I mean, we have Pathfinder which spans over an entire Star system and even beyond but still is a fantasy roleplaying game. (Same with Dungeons and Dragons)
They probably specified to emphasize that despite NMS being interstellar, this one isn’t. Since they’re known for the former, that reputation comes with the baggage of expecting a similar experience.
I think the emphasis on the “planet” is that in their usual over-ambition, Hello Games announced that they’ll be simulating a full-scale planet. It then got through the media’s broken telephone.
Yeah, unless it’s a specific fundraiser (as in, “We match all external donations up to X”), there’s no reason not to donate directly, in particular for cases where it’s easy enough to find a charity to directly support that isn’t someone’s personal tax deduction scheme.
It’s exclusivity from one place instead of to another, which is pretty wild. Not the first time they’ve done it either, because they had that deal with Ubisoft.
I know it’s been said a thousand times, but the books really are immensely better than the show. And they have a proper ending! The last 3 unadapted books are arguably the best part of the series, and Alex is there since there was no dipshit actor to get himself fired.
the problem is there is supposed to be 3 more seasons/books to wrap up all the hanging thread, including what happened to the gate builders and the Martian rebels.
Ah, I see a man of culture as well. :D Yes, thank you. :-) I like interacting with the community in Brodie’s comment section as well. Pretty cool people. Its often just a joke or meme, but sometimes I get involved in more thoughtful discussions as well. As strange as it sounds for YouTube comments. lol. Good to see you here as well.
Its always interesting finding the same person in a comment section from another site. It feels kind of like an easter egg but one where you can get a new friend out of it.
I use FreeTube client, which does not have Google account support (that’s one of the reasons to use it actually). But just for commenting and interacting with others, I still open Firefox to just discuss. I hate YouTube, but this is worth it to me.
Understandable I use invidious when its working but when I am using youtube I always have ublock origin on with firefox. Youtube ads are just not safe.
BTW FreeTube blocks YouTube ads too, plus it has integration for SponsorBlock. In case you are not familiar with it, its a community driven extension where Sponsor seqments (which are not detected as ads) are then marked or jumped over. And it has two modes you can switch to, the native mode (which Google still gets your IP but works most of the time. And secondly the Invidious mode, which breaks from time to time but Google doesn’t know anything.
I have an exception for YouTube with uBlock Origin. Because at that time when it started I did not know if account could get banned or not for using it. Since I’m used to watch on alternative clients, I leave it as it is now.
I read somewhere that the armor distributes blaster bolt shock through it so all the Stormtroopers get knocked unconscious. They don’t die, otherwise they may as well not wear it at all as they fall over after one blaster bolt.
But as with everything in Star Wars lore, that’s probably a desperate retcon.
Knowing Rockstar put off development of this game for as long as they did just so they could milk GTAO for every last penny makes me hesitant at best.
I have never been let down by a GTA campaign, but they know where the money is, I’m hesitant to believe they will give this one the attention it deserves after seeing the profits from GTAO. Or maybe I’m just pessimistic
I just wonder if they can actually figure out a way to make GTA online actually fun. Because It really isn’t a good game mode.
All of the online modes that are actually fun are all modded servers. The mental servers are awful you spawn in and get blown up instantly, how’s that fun?
GTAOnline has suffered from feature pile-on. I think there’s an official software development term for it, but I can’t remember it. It’s fun, aside from the astronomical grind and push for shark cards (but there are ways around that wink wink) Even considering that, getting into it as a new player is wild.
That’s probably the wrong term. Scope creep is when you’re working on a project and you keep adding new requirements to the design before you finish the existing ones. Your scope creeps further and further into the future. GTAO is a project that is available, and increasing scope hasn’t seemed to delay new content.
That said, I don’t know what the “correct” term would be either.
I usually think of scope creep as adding more and more work items, like this: you’re building a bridge between two buildings. During design, you find out one of the buildings has terrible foundations that should really just be replaced. Scope creep would be deciding to replace the building foundations as part of the bridge project.
It’s possible I’m not using the term correctly either though. Maybe what I’ve described instead is design creep, or something.
GTA5’s campaign was fairly good, but it sucks they abandoned the planned additions and shoved the assets into GTAO only. I do not care to play GTAO, but I would have liked more things to do in single player. Knowing that this is likely going to have single player solely as a pipeline into GTAO though, yeah I’m sceptical too.
I think GTAO (and RDR2-O) is pretty much unplayable with all the obvious cheaters in each session. Rockstar doesnt even care if someone runs around with a K:D of > 1000:1, ruining the game for everyone else …
Yep. I hate to say this, but they should maybe but MTX into the singleplayer game. I really don’t like the idea of it, but if it’s between that and nothing, I guess it’s better than nothing. One time purchase DLC is clearly not appealing enough to them. That said, I could totally see it ruining singleplayer so maybe that’s not the best idea…
My expectation is that it will be very good, but will have no single player DLC whatsoever in lieu of GTAO2 or whatever they call it. And no, I’ve never forgiven them for doing that with V. At least this time I won’t be expecting it.
What if it doesn’t need DLC? When the concept of DLC first came out, everyone complained that devs were just releasing unfinished games and that you were obligated to buy DLC to enjoy a full experience. Now people only buy games because they’re expecting DLC?
Because Rockstar did some good DLC for GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption. I agree that DLC isn’t a good thing if it’s carved out of the base game, but Rockstar had a good track record of making good DLC for already feature-complete games.
I explicitly said that I have never been let down by a GTA campaign. What I was saying was that RDR2 is a different series that plays by different rules. For that reason I don’t feel like it’s necessarily fair to use RDR2 as an example of how they will treat GTA with the respect the series deserves.
It’s 10 fucking years. GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas were all less than a couple years apart. They need to reuse that strategy of working in parallel and reusing the game engine for a few sequels before moving to the next generation.
I’m confident they would’ve released more games if GTA Online wasn’t such a money printer for them. For those of us that liked the single player though and didn’t touch online, it’s been a while!
The earlier GTA games where quicker to develop because the computers did not have the CPU power or RAM to support large cities, many different NPC models, detailed cars, objects or enviroments. This means levels, assests and the engines where much quicker to develop.
if you double width+height of your map, you have to fill 4x the area with meaningfull content, belivable cities, scripted events, nature, streets, shops, maybe NPS who have a daily routine to walk from one place to another.
Plus, you have to create a large amount of different(!) buildings to place around your map, because you dont want to recognize the same house, shop, park or Parking lot multiple times in the same street. On top of that is car physics, traffic simulation, cop chase behavior and now apparently NPCs interact with each other.
None of this has been done before, and getting this right and bugfree is not trivial - see cyberpunk.
Posting the Sony one implies it’s exclusive to PlayStation and derails the conversation to a place it really doesn’t need to go.
Personally I’m cautious. After the way the second one ended, I never touched the third one. They kinda pull this bait-and-switch where if you try to pick the good ending, the game shames you for it. It’s almost as bad as Mass Effect 3 telling you that you have three choices, giving you three paths, and not telling you which one is which. Maybe a bit worse. I mean to go through this whole game and just get shit on for trying to do the right thing. It’s a bit shit.
Then again, Peter Molyneux isn’t involved in this. He’s making a sequel to Black and White set in the Fable universe without using the Fable name (but he is using the Albion name) so it’s kinda confusing. Obvious if you know what you’re looking at, though.
Look saving the dog is the only choice, you can go get another wife and kids and a million gold is so easy to get by that point in the game. My biggest problem with 2 was that I was so evil by the time I realized that I needed to get to a level of good to get an expression to open the last door and I just didn’t want to do it anymore.
3 is easy bad ending or huge money grind for good ending, that is the whole game.
I liked 3 a lot. But it’s way too easy. IIRC you also can’t die. You just revive with a scar. But I never “lost” until I got to that assassin for the DLC.
Also, yeah, the ending was price gouge all of your rental properties or let everyone die. Like, great, what a choice.
Gameplay was fun though. Missions were fun. Everything was good except those two things.
All of the Fable games were easy. The first one had a shield spell early in the magic tree that made hits drain mana instead of health, mana potions were cheaper than health potions, you could carry a ton of them, and using them was instantaneous even in battle. It was straight-up impossible to die unless you did so deliberately.
The shield spell also made it so getting hit didn’t reset your combo (which acted as an experience multiplier), so you could grind against infinitely respawning enemies like town guards or undead in the graveyard for a while until your combo was in the hundreds, then chug a few experience potions and max out all of your stats instantly.
The only downside was that the spell made an annoying loud humming noise the entire time it was active.
I can’t remember ever having trouble in the second, but I don’t remember it being so broken either. It was just tuned a little too low since they wanted casual players to be able to enjoy it. The games could have used some difficulty options.
The king telling you how hard the decisions are, and how you just dont understand how heavy the crown is and then forcing you to make the tough choices yourself seems great on paper until you realise you can solve the entire world’s economic problems by putting a 15 minute shift in at the pie shop.
I thought that the point was that the King was only interested in saving everyone, so he didn’t even consider that he could avoid being a tyrant. Like, if I remember right, you can overcharge for rent to get the money without going overboard. He just said fuck it and took everything.
Yes, I know about 3’s good ending and how all that works, I don’t want to spoil it for anyone who wants to play it but hasn’t before, but I appreciate how they handled it, as I understand it. And that twist is revealed somewhere in the middle, so you can grind out the good ending or you can take the easy way out. Fable 2 had you go all the way to the end, gave you one wish and 3 options to choose from, then pulls the rug out from under you. Unless you’re evil and you just take the money. Regarding the dog:
spoilerThere’s no option to save the dog. Not sure where you’re getting that. I don’t remember a dog. I know you could get a pet and they could die and you could get another one. But there’s no wish to bring a pet back. The evil wish is money, and lots of it, but it’s the end of the game so it’s purely symbolic. The other two endings are “bring back everyone who was killed by the bad guys” or “bring back your family.” The game pushes the value of family from the very beginning, but apparently choosing your family is a second bad ending and your family basically hate you for putting them before some strangers. Which doesn’t track with the rest of the game.
Ok I had to look it up since it had been so long since I beat 2. Take the gold is evil ending but like I said money is easy to get by the end game. The good ending is to leave your family dead and save everyone sacrificed to build the tower, the reward is a statue and knowing a bunch of NPCs that you can’t meet in the game are alive. Love brings back your family and dog, I was thinking that the dog and family were separate. Anyway family feels guilty about the trade but who cares the wife can be replaced, the dog is needed to get rest of the silver keys and other things that you couldn’t access until the end game so dog is the most useful reward, plus being best boy.
So it’s love, gold, and a tower? Yeah I still pick gold.
It’s been a while since I played but I thought you could have different pets and replace them as they go (since pets tend to be canon fodder in a lot of games).
I’m excited for the ride again. The hype about what’s possible, the belief that it’s going to be a genre-defining ground-breaking experience, the disappointment of finding out how shallow it actually is, and the fun of a casual, smooth playing easy game.
There is that — that it will probably be an easy game. There aren’t too many of those around. Or at least getting attention. Last year’s Game of the Year talk was all about three games that are just stupidly hard: Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, Hollow Knight Silksong, and Blue Prince. I love Blue Prince, but I caved and looked up how to beat it. I fully accept that I probably never will. And “beating” it really just means beating the tutorial. There’s so much to do after. But it’s fun, even when you lose. The other two are just exceedingly punishing.
And that’s fine — games were hard in the 80s. They eased off a bit in the 90s and 00s, but I think PlayStation was always pushing hard games while Xbox and Nintendo were more casual and “gaming is for everybody” (as opposed to “git gud or GTFO”). Then smartphones came out and easy games pretty much swept the app stores. I respect a good challenge if it’s fun, and I respect a game that pushes you to be your absolute best… I just don’t have the time for that. I like games with Story difficulty where you can do the motions if you want, but you’re basically guaranteed to survive every battle, and falling off a high ledge just returns you to the ledge you fell from.
Final Fantasy VII (both of them: the emulated PS1 version on modern consoles, and the remake) actually come with cheat codes built right in, and from what I can tell, they don’t even disable achievements. (Actually, the last one disables one achievement. The last cheat code maxes the level of your materia, and this disables the achievement for learning about materia. Once you get that achievement, go crazy.) The game even offers a Head Start mode that makes all your characters start powerful with high level gear. Of course, Final Fantasy VII is a special game. It’s often credited as being the first truly cinematic game. I’m not sure it was, but it was definitely one of them and absolutely the most popular of them at the time. The game plays like a movie, so they absolutely do not want to hold you back because you can’t push the right buttons fast enough. They want you to experience that story.
Someone told me that before. Still, if Peter Molyneux puts out a game and uses the name Albion, we know what he’s referring to.
Fable’s Albion could even be Great Britain in an alternate universe.
It’s like Pandora. It’s been used by a bunch of companies for different reasons. But if Gearbox lost the rights to Borderlands and they set a new game on a planet called Pandora, I would not expect they were talking about the jeweler.
So I suppose it benefits Molyneux that his world and title were so generic he can use them without the Fable license.
Ubislop need to be reminded that if you make a shit product, with a legally abusive EULA, no one owes you anything. You will go out of business, and we’ll applaud as your headquarters are repossessed by the real estate company
…made in 2018 by a Russian team. Way before the whole Ukraine war thing, you understand
Flipping through a history book on Russian/Ukrainian relations in the 21st century
Closing the book, putting it back on the shelf, whistling, and walking away
More seriously, I’ll never understand folks who hear “So-and-so is from Nationality X, so now I must/must not purchase products from them because of their bloodline.”
That’s definitely fair, but there is the argument that the largest source of change for major powers is through harming their economies.
Sort of like, I like the artistry from this person from X nation, but by giving them money, I am indirectly helping fuel the economy of X nation, therefore giving their goverment less incentive to change existing behavior.
The problem is that in order to achieve that collective impact, a whole lot of innocent parties who have no support for or active hostility for the existing regime are also badly impacted. Usually individuals will greatly suffer before the political or structural systems will ever change.
So it’s a bit of a bind. Support Russian media, comes with the side effect of supporting the Russian regime, at least indirectly from their income flowing into taxes. End of the day, it’s a choice to make.
It’s also that you’re fueling their cultural influence. Cultural influence does a lot of sanitization. Look at how japanophiles often fetishize Japan rather than seeing it as a country with good and bad elements. America was particularly good at this conversion.
I’d love to see some data backing this argument up. Doesn’t seem like years of sanctions on Russia, Iran, or North Korea had a sufficient impact to cause any change. Harming the economy can just as likely be used to reinforce the regime by creating a common enemy and blaming them for the people’s hardships (like North Korea does with the USA) On the other hand, use of force was pretty effective in causing change in Nazi Germany or Japan.
Of course it’s not all straightforward. Change by force can have negative results, and change by economic means can have positive ones. That’s why I’d love to see the data, if there is any
Doesn’t seem like years of sanctions on Russia, Iran, or North Korea had a sufficient impact to cause any change.
Seems like it made them more insular, more self-sufficient, and more hostile to future diplomatic entreties.
Change by force can have negative results, and change by economic means can have positive ones
What if, instead of trying to extort or kill a nation’s residents in order to force them to adopt your preferred foreign policy, you simply afforded them an opportunity for peaceful coexistence?
Putin wouldn’t be President of Russia if the US and the USSR had been able to settle their differences without a 60 year long series of proxy wars and regime changes. Neither would Trump, for that matter.
Putin is in power specifically because they settled their differences and Yeltsin was such a drunk idiot that it pushed people to vote for someone who promised stability and prosperity. Putin wasn’t very anti-West until the 2010s. I’m old enough to remember when there was mild talk about Russia joining NATO.
youtube.com
Ważne