Yeah, hence why I said “until proven otherwise”. At some point someone will pull the mask off and reveal the monstrosity underneath. But until then we have to be the bigger people, give the benefit of the doubt, and assume he is actually a human being.
Hence why, when calling the police, you wouldn’t say who it is. Just “a man” or “a person” has come in with the gun. Which happens to be true, since until proved otherwise, Musk can indeed be accurately described as a person. Whether he manages to wiggle out of it later is less important than the immediate problem of getting the gun-wielding lunatic out of the studio.
There are ways of surreptitiously sending a message to, say, someone who isn’t in the room, without making it a very obvious call to the police. Or, for that matter, just dial the number on your phone and don’t say anything other than “your gun is really impressive but I’m a bit uncomfortable with having it pointed in this direction”. The operator on the other end will know what to do with that.
Because another way Musk could ruin your life is shooting you while showing off and waving a gun around, given that he is immature and arrogant enough to have loaded it, and reckless enough for his finger to slip.
Thanks for the explanation! It sounds fairly similar to the law here, where it’s based on what a reasonable person would believe - so even waving a realistic toy gun at someone would get someone in trouble, if the person being threatened with it would reasonably believe it was real.
So… basically, Musk turned up at a studio and threatened the devs with a gun (which antique or not, could have been loaded and functional - shooting with antique guns is a thing) to make them put him in the game?
I know there’s a massive cultural difference around guns between the UK and the US, but I’m genuinely struggling to see how “a man has turned up to our studio with a gun because he wants us to put him in our game” doesn’t warrant a call to the police.
I’m so glad I’m not the only one that thinks this! I can see how and why it happened, as the art style became increasingly stylised and exaggerated over the years, but visually it’s really, really not my cup of tea. It feels like what happens when you spend all your time just drawing the same thing over and over (ie, two specific characters) to the point that they become increasingly caricaturised and distorted.
No one else I know dislikes the art, and like… I dunno, it’s a successful and well-loved comic that a lot of people enjoy. I don’t begrudge them that success. It’s just not a visual style that works for me. And it’s kind of nice to know others have noticed the same thing and it’s not just that my perception was completely off.
My initial thoughts are that I absolutely love the concept! Really cool idea to play with object permanence (or lack thereof) as a game mechanic. I got as far as level 11, and at that point found that my reflexes just aren’t good enough to handle the fast moving platform - but I’ll give it another go later to see if I can get past it.
I heard from a friend that, allegedly, Riccitiello sold a load of his shares in Unity last week, almost like he knew those shares would be worth less this week… No idea if there’s any truth to it. You know how rumours can be.
I’m starting a game design degree on Monday, and I know Unity is on the syllabus (though not until later in the year). Guess it’ll be interesting to start the term with a conversation about how useful knowledge of Unity will be long term. Since the majority of graduates from this university go into or start indie studios (due to geography), how Unity treat smaller developers is definitely going to be relevant.
My preferred approach is to ignore the number/percentage rating entirely, and focus on what the review actually says. Maybe the reviewer is marking it down because of stuff I don’t care about, and the good parts of the game are exactly the things I value highly. Or maybe they’ve given something a 9/10 but the things they love about it are things that would make me hate it. There are so many more important things when deciding if I want to buy and play a game than what overall percentage it was given in reviews.
I think it definitely depends on how the course is assessed, what content it covers, and how much of that content the student needs to have absorbed to be considered to have met the requirement to pass. I just completed one in the UK where, to put it in simple terms, you had to get 10/10 to pass, and you got higher grades if you went above and beyond. But that’s because each module had a set of criteria and you had to demonstrate proficiency in all of them at least once in the coursework, and you got extra credit if you demonstrated “very good” or “excellent” proficiency. (This grading system is unusual in this country, but it exists for very skills-focused courses, where demonstrating proficiency with doing something is more important than showing you know something.)
By that standard, a game with “only” 7/10 would have significant chunks missing in a way that would make it unplayable. A 10/10 game would be average: everything that’s meant to be in there is there, but it’s only done the bare minimum to make a functional game. Every part of the game that could be described as “very good” or “excellent” would earn it ratings above 10.
Not that I’m saying games should be graded this way. It’d be ridiculous and confusing. But it just demonstrates that what constitutes a “failing” grade definitely varies not only between countries, but between different courses. Which means I actually agree that basing game reviews on the grading system of the US educational system is flawed: it makes too many assumptions about what constitutes “passing” or “failing”.
Your list of ideas meshes pretty well with what I’d like to see: something that’s independent and not just shilling whatever their sponsors are selling; something that presents various perspectives to give an overall view of a game, rather than one influencer’s opinion; and coverage of a wide variety of games beyond the AAA titles. Loving the idea of covering mods and older titles, and don’t forget the indie games.
I’d definitely be more inclined to follow such an outlet if it was in a written format on the fediverse. Maybe I’m just really old, but following influencers and streamers on Twitch and YouTube has never clicked with me. Too much self-aggrandisement, not enough on-topic discussion. For that matter, the other thing I really miss is written guides to games. That’s probably beyond the scope of what you have in mind, but it’s another area of games coverage where too much is on YouTube and Twitch.
Just… more games, less capitalism please?
(Personal finances permitting, I’ll happily support an outlet with good quality content, especially if it’s freely available and not put behind a paywall. I’m so much more amenable to “donate if you like my content” over “you can’t see this until you cough up some cash”.)
It’s definitely worth a shot. It’s actually a pretty small game: I didn’t rush, and spent 6 hours on it the first time I played (and 16 hours for 100% achievements). So even if you find it’s not for you, it’s a pretty small time investment to find out. :)