose, so that they can charge you to skip them! Imagine making a game so fucking awful that anybody buying a game will then buy the ability to not play it because 80% of the game is sawdust: timers, resource farming, daily rotations, exp grinding. Fucking nightmare, honestly.
They don’t advertise it, just message support from your .edu email and tell them your username. They’ll apply it and let you use the STUDENT promo code. It’s 50% off the year plan so $5 a month.
I’ve never played Total Annihilation or Supreme COmmander back in the day. This game is so amazing that it makes me sad that I never did. But the good thing is, I can enjoy it right now. It’s still technically in beta, but it’s already a complete game that you can enjoy, and I strongly recommend you do.
They called it like “alpha+” or something. But yeah, I think I’ve only had a couple of bugs over the two+ years I’ve been playing. I’ve had more bugs in fully released AAA titles.
Sonarr and radarr manage downloads for TV and movies in a nice way for Usenet and actually torrents as well. You can set up quality profiles and choose which shows and movies you want to download and they will grab torrents/nzbs that meet your preferences, automatically start them in your torrent app or Usenet downloader, and then organize them in folders with appropriate metadata for Kodi/Plex when the downloads complete. They automate the process very nicely.
Edit, I’m a Usenet guy if that wasn’t already clear lol
How is Usenet for privacy compared to torrents, e.g. if a usenet service you are paying for is compromised at some stage are they likely to be able to identify you based on payment data for example?
I have so many fond memories of Jurassic Park Trespasser. I remember my dad picked it up for me right around launch time. I had read the previews in PC Gamer magazine and was fully into the hype.
The game was really attempting VR before we had VR. There was no HUD. Your lifebar was a heart tattoo on your chest that emptied as you took damage. There was no ammo counter for your guns. Your character would say things like, “feels full” or “feels a little light” to give you an estimate of ammo remaining.
The biggest flaw, apart from the broken AI for dinosaurs, was just like VR, you had to aim manually. You could turn and twist your gun freely which meant you had to aim down the sights. In VR, in 2023, with motion controllers, this is amazing. But in 1998, with a mouse and keyboard, it was really awkward. It’s a game I never finished.; Probably never even got close to finishing. But I was still in awe of the world they built and freedom offered in 1998.
I think System Shock belongs here too. It was an immersive sim in 1994, was one of the first games to make use of audio logs, and had 3D models and environments before Quake. It initially released on floppys without voice acting so it didn’t sell too well, and it wasn’t until later that it started getting more widely appreciated as the groundbreaking title it is. Another thing is that the controls and graphics can make it a bit of a pain to play today - this was before WASD and mouselook were standardized.
I really loved Divinity Original Sin II, but I've never finished it. At a certain point I lost momentum and afterwards the idea of trying to pick back up where I left off is just too daunting, and the idea of starting over again is even more daunting.
If this is just for the fun of it I would try to run these services inside a virtual machine and just screen capture them. Never tried it but I don’t see a reason why it won’t work.
I constantly run out of mana, preventing me from spamming my main spells and enjoying playing as a Sorc
Couldn’t agree more. Problem is when I have mana and my CDs available, my damage output is insanely high. But once I’m out of mana and CDs are off, I just walk around like an idiot lol. My build takes out basic spell too so I literally have nothing else to do but walk around. It needs a rebalance, I don’t want to have such high burst dps but a more constant gameplay with stable dps output.
Be 80 and play FIFA, it’s fine. There’s no age where you are obliged to put down your controller for the last time. But it shouldn’t be your first answer while you’re dating, and definitely not your only one.
Being a gamer, as an identity, has a lot of baggage.
Having gaming be your only interest or hobby is associated with being an unambitious self-interested person who intends to do as a little as possible, as long as possible. The recognisable games are marketed towards kids/teens with time to burn.
Imagine your date’s interest was “moderating Reddit”, “watching TikTok”, or “reading Instagram”. That’s what ‘gaming’ sounds like: your hobby is media consumption.
There’s no age where you aren’t allowed to consume media; but it’s worrying if that consumption is your identity, if consumption makes up your routine.
So it’s not actually about age - it’s about maturity and goal-setting.
When we’re younger, most of us live moment-by-moment. Media consumption offers no future, but it has a pleasurable present.
But as people age, people develop goals and interests that require more investment and focus, and they’re looking for people that are doing the same. A cutthroat economy demands people develop goals for financial stability, even if they still otherwise like games.
As we age, we stop looking for somebody to hang out with, but to build a life with.
So once the people you’re talking to have interests for the future, “I enjoy my present doing my own thing” doesn’t offer them anything. If they don’t play games, they don’t even know what games are capable of. Maybe one day they’d enjoy playing Ultimate Chicken Horse with you.
But right now, they just see the recognisable titles that want to monopolise children’s time, and assume you’re doing that. They picture you spending 20+ hours a week playing Fortnite. And there is an age cut-off where it’s no longer socially-acceptable to be a child.
It’s not that video games are bad, but they’re a non-answer. They want to know what you do that’s good, and a non-answer implies you don’t have a good answer at all, and that makes video games ‘bad’.
That’s what ‘gaming’ sounds like: your hobby is media consumption.
It’s really weird that people who have “reading books” as their main hobby are not as stigmatized as their digital media counterparts. Is it the digital aspect that turns the hobby into weirdness?
Maybe - certainly generations always assume anything that younger people do is somehow worse than what they did, and the digital landscape is a part of that. When writing slates became accessible, the old guard complained it was ‘lazy’ because they didn’t have to remember it anymore. Any music popular among teenagers (especially teenage girls) is mocked as foolish, cringe, etc.
But I suspect like most hobbies, it’s mostly the following that determine our assumptions:
history of the media and its primary audience (digital mediums are mostly embraced by youth; video games initially marketed to young children)
accessibility; scarcity associated with prestige (eg: vital labour jobs are not considered ‘real jobs’ if they don’t require a degree)
the kind of people we visibly see enjoying it (we mostly see children, teenagers, and directionless adults as gaming hobbyists)
You’re right, reading is not somehow more or less moral than video games. Many modern games have powerful narrative structure that is more impactful for being an interactive medium. Spec Ops: The Line embraces the players actions as the fundamentals of its message. Gamers are hugely diverse; more than half the US population actually plays games at this point, and platforms are rapidly approaching an almost even gender split. (Women may choose to play less or different games, and hide their identity online, but they still own ~40% of consoles.)
Games as a medium is also extremely broad. I don’t think you could compare games to ‘watching anime’ for example, so much as ‘the concept of watching moving pictures’, because they can range from puzzles on your phone, to narrative epics, to grand strategies, to interactive narratives.
So a better comparison for video games isn’t ‘reading books’ so much as reading in general, and are you reading Reddit, the news, fiction, or classic lit? What does your choice of reading mean?
So for your suggested hobby of ‘reading books’, one might assume any (or all) of the following:
they are intelligent and introspective (or pretentious),
they are educated (or think they’re better than you),
they are patient and deliberate (or boring),
they’d be interesting to discuss ideas with (or irrelevant blatherers).
Assuming everybody who reads is ‘smart’ is as much an assumption as assuming everybody who games is ‘lazy’, and the assumptions you make about the hobby are really assumptions you make about the typical person who chooses it. It may not be a guarantee, but its a common enough pattern.
TLDR: Ultimately? I think books have inflated status because it’s seen as a hobby for thinkers; people picture you reading Agatha Christie (but you could be reading Chuck Tingle, or comic books). Games have deflated status because it’s seen as a hobby for people who consume mindlessly - the people who know what games are capable of are the ones playing them, too.
There’s absolutely no age cut off for video games. I would even go further and say that more seniors should play video games.
But, I also wouldn’t be too judgy with people who think video games are for kids. This is all thanks to decades of marketing. Atari, the first popular video game console, was sold along side TVs and other electronics and was targeted towards everyone. But then Nintendo decided to market their console as a toy, instead of a consumer electronics product. Also, they had to pick a “boy” vs “girl” aisle, and they picked “boy”, which is why video games aren’t seen as girly.
bin.pol.social
Gorące