This is kinda cheating because it was done in Photoshop, but I made it during the BLLSL.
BRNK's forum posts
Have the Warriors games changed dramatically recently? I haven't played one in a while, but whichever one it was that I played (it's hard to keep track now) was a matter of running to a place and hammering on the attack button. Occasionally you're at that place to "boost morale" e.i. just kill enough bad dudes, other times you're trying to kill another general... but the net result was the same: Run to place, hammer on attack button. Oh! Occasionally you got to press the special attack button.
Have they changed since then? I read this thread wondering why anyone's surprised by Patrick's skepticism. The series is notorious for it monotony - not just in game, but from title to title - and most of us have played a number of them through the years. When you see a new one with many of the same characters, seemingly doing more of the same, it's not really insane to assume the game will uphold its franchise's storied tradition of making the same damn game over and over.
If you're interested in digital art, awesome! I do a lot of work digitally and love working on the computer. Just know going in that it's a medium with pros and cons like any other. I actually teach art at the collegiate level. Here are some things I've learned over the past 10 years digital painting/year teaching:
Digital is great for its flexibility, speed, and value -the upfront investment in equipment and software might seem big at first, but compared to maintaining a supply of paints, brushes, canvases/panels, mediums, etc it becomes a real value very quickly. No other medium allows you such a fluid workflow. You can flip back and forth between painting opaquely and glazing instantly, which makes getting color harmony and wrangling value a breeze. In addition, blending modes and masks can be extremely powerful, once you're at the level to make sense/use of them. Digital is also the fastest way to make complete pictures, as far as I'm concerned. There's a reason all the artist in the game industry that have insanely short deadlines paint digitally.
Digital is weak in final presentation. While you can get very nice quality prints relatively cheaply these days, there's just nothing like real physical media on a surface. Digital is also a really hard medium to start your art journey with for a number of reasons. First, getting a digital painting to a reasonable level of finish takes longer and is a far more deliberately conscious process than with natural media (For beginners, at least.) Second, color functions differently on a back-lit screen than it does in paint. That means if you want learn to paint traditionally at any point, you'll have to relearn/rethink your color theory and learn to mix paint (On the flip side, although all traditional painting mediums behave differently, the general rules of color theory and mixing apply almost across the board.) Third, there is a lot extraneous stuff happening in Photoshop/Painter/Gimp that really just gets in the way of learning how to make art.
So ultimately, what I'm trying to say is do both! At very least, get a sketchbook and draw in it with pencils and pens. Drawing from life is the best way to get good at drawing fast.
The fact that it doesn't happen more often should show you that just because something is accessible by the public doesn't mean everyone is gonna go grab a gun and shoot someone.
If he didn't have a gun he could of used a knife, or a car, or a plane, homemade explosives, start a gas leak, start a fire, there are a million ways to cause destruction. Countries without guns have crime just the same and the serious criminals of the world have access to what they want, restricting it from the general populace does not make the world any safer. We have restrictions people aren't running around with fully automatic assualt rifles, they have registered owners and most gun crimes are carried out using stolen\unregistered guns. It isn't some Law of West show here everyday at noon, millions of people own guns and have the ability to go do this everyday and yet it only happens when some madman finally snaps, doesn't mean everyone should have to turn in their arms which are used for Sport, Hunting, and personal protection every day.
This may be true of gun crime in general (although I'm not sure, I haven't seen the data on it,) but it's objectively false of mass shootings:
That being said, I think gun rights is an ancillary issue here. I agree with those above that have said that the most important element of this is addressing toxic views of women that are sadly very popular.
If money is no issue to players who are deep in it as many of you keep saying, then what harm is there in alleviating some serious frustration to sub 20 players? The fact that you keep saying money is no issue for you invalidates your point that penalties are necessary.
I'm not sure why I continue in this discussion. I've outlined what I believe are some serious mechanical issues. You guys disagree fundamentally (mostly with strawmen, might I add.) I think I'm in this for a different type of experience than some of you.
Also it still astounds me that people dont get that public lobbies are essentially PvP servers. If you dont want to engage in player battles then dont join a server where that is part of the experience. I for one think it actually benefits the experience.
Did you read any of my blog? TLDR: I want to engage players and the death penalty discourages that.
I know my original post is pretty scathing, but I'd like to make one thing clear: I mostly really like GTA Online. I love the world and want to spend time mucking about in it. I'm just baffled as to why they'd choose to make death the money sink that balances the economy, since doing so significantly harms the play experience. Why not simply seperate ammo counts between competive and free roam and make bullets cost much more in free roam? That would further discourage the kind of serial murder griefing that currently plagues servers and transfer the cost of such shenanigans from the victim to the assailant. I mean, this stuff isn't rocket science.
It leaves only one explanation. Rockstar, as @oldirtybearon said, intended it to be this way. In which case, great! They can be the guys who made an incredibly lively, fun playground and then intentionally hobbled it in the name of some perverse concept of putting in work and I'll be the guy calling them idiots for doing so. The idea is to have fun playing games, right? Fun's the goal?