Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)G
Posts
0
Comments
509
Joined
9 mo. ago

  • You are failing to see that people with some sort of disability are already against impossible odds, not only in the game but in life. They already know that feeling you talk about, why not let them partake in this piece of art? It will still be a challenge.

    That is just opening up a whole other can of worms. Would you argue sim racing games should cater to people with disabilities? Should puzzle games cater to people who don't have the capacity to solve puzzles?

    If your worry is that normies would exploit this and not “earn” their victory, it also does not affect your experience of the game at all. Just like nobody is going to force you to do a SL1 run - that’s a choice-, why not have that the other way arround? :)

    I love how you instantly assume the kind of person I am. Yeah, it would be my choice to do a SL1 run, the game isn't designed around doing SL1 runs. The game is designed around evoking a specific emotion that requires people to be challenged enough to feel like they're overcoming a challenge. How do you feel like you've overcome a challenge when you just turn off the challenge when it gets too tough?

  • And not everything is for everyone. Do you think (former) drug addicts would be comfortable watching Requiem for a dream? Would you argue the movie needs a cut that is suitable for addicts?

  • The art of gaming is in its storytelling, not it’s arbitrary mechanics that gate access to that story experience

    What kind of storytelling? Because if we're talking about just the story it might as well be a movie or a book. It needs to have interactivity and that interactivity needs to support the story. So if the story is about hardship how can the player feel that when nothing is hard? To come back to the ARC example. How would it make sense that ARC have pushed humans underground when you as the player don't fear ARC?

  • Thank you for completely missing my point with this pedantic response.

  • I disagree with the idea that every game should have a difficulty option. If the difficulty is there just for the sake of challenge, then difficulty options should be there because in that case it's not all that different than setting self-imposed rules for additional difficulty. But when difficulty serves a bigger purpose I can absolutely understand keeping a standardized experience.

    For example in ARC raiders the ARC are so dangerous that they've pushed people underground and going topside is this risky endeavor. But if the ARC were pushovers you get this narrative dissonance where the enemy is supposed to be so dangerous that humans can't thrive but when you fight them they die instantly so why can't humans thrive? ARC also pose as a balancing act to the game because if the ARC weren't dangerous the game would just be PVP with looting. You have to take ARC seriously even if you know how to deal with them because of how easily the script can be flipped on you. ARC raiders obviously doesn't really have difficulty options because of its multiplayer nature but it does show that difficulty can have a narrative impact and difficulty can impact how you approach the game. If the game was easier it would arguably end up as a worse experience.

    And difficulty can also be used to make you feel a certain way. This is why I've argued against Dark Souls needing difficulty options (and to be clear, I'm talking about ONLY Dark Souls 1). There's a reason some people call Dark Souls a cathartic experience, because that's what the game is going for. Lordran is a world in despair. The end of an era is coming and the world has been plunged into decay. The denizens of Lordran have fallen into despair, given up and hollowed. And Dark Souls wants you to feel that. Dark Souls wants you to feel the despair and find the will to continue despite that despair, lest you become one of the hollowed people of Lordran. The game is challenging specifically to make you feel like you're being treated unfairly, like you're against impossible odds, like you're supposed to fail, like there's no point playing and just give up and never play again. Because when you eventually overcome that unfair and impossible scenario you've failed a dozen times all the emotional tension gets released and you achieve catharsis. If you don't feel the failure you can't feel the catharsis thus by making the game easier the game loses a part of what it is.

    Dark Souls is not just a game, Dark Souls is a piece of art. We give other art the respect to be their own thing. People accept Kafka novels are hard to read. People accept The Downward Spiral is hard to listen. People accept Requiem for a dream is hard to watch. But when Dark Souls is hard to play we complain? I say let art be art. If we want to treat games as art then every game can't have difficulty options. Some games can, will and do use difficulty in a way that elevates their artistic vision. In my eyes denying games the tool of difficulty is to deny that games can be art.

  • I don't think Tencent cares that much about Chinese nationalism to push for a China themed AC. It seems to me like Tencent just likes to stick their hand in every pot and make money. At least that's what I think, I don't know what they're doing behind the scenes.

  • It's just good old brainwashing. They believe that voting for democrats will ruin their life so they vote for republicans and if republicans ruin their life then it's bad luck.

  • Yeah. It technically very impressive and and can have very impressive results if used properly. But all of the excellent uses and technical marvels get vastly overshadowed non-technical management going "what if you could have a chat with your toaster as it toasts your bread? Genius." The people at the top have no fucking idea what they have and thus they have no idea how to use it which is why they throw everything at it to see what sticks.

  • I do like the combat and atmosphere but that's about all the videos showed and I can't be impressed by that. Only combat and atmosphere is not a reason to play a game. There needs to be a purpose and I didn't see that.

    For example in Vintage story survival is the purpose to play the game. You need to go out and find food or you're going to starve. You need to build farms because the vicinity of your base will eventually run out of easy to access food sources and you'll starve. You need to build storage pots because your food can spoil and go to waste. You need to build a cellar because you need to store food for the winter. In Vintage story you go exploring because you have a reason to explore. There is always something to do and getting to the point where you actually have nothing to improve is like hundreds of hours away.

    That is what was kinda missing from Minecraft. Once you're past surviving the reasons to explore drastically drop off. And based on this video it seems like Hytale will run into the same issue as Minecraft. You end up with a nice looking world and interesting combat but with very little reason to go explore or fight.

  • I low key believe MAGA is more concerned with Trump allegedly sucking cock than him allegedly fucking kids. MAGA can excuse fucking children but they draw the line at being a cocksucker.

  • I can ignore the RNG fest that is drawing the rooms but for the love of god there so many interactions that have no business being as long as they are (for example anything related to computer terminals). If the game can clearly be better than it currently is then in my books it cannot be a GOTY nomination. In case of Blue Prince the game could absolutely waste less of the players time. It's the reason I gave up on it because there's no reason to play if I feel like the time I spend playing is just wasted time.

  • I'm pretty sure that is up to AMD and not Valve.

  • Hopefully Stop Killing Games can achieve that goal because big bosses don't see the benefits.

  • I would be surprised if the average person knew how to install an OS. The OS generally comes with the PC so the average user never need to install an OS. I imagine the average user doesn't even have a USB stick to turn into bootable media and that's just the first step. You have to know how to turn it into bootable media (the easiest way expects you to already have Windows) and then if the BIOS doesn't automatically boot into it you have to know how to go into the BIOS to change the order and then you have to get through the installation. No average user is going to get through all that. Anyone doing that is already capable of installing Linux themselves and they're probably more willing to give Linux a try because they can always install Windows if they don't like it.

  • Had to look up the tweet specifically for this. So here it is

    It's not actually bug reports and it wasn't the majority. It was automated crash reports where over 20% came from Linux which at that point amounted to less than 0.1% of the sales and most of them were driver related issues. That issue is hopefully solved as driver support has gotten better over the years, but it had nothing to do with Linux users reporting more often or being more thorough in their bug reporting.

  • I won't be getting one (because I don't need one right now) but I'm hyped for 2 reasons.

    First is getting a company to come out with an official Linux gaming OS. Not because I want some kind of a corporate OS-s but because bigger game developers have a reason to target Linux as they will see there's not only a market but a supported market.

    And the second is standardized hardware for a Linux platform. It will make game development easier because you can target specific hardware and (together with the previous point) specific OS to make games for Linux. I can't find the link anymore but a developer once said that the majority of their bug reports came from Linux while Linux was also the smallest platform they supported and most of the probably comes from the fact that you can have so many combinations of hardware and software that offering Linux support costs more than offering Windows support. If that can be reduced to specific hardware and specific OS that would give more of an incentive for developers to try out supporting Linux (even if it's only SteamOS on a Steam Machine).

    I don't care what Steam Machines and SteamOS can do when they release, I care what they can do 5-10 years down the line. It's all about getting the ball rolling and once it's rolling it'll get to the destination, making gaming on Linux as good as it is on Windows, on its own. I know, I know, gaming on Linux is already pretty good. But gaming on Linux is still dependent on Windows and if MS wants they can screw proton over (for example making UWP mandatory) so getting native games on Linux should still be a goal. And there's also the lack of official support from other companies in the gaming space. The most obvious is most popular online games not working on Linux due to anti-cheat but there's also the fact that some more niche peripherals are hard to use due to no official drivers. It took some tinkering to get my Thrustmaster steering wheel to run, which instantly is a no-go for the average gamer. We're like 90% of the way there to make Linux a great platform for gaming but that last 10% is going to require collective effort to achieve and that's really difficult to achieve.

  • Or be surprised if it stuck around for the next 5 years. PS5 is already on the chopping block due to poor raytracing performance. The only thing keeping it around is most likely because Nvidia (and now also AMD) is too busy with AI to push graphics hardware.

  • Because it clearly it is a choice you've made. I'm level 26 and I can guarantee that the vast majority of my encounters with other players doesn't start with them shooting me and most of them end with neither of us shooting. The ARC community (not EVERY arc player since apparently that needs to be explicitly spelt out for you) acknowledges that solos are less sweating (Apparently need to spell this out as well. Not agreeing to be friends but agreeing that you're less likely to get shot).

    Most players do not get the kind of experience you're talking about, which means whatever it is you're doing in game is making you have the experience you're complaining about. And considering how you've presented yourself so far I'm not surprised you get shot.