• 0 Posts
  • 74 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
rss



  • I’m definitely a little confused about Tango - I’m hoping we’ll at least get more details come out about why Microsoft shuttered them. I mean, Ghostwire Tokyo was… whatever, and I could understand Microsoft not wanting to have them working on that kind of scale again any time soon. It wasn’t bad by any means, but it was fairly expensive and perhaps didn’t do as well as they hoped. But I’m surprised they didn’t want to just downsize the studio and aim for another HI-FI Rush-esque game (or sequel).

    But Arkane Austin being closed definitely makes sense. Not only was Redfall a disaster, but by the time Redfall released, 70% of the people who’d worked on Prey had left the studio. (Largely because the studio’s president had left the studio just after Prey, I believe, rather than because of the Microsoft acquisition of Bethesda.) All that was really left was the name.





  • these people SHOULD be putting this negative pressure on them. It’s deserved

    Was it not implied I agree with that when I said:

    The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.

    and;

    • customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
    • people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable

    I’m not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it’s obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I’ve not played it myself) and should be improved.

    ?

    I don’t see why that would make my opinion stupid. Yes, the studio/publisher should be held to account for the crappy release. But a big part of holding them to account should be not giving them money for it in the first place; not just handing over money and then complaining afterwards. Complaining afterwards is reasonable for the people who did hand over money, but they should also hold themselves accountable for financially rewarding a company that puts out a crappy product - they’re part of the problem.


  • The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.

    • it’s hard to feel sorry for people who pre-ordered because they got exactly what they paid for - a game of unknown quality and quantity of content
    • it’s hard to feel sorry for people who bought post-release because they also got exactly what they paid for - a game where reviews detailed poor quality and quantity of content
    • customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
    • people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable
    • people abusing the devs is not reasonable

    I’m not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it’s obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I’ve not played it myself) and should be improved. But I do think gamers could learn to be a little more responsible with their purchases and inform themselves before buying a game.

    I’m pretty over the whole cycle of games coming out and not meeting expectations, people buying them anyway (through pre-orders or day-one purchases), people being unnecessarily rude/hostile/sending death threats to developers as if they were forced to buy the game as gunpoint. Yes, developers should try to do better, yes publishers should often give developers more time to polish up games rather than announcing the release date two years in advance and refusing to delay, but also consumers could really take some responsibility for what they decide to give money to.




  • That’s part of it - they don’t want to lose their investment. The other part is that if they do stop propping up Israel, they know another country like Russia or China will happily fill the void and reap all the benefits of the influence in the region. The US could cut ties and not be involved at all but it’s not likely it would change much, unfortunately; Israel would just continue with new backers and the US would be in a worse position.

    Not that that justifies the war and all the weapon sales on the US’ part, of course. But I think, with that information, it’s easy to see why there’s some nuance to it, and why the US isn’t keen to sever ties or be too harsh a critic.




  • The website whose CEO was a moderator on r/jailbait, the community for sexualizing minors?

    I thoroughly dislike spez, and I think there are a lot of reasons to be critical of him, but this isn’t one of them. He was made a moderator of /r/jailbait at a time when people could be added as moderators without being notified or needing to accept any kind of invitation.

    I’d rather see him criticised for the many awful things he’s said and done over the years than for some non-reason like that.



  • I’m not sure I see how they’re comparable. Progressivism requires the ability to progress; if we somehow create a completely perfect utopia then there will be no room for progressivism, but otherwise there will always be some way to improve things and progress. In practice, there will always be some way to improve society which means infinite progressivism surely isn’t unreasonable?

    Infinite growth isn’t possible because infinite money doesn’t exist, it’s as simple as that. And if infinite money did exist, infinite growth wouldn’t be possible because everything would already be infinitely large and therefore unable to grow any further…

    … but beyond that, it also requires more and more people who can afford whatever the product/service in question is. Which requires either infinite people, infinite money or both. And as the product/service grows and prices likely increase, people will priced out of the market which is the opposite of infinite growth.

    It’s also worth considering that progressivism is a mindset that is aiming for zero - zero problems, zero inequality, zero bigotry, etc. It’s not about pushing for infinite anything, it’s about trying to reduce existing issues. And while it’ll likely never reach its goal, it’s not theoretically or mathematically unreachable. It’s much more realistic to attempt to reduce something to zero than it is to increase it to infinity.


  • 1.0 is getting a “true offline” mode where there won’t be any chat (and where a connection isn’t required for server authentication). Personally, I quite like the chat and the sense of community it brings (apart from when it’s filled with “D4 bad”) but I can see myself wanting it turned off if the game gets much more popular and attracts a more casual playerbase.

    Honestly, though, I feel like that’s such a minor quibble to have - especially for a game still in beta. While Last Epoch obviously doesn’t have the budget behind it that Diablo 4 or Path Of Exile has, I think it’s done a great job of cementing itself as a worthwhile addition to the genre already. The developers have done a brilliant job of coming up with creative solutions to problems (both LE’s own problems and problems that other games have suffered from) and I think they’ve laid a very strong foundation to continue to build upon going forward. The game is mechanically interesting, has probably the most interesting itemisation and by far the best crafting in the genre, and generally feels good to play.

    I agree that the art style isn’t as strong as Diablo 4, Path Of Exile or Grim Dawn, but I think it looks much better than a cheap Unreal asset - especially with the lighting overhaul in 1.0. And I’m glad that it isn’t just another dark fantasy setting; as much as I love those kinds of settings (Grim Dawn’s, especially), having the more lush, vibrant style of Last Epoch makes for a nice change.

    It’s not a perfect game by any stretch, but I think it’s a very good game and I think it has a lot of room to grow going forward.