Not to mention that the formatting is so bad that the client requires you to basically be in fullscreen but you’ve still gotta scroll a mile down to get any info.
For Xbox, that’s because the PC app is literally copy/pasted from the Xbox console app. Hell, it probably is the same universal app since that was a big Microsoft push to have more apps available on the consoles and Windows Phone.
I can go with that. With one exception, bullet sponge enemies. If I headshot a guy without a helmet, he needs to die. I don’t care what the level difference is. If bullets just do a set amount of damage, and it starts taking a full magazine from a rifle in the head to kill someone, then I better be getting PLENTY of ammo and it better not weigh a damned thing.
The worst part is when they DO have a weight. I’ll drop a decent weapon or shield in exchange for that 300th medpack. Never know when you’ll come across a boss enemy that I have built my character very poorly against and just decimates me. Which never happens. But it could. Gotta be prepared.
I only remember it taking so long to come out it became an early meme, and then finally coming out as a wet fart after all those years.
To be honest, it wasn’t bad, for a Duke Nukem game. The issue is that the Duke Nukem style just wasn’t good compared to modern games anymore. It was a late 90s game released in 2011. It also didn’t go all in on the campiness either so it couldn’t even cross into that territory and wrap back around to being good.
There’s nothing personal, I just expect accusations like this to have real evidence. All the “evidence” we had through Twitter was hearsay, and we’ve all played telephone before. Hearsay is no different than gossip, and it quite often is incorrect, that’s why it’s not admissible in court. Sorry for actually wanting proof of egregious claims instead of just trusting a former employee, who already had questionable trustability, and who was using the publicity to promote their own shit. Not exactly a great source of accurate information.
he admitted to it so a lot of this conjecture is moot. There’s links to his statement ITT.
My post here was made around the same time his tweet was posted. In fact looking at the times, it was posted here the same minute of his last edit. So, no chance to have even seen reports about that response yet, nonetheless read it.
If Twitch helped to cover up a criminal act, they’d be opening themselves up to liability. Especially since they supposedly provide the product used for the communication AND apparently knew about it.
The simpler answer is, the reality isn’t as simple as the tweet makes it out to be. Twitch may have thought/known the user was a minor based off internal-only information, like previous messages, account information, etc. not anything in the conversation with Doc. In that case Doc would not have known they were a minor, and thus his actions would not have been illegal, and it would not be a story at all if Twitch reached out to advise Doc that the user was a minor… instead Twitch acted unilaterally and essentially burned the contract in the process. That would fit the same “facts” we’ve been told from all parties, but with a vastly different context that also matches the lack of criminal liability.
Not a Doc watcher, not a big fan, but the Internet’s hard-on for taking claims at face value even without any actual evidence pisses me off. Public opinion doesn’t require innocence until proven guilty, but it’s a good idea. There have been enough situations of people lying about shit for some personal gain, especially lately.
I have only seen one situation that seems to match ALL of the claims from the hearsay on the Twitch side, because NONE of the people tweeting are first hand sources (they are repeating what they’ve heard from others), that matches Doc’s comments about it, AND the fact that there were no criminal charges filed (these are public record). Because otherwise if it is true at face value, that means Twitch actively helped cover up the fact a streamer was messaging minors like that, AND paid the the contract price as if THEY violated the contract, which certainly has a morality clause in it that Doc would have clearly violated if that were true.
Doc was exchanging messages with a user via Twitch Whispers.
Twitch thought this user was a minor through internal information, like previous messages/chats, account info, etc. but not something another user would have access to.
The conversation itself did NOT include information about whether the user was a minor.
Doc would not have known that user was a minor, because it was not in the conversations.
Twitch acts on the information they have, cancelling the contract under something like a morality clause.
Doc would have no idea why he was suddenly permanently banned without any warning if they acted on this information without contacting him prior.
Through the litigation it is determined that either the user was in fact NOT a minor, or they WERE but Doc would not have a way to know that based on the messages alone.
That would mean Twitch, not Doc, had violated the contract by unilaterally cancelling it, and would need to pay it out, AND that there would be no criminal act to prosecute, hence no wrongdoing, even if he DID message a minor.
Depending on the wording of the NDA for that settlement, he almost surely cannot talk about specifics, hence the vague legalese responses, because that’s the limit of what he’s allowed to say without Twitch also agreeing to release more info. That settlement likely leaves Doc’s ban in place in exchange for paying out the contract, Twitch not admitting anything, and Doc likely wouldn’t want to continue working with them after a reaction and contractual cancellation of that magnitude without even an attempt at contact.
That would fit all of the “facts” as we have heard them from every party, without any criminal charges, with Doc getting paid, and Twitch officially silent. The largest red flag for the “he knew he was messaging a minor to meet up” is no prosecution at all, not even a paper arrest and charges later being dropped. There was never any public legal involvement, which indicates there was never an actual crime, which is what is being claimed.
Also, Cody tweeted multiple times advertising his band’s show and stating if it sold out he’d talk more about it. So at that point, he basically loses all credibility as far as I’m concerned, not using it as marketing for his shows. Without hard evidence it not just looks like a way to try and boost his band’s sales while he knows everyone will be talking about him and looking him up. x.com/evoli/status/1679536544863113217 x.com/evoli/status/1730588093907161579