PXAbstraction's forum posts

#1 Posted by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

@LunarJetman said:


This is certainly an interesting take on the matter I would recommend reading the whole way through. What do you think?

I was actually coming to post the same thing. I think its totally worth taking a look at for anyone who values a different perspective on the issue of women in games.

I would agree. I thought that was a fascinating perspective.

#2 Posted by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

A lot of people have been asking why Sony and Microsoft let this game through certification like this (there are many prior examples you can point to as well, say nearly every major Bethesda release on the 360 and PS3.) I don't work in the industry but I've read a lot on certification and remember hearing a developer on a podcast talking about it (sorry, can't remember, it was some time back.) Basically, certification is not the same as QA (if it was, publishers wouldn't do their own) and it's not to ensure that games perform well or even lack bugs. It's to ensure dumb stuff like the game reminding you to not power off the console while it's saving, or to make sure it properly pauses and pops up the message when a controller is disconnected, or to make sure to ask you where you want to save stuff when you first boot it up. It's also there to ensure the game doesn't break in a way that can damage the platform as a whole like say, erasing the hard drive by accident or frequently hard locking the system and forcing a reboot, which can also cause data corruption. When you had hardware like the Rock Band stuff, that had to be tested too.

Ultimately, whether the game runs properly or not isn't a concern, as long as it actually runs and meets the arbitrary checklist set by the platform holders. If they did have standards of performance or "bug freeness", we wouldn't have seen countless other examples of products coming out on consoles that had no right to ship. Remember how Fallout: New Vegas was basically unplayable for weeks? Whether or not these companies should enforce performance and bug standards is another question. Given how the principal argument for consoles over PC is that they're supposed to be less fuss and complication (something that's complete bollocks in this generation especially), maybe Sony and Microsoft should be pushing harder to make that the reality. Such a thing would require a lot more time and money on their part though so it probably won't happen.

Just thought I'd throw this out there. I also used to be one of those people who went "Where was the certification process?!" when buggy console games came out but after I read up on it more, I realised the process really isn't for that and when it comes to games being buggy or running bad, Sony and Microsoft's standards aren't much higher than Steam's. Much like Valve though, they have the same problem of not providing enough transparency which leaves people guessing and sometimes throwing blame to the wrong places. This is first and foremost on Ubisoft but yeah, I'm beginning to wonder if other parties shouldn't have a bigger stake in the process as well.

#3 Edited by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

While I think this is dumb and think uPlay is a piece of garbage (seriously, go look up what it was like for a large number of Splinter Cell: Blacklist users), this changes very little. When you bought a Ubisoft game on PC, it just downloaded the content and ran uPlay anyway. It had no Steamworks integration and aside from having Steam Overlay (which you can manually add in anyway), you were buying a uPlay title, you just launched it from Steam instead. I don't like this move but it changes basically nothing from what people were already doing.

#4 Edited by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

Pretty much agree with the whole post. I didn't know about the marketing behind this game but I do find it funny that a series which while good, ultimately doesn't have any choices that significantly deviate where the plot goes, paints itself as one where you're significantly changing things with your choices.

I found Alex's choice for the ending interesting. Personally, I killed Kenny and forgave Jane, though I really didn't want to. My problem with Kenny isn't just this season. He's been a selfish, impulsive, bull-headed prat throughout the entire series, even before Katya and Duck were killed. He unilaterally makes decisions for the group, won't listen to reason, makes everyone follow along with him and only feels remorseful when his impulsiveness results in someone's death, whether for the first or tenth time. Yet it doesn't matter how many people he gets killed, he never learns a damn thing. I got so incredibly sick of his bullshit, I felt a twisted sense of relief when I was finally able to remove him from the equation.

I thought what Jane did to make her point was cruel and somewhat sociopathic. Taking the one element of hope an otherwise broken person had and faking its death in order to push him over just to make a point? That's some cold shit. Thing is though, she was right. If it wasn't her who pushed him over, something else would have and where could we have ended up then? I hated what she did and I had the same thoughts Alex did about what kind of person she really was. I ended up forgiving her not because I actually did but because trying to think as I would if I was in that situation, I figured having her and her skills with me gave me a better chance at my own survival than going alone as a young kid who also has a baby to care for. Frankly, I think it's pretty dumb that the game only allows you to either cast her away or forgive her, not go "I'll stick with you for now but we're done when we get out of this." Real world choices aren't that binary.

I think I enjoyed this season more than Alex did but I also agree that season 1 was much better in terms of story cohesion, characters and especially relationships. I'll still play season 3 as soon as I'm able but I hope some lessons are taken from this by Telltale.

Also yes, fuck Arvo.

#5 Posted by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

I'd really love to be able to work for Dave Lang.

#6 Posted by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

I'd rather Amazon end up with Twitch than Google, if for no other reason than to stop the creation of a full-blown monopoly over both streaming and on-demand video but I hope Amazon can do something to fix Twitch. The delay, the lag, the horrible UI, the constant bugs, the useless support for anyone who isn't a big partner (a problem YouTube also has), these are all major problem that other sites like Hitbox have already solved but which Twitch lets slide because they're basically the only game in town if you want any viewers. This has got to change.

#7 Posted by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

I'd say that I would prefer to get a new Space Quest but that's coming...some day from that Kickstarter by the Guys From Andromeda. A new Police Quest would also be cool but I'm not sure how you'd do that today.

#8 Posted by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

I was in the alpha and the NDA prevents me from going into detail but as someone who is still looking forward to the game, I think working on it a while longer is a good idea.

#9 Posted by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

@godmil said:

seriously, how bummed are you that Ben Kuchera posted a similar article yesterday?

I suspect that while Patrick's article discussed why he's not into physical media any more but acknowledged that others might be and that's cool, Kuchera's was probably him just saying he's not into physical media and how wrong and/or stupid a person you are if you still like it. I'm guessing, I never give him clicks any more but if historical trends are accurate, I suspect that's it.

#10 Edited by PXAbstraction (358 posts) -

So that's what Crytek meant when they came out and said they'd secured new capital. "We've got a bit more money but now we're lost the IP we just bought and the development contract." Not good for the long term and basically screws all the Crytek UK staff.