For the setting point, I agree three is more classic post-nuclear-apocalypse, but also that’s a big negative. Fallout isn’t just post-nuclear-apocalypse, it’s post-post-apocalyptic. The radiation should be a lot less prevelant and there should be societies rebuilt.

Three feels like it should be set very soon after the nukes fell. A lot of the narrative and environment don’t make sense with the timeline they wrote. There’s speculation this is because it was originally supposed to be set much earlier, but they pushed the date back late in development to make the story BoS VS Enclave, which wouldn’t fit earlier.

I don’t think it’s better than NV as a whole, but there are things it does do better. Probably the biggest is the random events. They have a lot more variety and interaction then NV. You might end up with a BoS Remnant group spawn and a Deathclaw, and they’ll just start fighting. NV doesn’t really have this. It’s much more contained and scripted.

In this way, 3 is closer to 1 and 2 than NV is. A large part of the first two games are the random events as you travel the world. NV is almost entirely predictable, with the same things always being at the same spots. 1,2, and 3 are fairly unpredictable while exploring. Landmarks will be the same, but what you see along the way usually won’t be.

Ah, cool. I was not aware. I haven’t played much of it, but it seems like the perfect mobile game.

There are tons of modern indie games that would work great on a phone. Modern does not mean performance hog necessarily. Silksong would be great. I bet a lot of people would love Stardew Valley on mobile. Hades II would probably be good. There are tons that would be amazing.

I did play EU5 (and 4 ages ago) and didn’t notice the issue. I guess I just don’t pay attention to it.

I don’t know any that take a long time to unpack from developers. They do have to pre-compile shaders, but that’s different. Maybe I just don’t pay enough attention, or maybe it’s just because I don’t play many big budget games.

The thing about compression is you have to process it to decompress it. It may be benificial to people with limited bandwidth, or for peer-to-peer sharing, but it’s probably better for most users for someone like Valve to share the uncompressed version. Bandwidth isn’t the issue it used to be.

It also makes progressive updates harder. The best you can do is compress each update individually, not the whole package.

Anti-cheat is not heading toward more support without the intervention described in the article.

I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but one more time: The vast majority of games work on Linux just fine! That number is only increasing.

Whatever that results in. Valve is talking about potentially a SteamOS-specific fix

Source? You say I need to provide sources. Where’s yours for this. This isn’t how Linux works. You can add and remove kernal modules at run time on Linux. This will not be OS specific, and it also won’t realistically address any actual issues that may exist and aren’t already solved.

It’s not most games, nor is it most publishers, but between those games and publishers, it represents most players, most dollars spent, and most time spent playing video games (at least non-mobile, anyway). It is an enormous hump to get over if you want to make a gaming device appealing to more customers.

It is not, on PC at least. The most played PC game is CS, and second is Minecraft, according to this. I’m not saying it’s nothing, but also it’s far from everything. The vast majority of hours played by people are on games that work on Linux.

Sure it does. As an example, let’s say there are X players for a game in a month, and 3-7% of those are on Linux. If, as Facepunch says, more than half of that 3-7% are cheaters, then including them is doing more harm than good to your cheating problem.

This number is bullshit probably. If their AC can detect cheaters then they wouldn’t have this issue in the first place. You’re trying to tell me you believe they can accurately count cheaters but are also incapable of stopping them? Yeah…

Their story doesn’t make sense. The one thing they always say is how few users are on Linux. If that’s true then most of the hackers can’t be. It doesn’t make sense. It does nothing to actually solve the issue. An actual fix wouldn’t matter what OS someone is on.

If you use Linux, and game on it, then why are you saying things are going the way of not supporting it. Clearly you must see what way the wind is blowing. Damn near everything works fine. It’s only EA, Riot, Chinese games, and a tiny number of other games. Everything else usually just works.

It’s going to prevent a more potent vector, which is exactly what they said.

It prevents exactly zero vectors on Windows, which is where the problem is.

Your explanation is bordering on conspiracy theory, so yes.

So the only thing that’s allowed to be speculated is that the companies are perfectly honest and never lie? Yeah, maybe you’re not that reasonable.

Rust cited why they cut support, as did Apex Legends, as did GTA Online.

They didn’t “cite” anything. They gave a reason, sure. It’s not honest though. If less than 5% of players were on Linux, how many hackers do you think they stopped? They didn’t cite any statistics or anything, and I’d wager that they increased the number of hackers as a percentage. All the script kiddies are on Windows, not Linux. Sure, they can’t control Linux as much, but it’s also not a significant source of their hacking issues.

The rest often don’t even bother with supporting it in the first place because of how it always plays out.

The rest support Linux. You’re obviously a Windows user. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Damn near every game works flawlessly on Linux.

The existence of hackers at all doesn’t mean that Linux anti-cheat is equally effective, and you’d know that if you read the write up from the Rust team.

That is not what I claimed. I claimed their team hasn’t done shit to prevent hackers. The insane number of hackers in that game proves that most of them are on Windows. If they can’t stop the hacking on Windows then what the hell is blocking Linux going to do? No, they saw it was a small portion of users and decide to just block it to make a show. It didn’t solve anything so why did they do it? How is it that this game, with such a large hacker issue, has the problems but not the thousands of games that support Linux? It’s because Linux isn’t the issue. Teams that can’t actually build real anti-cheat solutions are.

I have to cite sources but you don’t? One example is Rust, a notoriously hacker filled game.

Of course they’re trying to make money. I literally explained that. The executives see Linux as not providing value, and it’s extra effort to support it. They’d rather instead use it as a symbol of how they’re actually trying really hard to fight hackers, but it’s a lie. It’s just a convenient excuse.

You haven’t heard an executive say almost anything. They run companies. They don’t publish their every decision. They are the ones making the calls. They’re the ones responsible. They’re also largely technologically innept. They probably don’t even know what Linux is. They just know what they’ve been told.

You’re only going to be surprised when this continues to happen even though the answer is right there.

There are like two major companies doing this. There’s EA and Riot. There’s a tiny minority of minor players, like Rust. There’s also a lot of Chinese companies doing it. (China is infamous for having hackers, so yeah, didn’t solve that problem did it?)

I can’t tell you the last time I booted up a western game and it didn’t work on Linux. (I think it was Squad44, which then added support, and support in the main Squad game has been in for a long time.) Everyone is moving toward supporting it, not away. The only places it’s an issue are large slow companies where the executives have too much control.

The reason they do it usually is because some executives hear the Linux is less secure and that it’s only a small segment of users. It isn’t because it’s effective. The games that blocked Linux are almost all some of the games with the worst hackers. Guess what happened when they blocked Linux? Nothing. The number of hackers that were on Linux were near zero.

The issue is they cant be bothered to put the actual money/work to create a solution that’s effective. Instead they signal to their audience that they’re doing something by removing Linux, which doesn’t cost them anything and makes a show that they’re actually trying. It doesn’t fix the problems, but they get to make a show out of it.

I would doubt it. I don’t even know if that’s a reasonable thing to do on Linux. I don’t see how it could work. Presumably they’re trying to work on something like they did for Easy Anti Cheat. That has a kernel module on Windows, but it doesn’t on Linux. I would assume they’re trying to work with EA, Riot, and maybe some Chinese companies to have their AC option work with Linux.

In case this is serious, kernel-level AC has been shown to not be particularly effective. There were people with hacks for BF6 before it released, for example. Them blocking an operating system doesn’t prevent cheaters. It only prevents consumers from having options.

I never pause cuscenes, not because I don’t want to ever but because I’m always afraid I’ll skip it instead.

That’s true. They’re related genres, but fundamentally different. Still, all the architecture is already set up. If they can hire some of the C:S devs (they’re in the same country) then they could transition well. I don’t exactly expect them to, especially since C:S2 isn’t doing great even with the people who seemingly understood it, but it’s possible.

C:S2 (not to be confused with CS2) is not “mid development” in the usual sense either. It’s well post-launch. It is still being updated though, with new features added. The modern thing of launching games before they’re done has messed up how we speak about games.

But yeah, you’re right.

I’ve heard alright things about Surviving the Aftermath. Still, I agree. It looks bleak. It’s not dead, but this does seem to be it being put on life support.

IIRC, the Deck, at launch, had a limit per Steam account, and it had certain requirements. There’s no reason they couldn’t do something like that here. Sure, it makes it harder to convert console players if they do the same technique, but it could be restricted sales based on something.

Console manufacturers haven’t sold at a loss in a long time.

I agree, it won’t be huge gains directly for them, but even moving people off of Windows benefits them by removing control a competitor (Microsoft) has. I somewhat agree that it won’t be sold at (much of) a loss, but maybe at cost. I’m sure they expect manufacturing prices to go down over time, and engineering was a one-time investment, so sold just below cost doesn’t seem unreasonable to me at launch, which then becomes at cost or above in the future.

This all depends on if their goals for it are short-term or long. Historically, they seem to target long-term. That’s why I think it’ll be as low as they can make it, which they also said they’re doing by only having 8GB VRAM as cost savings. They want to drop the price as low as they can to compete. They won’t compete at $1k. I doubt they’d compete at $600-700. I suspect they’re targeting $400-500, which seems like a reasonable cost for the hardware too.

It’s not particularly great hardware. It’s fine, but not great. The most obvious thing is 8GB VRAM, which is bare minimum for modern gaming really. Add in that they’re buying in bulk, that price seems reasonable.

I had a brilliant moment where I thought: “You mean Outer Worlds? They said the name in their comment.” I totally forgot Starfield existed for a bit.

I started TTRPGs with Pathfinder (1e). Some people talk about it like some impossible thing to play. It does have a lot more detail than 5e, but it isn’t that bad. (I did play one character as a wrestler, who did grappling a lot, which is notoriously one of the most complex systems.)

5e sells itself as being simple, and it is in how little control it gives you. However, the rules are anything but simple. There’s so many contradictions and stipulations every player has to memorize. It’s a mess. For example, some spells can be used as bonus actions, but not if you’ve already cast a spell, except for some that can anyway. It’s stupid.

Pathfinder 2e seems to make things so much simpler for everything, while still giving players freedom. Actions are just actions. If you’ve got the points you can use them for anything. Movement, attacks, spells, etc. Pretty much everything just is what it says.

Yeah, I enjoyed a bit of 2016, but got bored a didn’t finish it. I think Doom Eternal I had from Steam Family Sharing (or other source I didn’t pay for) and just couldn’t get into it. I hate both of them forcing the melee kill thing that takes you out of the action to watch a cutscene, but Eternal just didn’t feel like it worked for some reason.

Anno is more city builder with some RTS elements. Definitely not Grand Strategy —arguably RTS.

I wouldn’t say they’re “incompatible” but they aren’t synonyms. I haven’t seen a grand strategy that is also an RTS, but I could see them co-existing potentially. Total War is close with its battles, except I think creating units and buildings is a requirement for the RTS genre.

Grand Strategy is generally: you control a nation and operate on a map of the world (sometimes limited to a region). You’re continuously progressing your nation, constructing permanent buildings, unlocking permanent technologies, and improving your economy.

Examples: Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Total War.

RTS is: you control an army and win a battle on a relatively small map, where individual people are a relevant scale. You build units during the battle, but very few to no resources come into the battle from anything before, and very little to nothing changes after the battle.

Examples: Command and Conquer, Dune II, Starcraft.

You aren’t someone when playing a video game besides yourself. A third person view doesn’t suddenly make people unable to feel as if they’re playing as that character any more than a first person view does. For example, people can have a similar feeling even from books, with no agency.

You’re making a weird argument based on some purity metric. Either way, you’re playing a video game and controlling a character in the game. Neither view let’s you be that character. Both let you be immersed and inhabit their role in the world.

I was largely being sarcastic. Yeah, Outer Wilds might be the only game that pretty much does it’s own thing I’ve played in many years.

I’ve been playing The Finals a lot for quite a while now. I would say it’s incredibly innovative and unique. However, it’s still a first person shooter based on capturing an objective point. At its core, it’s derivative. The way everything fits together is unlike anything else though. Just listing features that are shared by other games does not mean it isn’t doing something different.

For the PvE aspect, the third person is great. The AI are an actual threat, and having the camera to look around corners or see around the player really helps.

For PvP I think it’s a negative. It promotes safe play and gives an unfair advantage to certain situations.

Overall, I think it’s a wash. Personally, I’d slightly prefer first person, but they’ve made third feel very good. I think you need to try it before making a judgement, and try it with an open mind without an opinion already formed. I thought I’d be more annoyed with it than I am.

Solo? Try talking to people. I’ve found that almost everyone in solo matches are likely to be friendly if you talk. (There’s also a communication wheel if you don’t want to or can’t use a mic.)

Groups tend to fight 95% of the time though. At extract it’s often OK, but before then not really.

Regardless, it sounds like you just might not be used to the genre. You can rat, and play really safe, avoiding high loot areas where players are likely to be. Alternatively, just pay attention. There’s almost always signs players are around. If you see ARC with yellow or red lights, there are players there. If you see open containers or doors, or destroyed ARC then players have been there. You can also hear footsteps and looting pretty well. Just pay attention and you usually won’t be jumped.

I don’t feel like campers are an issue in the game though. I haven’t experienced it. There are people who will spot you with the third person camera who it may feel like are camping, but they’re almost always just being observant while looting and spotted you first. It’s not like they’re waiting at extract for you. I haven’t seen that once yet and I’ve played a lot of matches.

You might be interested in Zero Sievert. If you already own (or obtain) Escape from Tarkov there’s an amazing Single Player Tarkov mod that is legitimately probably the best way to play the game.

Every game is bland. Nothing is ever wholey unique. It takes elements from other things.

Whats the last “non-bland” game you’ve played?

I don’t think there’s anything about the genre that requires multiplayer. My favorite way to play Escape from Tarkov is the Single Player Tarkov mod, for example. It’s the same game, but without wipes or other players (I play it for no wipes).

Yep. I played solo for the first few hours before friends picked it up. I had a 100% extraction rate over like 10 runs because it seems like 100% of people are not there to fight. They’re just trying to loot and get out. It isn’t worth the risk of dying, especially near the end of a run when you can’t carry anything else anyway.

Playing as a group, it’s probably a 95% chance people won’t talk and just fight. Everyone is in a Discord chat and not using in-game voice and are just anti-social. Occasionally you can extract with other people, but during the raid I don’t think I’ve ever had people be friendly. We even had a team down to one person before and told them they could leave and they still decided to try to kill our three man.

It is a shooter where you extract, but it isn’t an extraction shooter. It’s the same genre as Left 4 Dead.

Someone said not Hunt. I disagree. I would say it is.

There is Zero Sievert, which is single player, Gray Zone Warfare, Arena Breakout Infinite (it’s an Asian game with Kernel level AC, so I can’t play it on Linux), Escape from Duckov recently, The Cycle (which I think is dead), and I’m certain I’m missing some.

It’s not a huge genre, but there’s still quite a few.

EU5 is grand strategy, not RTS. Just a small correction. RTS is like Starcraft — ~30m matches and then everything goes away. Grand Strategy is ~100+h of constant progress where nothing resets. They’re both strategy games, but they couldn’t be more different.

I’ll agree with the other comment; ARC does not shove then in your face. The only time you see that stuff can be purchased is when you go to the customization menu. That’s it. You also get some of the premium currency for free.

I’m pretty confident theyll handle it well because in The Finals I’ve been playing for about ~2 years and have purchased most of the battle passes and some outfit stuff, all with putting no money into the game. This is a $40 game. I suspect it will be handled well.

You can purchase extra stuff, but you can’t say it’s shoved in your face. It definitely is not. It’s just a way to get extra money from whales. I think it’s probably not smart for a game to ship without some MTX at this point. You can make the game cheaper for most people by having the whales fund it. It’s practical.

ARC has the exact same system by the way. It’s the battle pass thing where you choose the things you want each tier, and that includes the credits (Raider Tokens I think is what they’re called here). You can also buy them. They’re used to unlock other battle passes (no others available at the moment besides the one free one) and also cosmetics.

It’s bland? You can not like it if you want. That’s fine (if you’ve played it). Don’t make shit up though. In the realm of modern shooters, it definitely isn’t bland. It’s pretty unique. It’s got a style you don’t see anywhere else (though still based in realism), and the gameplay isn’t like many other games.

The enemies in particular are incredible though. That’s where it stands out. They’re actually physically based, and if you shoot out a leg or motor then they adjust to compensate. They used some machine learning to have them run in simulations where they learned how to move with different pieces missing. It’s really special how they feel.

With how bad it is at writing it, I’m guessing similarly bad. It’ll do something, but odds are it introduces a ton of errors that you then have to track down. That’s the best case. Worst case, it just creates something totally different that looks similar to the input but doesn’t do the same thing.