BaconGames's forum posts

#1 Posted by BaconGames (3423 posts) -
#2 Edited by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

I thought were going to talk about PowerPoints. I don't know why.

#3 Edited by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

@bisonhero said:

I'm guessing the business reality was that the revenue DF-9 was bringing in over the past year or whatever wasn't justifying the development costs, especially when it's one of those everything-and-the-kitchen-sink projects that you could potentially just keep on bolting stuff onto and developing forever.

Anyway, I think this further shows that Early Access is just bound to harbour mistrust among gamers, because some projects just need to be cutoff. Often that's done behind closed doors by publishers who are used to cutting off development and either canning it or pushing out a half finished game. But when you directly involve gamers, they get emotionally attached to a game, and the project gets shuttered, it's going to affect a lot of people. I continue to think Early Access is basically a terrible idea.

I don't think emotional investment explains it as much as a combination of investment and mismanaged expectations. Someone can be emotionally invested, and by extension disappointed, but they can do so empathetic to the devs or knowing what can happen in development in general. Like Kickstarter and really any game, shit could have all totally exploded and resources ran out and the game has to come out one way or another if not to eat a proper cancellation. No one, especially at DF's size and smaller, is immune to that. But back to the previous point, clearly for many games and for many players, the dynamic of Early Access works. It's been pretty demonstrated though, whether upon release or during development, that not everyone can handle the realities of game development and how games look before release regardless of how good the team is or their reputation. As I see it we're still in the early stages where people make the leap into early access without really knowing if its for them. We're starting to get there with expectations and Kickstarters, only starting to, and that's definitely ahead of where we're at with Early Access.

It's certainly a unique category of how this all came to be but otherwise the "outrage" seems pretty typical of people who are mad about their video games. At least there are so many examples of people being pissed that a game is "incomplete" regardless of how crazy they are going back decades.

#4 Edited by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

Hey game is gotta come out some time. I think this is reading a bit too much into stuff that happens all the time in development. Would it be awesome if they got everything that they wanted? Totally but at some point you have to make the painful slice and I its only "disappointing" in this way because players have access to it in a way it would be obscured otherwise. Now if you come to the game, play it, and find it lacking so be it but you could put "what could have been" at the feet of any game.

#5 Edited by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

Fuckin' finally. Giant Bomb spam that cuts to the heart of what I need.

#6 Posted by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

That trailer got me so fucking hype for this thing, I don't care that I can't play it.

#7 Posted by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

@krataur said:

@bacongames: Also the Irish flag.

You're totally right but not in a way that would seem obvious today. As I had found out earlier, the saltire of St. Patrick accounts for the red portion which overlays the white bands of the Scottish flag but that flag has semi-obscure uses today and definitely hasn't been used officially since the establishment of the modern Irish Republican flag in 1916. That is unless we include Northern Ireland in the mix which one could argue "represents" their membership in the UK.

In a way that's probably the best argument for keeping the Union Jack the same. Hell if the saltire of St. Patrick is still on that thing, and the Welsh flag never was, then it doesn't really mean much if Scotland not part of the United Kingdom anymore. Personally though I think it would be kinda cool to consider a flag that reflects what's left of the UK and finally throw Wales up in the mix.

#8 Edited by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

I NEVER REALIZED THE UNION JACK IS THE SCOTTISH AND ENGLISH FLAGS STUCK ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.

Seriously, a lifetime of looking at all three flags and never putting that together. Man. On that note though I find the discussion over alternatives to the Union Jack and the complicated legality associated with it fascinating.

#9 Posted by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

This is the best necro I've ever seen on Giant Bomb.

#10 Posted by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

@rowr said:

@bacongames said:
@rowr said:

As an Australian who has spent much time in the USA, i can indeed confirm the majority of Americans I have met drink like girls.

By Americans standards of judging social alcohol intake, 80 percent of us are alcoholics.

You know, I'm just gonna come out and say that saying "drink like a girl" is bullshit. Outside of the average biological difference between men and women's muscle mass absorption and body size, associating high alcohol consumption with gender, or some value ascription to do with masculinity, is purely cultural, particularly the latter bit. Now, some quick glances at alcohol data by nation and gender data bears out that men tend to drink more than women on average and that Australia drinks more alcohol per capita than the United States (although it's far from the most; according to the WHO Eastern European countries drink everyone else under the table). However, differences in rates are likely a product of some interrelation between the biological, social, and cultural over time. Admittedly that's a safe assumption to make about most things but given how much a role alcohol plays in cultures around the world, it's certainly apt.

Unless you were meaning to reference actual data, and you'd be excused of it at a little bit by including the caveat that it's people you met, then really what's being described is stratifying value judgements on both nationality and gender in particular.

This is some high energy trolling right here.

So you admit that whatever research data that you have looked confirms my experience anyway. and then tell me my experience is bullshit?

Read what i wrote jackass. "i can indeed confirm the majority of Americans I have met drink like girls."

The majority of Americans I HAVE MET drink like girls. Feel free to argue against my personal observations of my experiences, I made no great sweeping statements of arrogance here.

In my country the recommended amount of safe drinks to fall under the limit is lower for females, also in my country we aren't so fucking run down culturally that we can still say things like "drink like a girl" and not have the fucking sky fall down with assholes getting offended over it. So yeh maybe it is all purely cultural, is that a problem? Should my opinions and observations not be a reflection of where i am from?

At no point did I ever say it was a fucking contest anyway or that drinking less on average was an insult, I guess by interpreting it that way you make an assumption that females are somehow inferior for generally consuming less alcohol. Nice one.

Take your fucking politically correct, finger on the red button of "i'm offended", graph reading argument and choke on it. I'm here providing an opinion based off my experience, not running for fucking presidency.

The only bit of judgement of my own that I put into it is saying that I thought the hanging statement was bullshit and I suppose choosing to engage with the post in the first place. In retrospect I'd be curious to see what would have been the reaction if I excluded the first sentence in my first post.

Moving beyond my own initial judgement for a moment however, it's actually entirely "valid" for you to feel the way you do because that's social reality. My intention was to point out that your impression of "Americans drinking like girls" is not only a generalization from social experience, which people do all the time every day, but that it's one that stratifies others based on individual social experience. However even that is something people do all the time every day and I think my initial post neglected to include one key bit of difference, which I blame myself for not including more explicitly, is that such stratifying is to do with social characteristics which are difficult and tend not to change for many people. It's not always an ascribed status (versus one that is achieved socially in life) but it functionally often is. It's only with that last bit that things can get controversial because it's not much of a stretch to say that a lot of people, although far from all, find import in being critical of statements which stratify people based on their gender, race, country of origin etc.

I suppose it's now worth saying that I think the statement bullshit precisely because you just threw it out there, it had all these loaded assumptions, and I knew it likely just reflected a casual generalization about ascribed status more than an argument from data. Now, I get that it's a small comment and clearly from your reaction there wasn't much stake in the comment compared to what I saw in it and I apologize if I implied that your experience was itself bullshit. And for what it's worth this isn't a scathing indictment of you and isn't meant to be. This is how I feel when I come across statements both in thinking it's bullshit, which is wholly my own view, and knowing that there can be a lot going on in a statement like that.

Lastly I'll say that I get that being called on something so small can be annoying but it wasn't necessary to throw in the angry insults.