Oh, yeah, they completely failed to get what makes Tina an interesting character. She’s constantly putting up this mask of being the toughest, meanest badass who’s seen it all and done it all (all of which is an attempt to hide the fact that she’s a scared, traumatized child).
This is what happens when you have some combination of bad casting, a bad script, and bad direction. Even good actors have a hard time producing good work in a bad environment.
(“bad casting” in this case meaning “casting an actor who isn’t well suited to the role”)
Why, in the love of God, would you look at Roland, hulking, dour, tough as nails veteran soldier whose main character trait is being completely unflappable, and think “Kevin Hart”?
What were these people smoking?
Also the bits of writing we get in the trailer are just bad. Tina doesn’t even manage to feel like a poor imitation of herself. Even with better casting (seriously, you could literally just have Ashley Burch play Tina, you’re up-aging the character anyway, what’s the harm?), there would still be none of the vibrancy of the scripts from 2 and Pre-sequel. I’m not saying those games had flawless writing, but it was fun, funny, and generally managed to land on the right side of transgressive.
Honestly, the whole thing has this really awkward “We really wanted James Gunn but couldn’t afford him” feel to it.
No, it doesn’t, and you’re betraying your ignorance of the topic by making the suggestion.
First of all, when we refer to rootkits, we’re talking about the fact that NProtect, by design, gains an absolutely staggering amount of access to the kernel space of your computer. VAC, by comparison, does not demand anything like the same level of access. You’re making an apples to oranges comparison, and when questioned on it responding with “But they’re both citrus fruit, right?”
No, they’re not, and the fact that you think they are means you don’t know nearly as much about this subject as you think.
But putting that aside for a moment, suppose one day you went hang gliding. Then, upon telling me about how much you enjoyed it, I immediately demanded that you play Russian roulette with me, and got seriously offended when you refused. That would be insane, right?
So you see how a person consenting to one risk doesn’t obligate them to consent to others? It’s not an all or nothing state between “My computer is exposed to exactly zero vulnerabilities” and “My computer is exposed to literally every vulnerability ever”.
Every single program you install on your computer brings some potential amount of risk, but a) that risk is MUCH higher when the program demands the kind of kernel level access to resources like your memory that NProtect wants, and b) that risk has to be commensurate to the benefits offered, and it’s hard to see what benefit I’m being offered by a notably cheaply made kernel level anti-cheat in a purely cooperative gameplay experience.
It looks interesting. Much like Kenshi it has the feeling of maybe trying to be a little too much of everything… And I say that as someone who fucking loves Kenshi.
Or, y’know, go with the original version of the trolley problem, where you start with the classic formulation (do you pull the lever?), then move to a new scenario;
“You’re a doctor, working in a hospital that has been cut off from outside resources by a disaster. You have five patients, one in need of a liver, one a heart, one a pair of kidneys, one a set of lungs, and one a pancreas. You have no suitable organs available, and all five patients will die without transplants, but there is a healthy young janitor working in the hospital who, by a stroke of extreme luck, is a compatible donor for all five patients. You could kill the janitor, harvest their organs, and save five people. Should you do it?”
Fascinatingly, almost everyone opts to pull the lever in the first part, but refuses to kill the janitor in the second, even though they are, from a deeply utilitarian perspective, the same choice. Unravelling why we see them as different is where things get really interesting.