[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Pretty much what I've been saying for almost a decade, mostly in response to "game development is expensive, that's why AAA games need *insert extra revenue streams*". My response has always been that games are bloated with feature creep and if there was an actual issue with development costs the first thing you can cut are features that don't really add to the game. Not only do you cut development costs but you arguably make a better product.

Nice to get some validation because it's been a rather controversial opinion. People have argued nobody would buy AAA if it's not an open world with XP, skills and crafting. Or a competitive hero based online shooter with XP, unlockables, season pass and 5 different game modes. I guess now people don't buy those even if they are all those things

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 17 points 2 months ago

I usually agree with Thor but on this one I probably couldn't disagree more. Based on what he says I'd say his mindset is completely opposite to what his initiative wants to do. He essentially said he doesn't see any value in (live service) games after they've reached their end of service and from that perspective I can understand how this movement is pointless or even potentially damaging. But that assumes that the (live service) game loses value after the company stops supporting it and I just don't think that's the case.

A lot of games continue live despite the company ending official support for them. If anyone remembers there's a gem called Wildstar that was shut down in 2018. Despite the game being shut down and even trademark has expiring people are still running the game on private servers. People are putting in sweat and tears to make sure a game is preserved. Imagine how much easier it would be if Carbine or NcSoft had released proper tools for it. Even Vanilla WoW exists because private server did it first and Blizzard wanted to get some of that money.

And another point that Thor made how it's not about preservation because you can't preserve a moment in time. I think that's a completely disingenuous argument because it feeds into FOMO. If you join WoW today you will never experience "the golden age of WoW". Maybe another game you might be interested in is having a golden age right now, better buy into the hype. You can't argue against preservation like this because it's literally impossible to preserve a moment in time except in your memory so you have be at that exact place at that exact time to really experience that thing, that is FOMO at it's purest form. That argument against preservation is an argument in favor of FOMO.

Thors points come for a belief that live service games don't need to be preserved after official support has ended, and he views this initiative through that lens. Of course he will have issues with the initiative because he's opposing the idea at a fundamental level. It's like asking a racist how to be more tolerant with other races, the answer obviously is that you shouldn't want to tolerate other races. And just like you would ignore a racist I think you should ignore what Thor has to say on this matter because anything he says is against the idea of preservation.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago

Yeah. I'd totally buy an $800 million phone.

Realistically you can buy something like a Fairphone that lets you replace most parts that wear out or get damaged, which definitely increases the overall longevity of your phone. Or that CAT phone that's supposed to be super durable if you're prone to breaking your phone. Or if smart phones aren't your deal you can maybe find the old reliable Nokia 3210, that phone does not break and the battery can be replaced.

If you have phone longevity issues then stop buying phones that are not designed to be used for a long time.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 17 points 8 months ago

Had to check if it's not made by Uwe Boll. Guess in a sense he was ahead of his time as Hollywood is now doing his shtick.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 17 points 8 months ago

It's not really that surprising when you know the whole blue and green bubble thing was targeted at teens and young adults, the two groups feeling the most societal pressure to fit in. Turns out when you make people not owning your devices clear outsiders then people not wanting to be outsiders will buy your products.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 17 points 8 months ago

Was he the guy who also kept making all sorts of Nazi references?

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 16 points 8 months ago

There's going to be a third one? I thought the second one added nothing of value, what are they going to with the third one? Discover another ultra rare resource that is going to become the focal point of human exploitation, but this time in a creature that lives underground? And poor Jake needs to relocate his family with the mole men?

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Most current phones use lithium ion batteries that can combust or explode in your pocket if tampered or damaged, but you don't seem to be worried about that. You only seem to be worried about the battery in the article because the only thing you remember about radiation from your high school physics is "radiation bad". Had you paid more attention in school you wouldn't need my smug ass correcting you.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago

It's so weird. The company I was working at earlier this year went bankrupt so I had to find a new job. I did a lot of interviews and ultimately the one that made an offer and I accepted was the one that had one interview. They took a look at my previous experience, did one test exercise to verify my expertise and then made an offer that I accepted. But for that one offwr I had a lot of interviews at other places where it came down to me missing "it" whatever "it" was. It all felt pretty demoralizing and I ended up spending more time maintaining a healthy mindset, to not become like the author, than I did searching for a job.

My favorite hiring was a company that had me do a recruiter interview after a recruiter had already recommended me (why?). Then I got a poorly worded practice exercise that they refused to elaborate. After that I had a team interview and after it a HR interview (yes, in that order). I would've had two more interviews with the head of the dept and one more with some suit. All that for a position that wage-wise was just above entry level and well below my paygrade. I pretty much grilled them on the last meeting for having such a long and stupid hiring process because out of all their hiring processes no other process had wasted my time as much as this.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 17 points 11 months ago

I think the driver of the day shows how much people expect Verstappen to do the impossible. Had it been anyone else winning the race after a 5 second penalty and damaged front wing they'd be without question the driver of the day. But when it's Max it's not even impressive.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago

By not financing Hamas?

Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015.

According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well if you want to get nitpicky there's no "roleplaying" in a Bethesda games because there are no bad outcomes. Minor spoilers about BG3.

For instance in BG3 I went into a camp swords blazing and murdered everything in sight. Turns out I killed a recruitable companion along the way that I never would've found out if I hadn't read about it online. Technically speaking that's an undesirable outcome because I'm going to miss out on some content but at that moment I didn't give a fuck and similarly the game just went along with it. At no point did the game even hint that maybe I shouldn't kill that character, if anything the game told me the objective is to kill that character. Had it been a Bethesda game I 100% would've been prevented from just murdering that companion and the game had given me a chance to recruit them.

Similarly I reloaded one hard fight 4 times to save a character who was relatively important to the story. That bitch just kept on running into AOE effects and getting herself killed. BG3 didn't give a fuck if that character lived or died because the story would've continued without her. We all know how Bethesda handles characters that are important to the story, they literally cannot die.

And finally I'm currently at a point where the game gave me 2 choices, either I send one of my companions into eternal servitude or another character important to the story dies. Maybe there's a third option that lets me save both but I might've missed it. If this was a Bethesda game there wouldn't even be such a situation because it doesn't matter what you choose, either option has a bad outcome.

And those are just examples from my current playthrough. From what I've seen others play you might not even get to those decisions, which means some decisions will lock out other decisions down the line and that's once again something Bethesda does less and less with each game

Baldurs gate 3 gets praise because it's a great game, Starfield gets shit because underneath it's just Skyrim in space. Are we supposed to give praise for a game that follows a decade old design philosophy? If Doom 93 came out today should we lose our collective minds? No, because the industry has moved forward. Our expectations should be higher than Skyrim. There are good things about Starfield. The moment to moment combat seems excellent and Bethesda clearly has improved the visuals compared to FO4 and FO76. But the rest of the game seems it could've just as well been released back in 2011.

And before you think I'm some hyped up tweeb who is now disappointed that Starfield didn't live up to the hype, I haven't been hyped about a Bethesda game since Fallout 3. I'm well aware how easily Bethesda springs up hype and how the final product doesn't really match the hype they promote. I had pretty basic expectations of what Starfield might be and I feel like Starfield was pretty much in the ballpark to the expectations I had: good shooting, lots and lots of loading screens and menus and very little of actual "space". That's to say I didn't have high expectations in the first place.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

GoodEye8

joined 1 year ago