The game definitely seems a little thin on content--replaying missions you've beaten on harder difficulties only adds so much, and each mission is only a few minutes long anyways. But I can see what he's trying to do. It's less than twenty bucks, so it's not a full price release, and I kind of like the bite-size feel of the missions. Sometimes I just want to shoot some spaceships and I don't want to have to commit half an hour to a single mission.
That being said, I sincerely hope that there's more to come after the game is out of early access. I'd happily pay for more content, whether that's DLC or a sequel, designed missions or the procedurally generated ones the game was originally built around (it was originally a permadeath roguelike sort of thing with discrete "runs" in it, but he switched over once he realized that wasn't as fun as hand-designed missions. The game has been around a LONG time and been through a LOT of stuff).
If Edwards wants to make the IGDA more forceful in its role as unofficial voice of industry workers, it’s well-past time for proponents of crunch to be denied a place at IGDA events.
Can we have an end to "excluding people" our way to utopia? As if every fault and flaw in our society would go away if we could just exclude the wrong people from the right places. Things will never be right until we can come together, as a people, and agree that half the people are the problem and shouldn't be allowed to come together with the rest of the people. We can all come to a mutual understanding that everyone who is not perfectly mutually understanding will be banished.
Remember Hands Across America? It seems inane now, but you realize that holding it today would also just be culturally impossible. How can you expect to get together with strangers without first vetting them to ensure they don't disagree with you about something?
Well said. You often find today those advocating for diversity or open mindedness to solve a problem will say in the same breath that the people that don't agree with said open mindedness need to be banned from the conversation. That's a very hypocritical line in this editorial. "We need to ban the guys advocating the opposite opinion than us so we can begin to have an open dialogue about the problem." Umm, what?
They're not banning anyone from saying anything. They're simply denying them the ability to use the IGDA, an organization whose primary stated purpose is to be a voice for workers and work-life balance, as a platform to say their piece.
Like, come on. This isn't complicated. No organization has a responsibility to let anyone have a podium and a microphone and an hour long slot at a conference just because they want one.
But intensely focused and driven teams are nearly always the most productive. His attitude is what drove '60s NASA; it's just that 99.99% of people aren't '60s-NASA material.
"Intensely focused and driven teams" can be very productive for short periods of time, and then they start blowing out. It happens, it always happens, it never doesn't happen. People start getting sick. Their spouses start divorcing them. "99.99% of people aren't 60's-NASA material" isn't a compliment: it's a recognition that people have lives that deserve respect.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's ridiculous and exploitative to hold a software engineer for some company up to the magnifying glass of a NASA think tank with lives on the line if they don't problem solve accurately.
Stress literally kills. Look at Japan's suicide from overwork numbers. It's sickening.
If you'd read the rest of my comment, you'd see that I don't hold software engineers to that level. But when you have leaders that do, with teams that can withstand it, you end up with amazing results (e.g., Carmack's network code, St. John's DirectX code, Hamilton's Apollo 11 code).
And this is relevant to the discussion how?
Are you saying that if we start giving a shit about properly compensating people for their time and not demanding the world from them in a day, we'll never have an amazing game again?
@barrettalong: I've been invaded multiple times when I was embered and alone. I've never touched the dried fingers or even know off-hand what they do. Not discounting your experience, but maybe you've just gotten unlucky forty times in a row, during launch week, when ninety eight percent of the ground is covered in summon signs pretty much everywhere.
I think the crashes being tied to 700-series cards, as discussed on this week's Bombcast, might actually be true. I'm running a 960 and haven't had the game crash once! It has hitched however, a little bit here and there, normally only for an instant or two but on two occasions, for over a second! And most of that seems tied more to the game autosaving than rendering graphics, but it might actually be both in different circumstances, depending.
It's a shame, really, but at the same time... Scholar of the First Sin runs like absolute butter on my machine. I'm positive these issues WILL get ironed out in time, and performance will be up to par. But yeah, I'd probably ding a star for it as well, considering the crashes.
People need to take a review for what it is and stop trying to imply that there is some growing "bias" present against AAA games. Yo, maybe the fact that we hold AAA games to higher standards than indie games is, y'know, a good thing? Maybe think about that. Maybe also consider why you care how many stars someone gives a video game.
Olivaw's comments