- 0 Posts
- 1.83K Comments
Okay, then use a different archive link. My point is, its not a monumentally impossible task to read at least to the 3rd sentence of the article, even if you don’t want to follow the direct link to avoid giving ad revenue to The Verge.
Someone said that it wasnt out of laziness that someone wouldn’t have read the article, and my point is that it is out of laziness. It wasn’t even at the end of the article.
They just dropped an update today with a new map, new raid tool, and new cosmetics for a few characters.
This whole thing with this game seems to be a case of people trying to force the game to die for some reason. I don’t think it’s the best game ever and still needs some work, but it’s better than Concord.
There comes a point where it is too real, and when the loading screen comes up and you see yourself in the reflection of the screen, that’s going to create a really negative experience for a lot of people, not just gamers.
Which is why everyone should just play on anti-glare screens! They aren’t reflective enough for that to happen!
Games were more than $60 in the 90s.
But video games were limited by physical copies back then. Supply was limited, and it cost the publisher multiple dollars, sometimes in the double digits, to manufacture the physical goods to sell. But with that you got a usually complete mostly bug-free game (as in, if there were bugs they usually were not commonly found in normal gameplay), as patches werent really a thing and making physical revisions was expensive. You also got the entire game that you paid for, all the content in the game was available to you from your one purchase. You can lend it to a friend if you want, too.
Nowadays we get sold half of a game that barely works for $70, so you can get the other half by buying the next 14 $20 battlepasses and playing only that one game for the next 5 years to finally get all the content of the game. You also cant let your friend borrow the game.
I don’t need to pay for a dev team that is overbloated with too many people, a marketing team that thinks every ad needs to have a Beatles song, and an executive that just demands more profit. Dev teams need to get smaller, marketing budgets need to shrink, and executives need to be less greedy. They already make record profits, they do not need more.
Just to really put it into perspective: if a Nintendo64 sold for $55, the developer would usually see a profit of about $6 or $7. Compare that to the immense profit that happens now. Its not even close.
The subgrenre of art that this one artist used has existed before that artist even used it.
No artist “owns” an art style. Imagine if Rembrant claimed to own chiaroscuro. His estate would still be claiming monopoly over the art style, effectively handicapping the progress of art as a whole. Nobody could create art with heavy contrast between light and dark anymore because “thats Rembrant’s style only and nobody else can use it.” As someone with artistic ability, “owning” an art style is the most ricidulous idea in art I have ever heard of.
Same guy:
What we are going to be doing is focusing on a few features and polishing those to the highest possible level we can. And the first feature I spoke about was: How come the screen’s gone black?
~ Peter Molyneux, Fable 2 E3 live presentation, 2007
The only way to protect children on the internet is to not allow children on the internet. There is no other way to solve this problem. Parents these days treat the internet like a daycare and when a child is allowed unmonitored access to the internet, bad things are likely to happen. I don’t want government regulation and business to take over the duties that a parent has in raising their children. It is the parents responsibility, not the business’ and not the government’s.
You might convince a few parents to not allow their kids to play Roblox (or any omline game, actually) with an M rating, but most parents just don’t care. Look how many parents buy their children video games like Grand Theft Auto or Dead By Daylight, games that are rated M, without the parents ever even considering the rating or the content of the game not being suitable for children? This has been happening ever since video games began, either due to ignorance or negligence. Changing the rating wouldn’t be nearly as big as the media presence the game has already had due to literal accusation/lawsuits about child abuse. If that media coverage isn’t enough to make any meaningful change to the number of children on the platform then I have no idea what you think will.
An M rating isn’t going to change any visibility on any platform either, unless that platform has data that confirms the age of the user that created the account. Which is horrendously bad. Unless every online game with user generated content or online messaging is instantly rated AO, which is a ridiculously unrealistic ask, store visibility isn’t going to change.
No, software platforms should not be held accountable for the content their users generate. If this was the case, internet service providers could be prosecuted just because nefarious actors used it to plan or commit crime. And then of course entire platforms like Discord, Whatsapp, Reddit, Lemmy, Skype, Facebook, Email providers, etc. would also be included in that. A ridiculous conga line of scapegoats where all of the fault should be on the user that generated the nefarious content. Platforms should certainly do what they can to mitigate criminal activity, of course, but they are not to blame when someone misuses an aspect of their software that isn’t there specifically for nefarious purposes. This is like saying you are party/accessory to a crime just because criminals committing a crime stepped onto your property while they were running away from the scene/police.
Well, the problem is that if its rating changes, the game will be rated based on online content that is not actually part of the content of the game. AFAIK, it would be the first instance ever of this happening. Like if Animal Crossing became rated M because of user generated content like shirt patterns showing something inappropriate.
Its not really the game’s “fault” that user generated content is causing a problem, so changing the rating of the game wouldn’t really change anything.
Plus, who even follows ratings anymore? We used to in the 90s, but children have been playing M rated games for a long time. I don’t see how this is going to do literally anything. Unless you are going to demand age verification to get the game, which I think is a horrendous trade off. Change the rating of a game which is known to have a problem with grooming in DMs in exchange for being forced to present identification to buy or play video games?
To be fair, the character designers for Highguard cooked way harder than the character designers for Concord.
Highguard’s roster has good color separation, decent color palette, and strong silhouette design, making the character designs more appealing.
Concord had issue with each of these. Poor color palette, sometimes non-existent color separation, and silhouettes that were decent on some characters but too similar between other chracters. Concord’s character designers also mistook being able to use texture variation in place of color separation, and that only really works very close up, as far away the texture goes away and its just a fast blob of the same colored pixels. Unfortunately, Concord’s characters were very unappealing, and they required entire redesigns to correct them. Essentially, it was too much work to try to recover, and would have made more sense to completely start over.
Highguard is a lot better off then Concord, even if it needs more work to improve. And I doubt we will ever see as monumental a disaster as Concord ever again.
Probably a result of living in a highly judgmental global society that would rather form an immediate opinion, even if it is objectively wrong, than spend the time to actually investigate what the facts about something are.
As an example, some people say that any person named in my comment should immediately be jailed. I feel this is a wrong opinion, because any person can be named in a conversation that they aren’t party to. I could, for example, start talking about Mr. Rogers, and he is technically named in my comment. But some people say that the name just being in my comment is enough “evidence” to jail him forever. Rather than spending the time it would take to realize I was only saying “I liked Mr. Rogers’ show on TV,” they want an immediate resolution despite however wrong or inaccurate it would be.
Investigation and research matters, and we live in a global society that villifies this ideology in favor of forming immediate and often wrong opinions about things they spend almost no time actually investigating.
I mean, I remember a time where you were expected to not be able to win a game in a single sitting, and in fact, you might not get all the information about a game in the actual game. We had to read manuals for tutorials, maps, and story exposition. Try releasing a game nowadays that does that and you’re going to get slapped with a 1/10 because people nowadays have less patience than a goldfish.
Personally, I primarily blame legacy news outlets and social media for this. But I digress.
I love both (personally like Quake 2 better) and consider Quake 2 to be “Quake 1 again.”
Though the visual tone of the game changed, it was still a fast paced action shooter with an identity that was different enough from Doom to be called “just Doom again.” Many improvements were made, but at its core it still felt like Quake. It didn’t feel like I was suddenly playing Mario, or even another shooter at the time like Turok, Heretic/Hexen, or GoldenEye.
I guess I am trying to say I understand what the headline is trying to say, but it doesn’t really do that good of a job.
IMO, a good sequel doesnt have to change too much to be good, and is usually close enough to be called “more of the same.”.
A good sequel is good because of its similarities to the first. Otherwise you end up with Zelda 2, which is widely regarded as the worst of the Zelda games because it changed so much (outside of a small but very vocal minority that liked it). Many movie sequels also try to change too much and end up suffering because of it. Return to Oz was an interesting movie, but I wouldn’t ever call it as good as the original. Aliens and Terminator 2 are both similar enough to their respective originals while still having minor tweaks that led to a good follow up.
So in the sense of a sequel, Overwatch 2 isn’t the worst, but I think it changed too much from the original and suffers because of it. And Blizzards decision to overwrite the original obviously plays a big part in many people’s dislike of the game.
The combat doesn’t suck. Morrowinds combat is good, you just don’t understand how it works when you are new to the game.
The weapon swing animation tells the game to roll Attack dice, just like in a Table Talk RPG like Dungeons and Dragons. Then, if your Attack Roll (with modifiers like current fatigue, weapon skill, etc) beats the enemy’s Armor Class (with modifiers like their current fatigue and enchantments, etc), its a hit. Otherwise, its a miss.
The one thing Morrowind could have done better with combat is communicating the feedback to the player better. Because the game can get the result of the roll immediately, it can then change what animation plays back to the player, so rather than always playing back the same weapon swing animation regardless of result, it should instead choose different animations based on the result. Missed? Play an animatiom that looks like the player missed. Hit? Play an animation that looks like a hit. Hit but damage was blocked? You get the idea.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the game displayed a UI dice result to better communicate this, who knows. I like the game better without floating damage numbers, but they could be helpful to reduce frustration of new players that don’t understand how the game works.
Maps, a useable notepad, control scheme reminder image if buttons don’t match onscreen prompts, game specific companion apps, etc.