Did anyone else have an issue where the climbing section broke on the Titan? Dude shows up and starts shooting arrows, but neither the controller nor my keyboard could climb in a straight line. I could only go diagonally and only in one direction so I eventually wound up stuck against the edge. I could keep dodging arrows, but it was impossible to actually get up so the game kept focusing the camera saying 'hey, go up here' and I fucking couldn't. That also sadly tells me that this game will continue the seriously annoying trend of spending 5-10 seconds going HEY DO THIS THING.
WeaponBoy's forum posts
Only an economist who studies how people buy, what people buy, and the psychology of buying could tell you if 'sale prices' are BAD. This is a bigger and far more complex subject than what most people think. It might sound horrible, but an indie game developer doesn't know a damn thing about how people think about purchases and how the econimcs of 'what people spend on entertainment products' works.
You can say, "If people buy stuff they never play, that is bad for them and for gaming" until you are blue in the face. Because UNLESS you can
, its just words without any backing.
I dare Jason Rohrer to take teh next six moths off talking to economists and psychologists that rigorously study people's buying habits and PROVE sales prices/sale periods are bad. I bet he can't. I bet nobody studying these subjects would agree with him or could poke holes in his arguments because he just done't understand how/why people buy things.
That's not the argument he's making. He's not saying that all these sales are leading to the moral corruption of ARE CHILDREN. What's he saying is that we're being 'tricked' (in a very loose sense of the word) into buying things we don't want because they're super cheap.
I recently found out that my Steam library is valued at around 5 grand (jesus christ), and I have a folder I called Steam Sale because they were games I bought for a buck or two or five and have never played (once I play them I kick them into a different section based on what the game is). Some of the games in that folder I bought 2+ years ago and I don't know if I'll ever play them. How much money does that actually cost me? Who knows, I'm not going to look it up. If there was a magical 'give me what I paid' button I'd probably use it on 90% of those games.
What Rohrer is saying is that he wants to institute a pricing system that means that people won't buy the game unless they genuinely want to play the game. He's not arguing that it's better for players (or even him financially) to have to spend more on games, but rather that he feels slimy in taking people's money for something they won't actually play just because we're wired to want things cheaper.
This doesn't really matter. Always online only really mattered during the clusterfuck of a launch. The game is still crippled by tiny city size due to a poorly optimized simulation and the agents are still pretty dumb. The only real advantage to this change is a save system.
yeah but...the final boss is a planet
You say that like it's a bad thing.
For what it's worth, I've had DS3 and Awakening sitting in my Origin library for months now so maybe I'll finally play them (along with the ten other games I want to play during my break).
I don't want to wade into this whole thing, but I do want to say that I always found it odd to see Patrick reporting some of those 'equality of outcomes' stories like Liz Deloria(sp?) saying that not having any women presenters at Sony's PS4 announce conference was proof of misogyny. I'm sure Patrick would be upset being told that him, Brad and Vinny are going to be replaced in order to make Giant Bomb 'more fair'. The fact that Giant Bomb is straight white men (and Alexis) is not because Jeff hired people he likes and people he thought were best for the job, it's because Jeff is a misogynist.
Those aren't the same thing and aren't really comparable. People tend to assume that any accusation of misogyny or sexism are accusing a single person of being a Bad Person, but rather that they did something that people found objectionable or, in this case, depressing. The sort of complaint you're referring to is about systemic imbalances that assumes that male is a default position, so it makes perfect sense to have an all-white, all-male series of presenters. A common counter-argument would be why does it matter if they're all white dudes, and it doesn't matter, which is exactly the point; that question cuts both ways. If it doesn't matter then why not have a few women or PoC?
It's the same reason why I'd like more diversity in the characters we play as in games. I like to find books written by different varieties of people because seeing things from different perspectives in both fiction and non-fiction is really neat. At the end of the day, though, I like videogames more than books so it would be great if there were actually interesting characters who weren't just boilerplate white dudes. I'll keep playing games with white dudes in them, certainly, but I can hope for more. I mean, if an all white dude cast made media unpallatable to me would I keep coming to Giant Bomb?
Immediately and callously discrediting everything I wrote. Not a great start.
I'm unwilling to realize that there need to be people who live as themselves whether or not they conform to predefined gender roles? Being one of those people myself, I'd have to disagree.
Friend, I'd love to have a conversation with someone who holds opposing views, but your jumbled vitriolic rant holds no more points I can reasonably respond to. Take a breath, and maybe try communicating instead of accusing and yelling.
Aw, how sweet, my very own tone argument!
You know, I am ashamed. It took me this long to realize you're just another fucking concern troll. Man, I am an idiot.
Something like 'Imagine: Happy Cooking' existing isn't sexist. It's exactly the kind of game that a lot of people seek out, and the majority of those people happen to be young girls who love that kind of game, because they don't have any interest in anything else that they perceive as unrealistic or violent.
The trouble is that many feminists will argue that those girls don't really like those things, and are just conditioned to by the "patriarchy". There's no way to convince a person with that mindset that, yes, you did actually seek out and like those games. Which is kind of offensive to me.
I think the error, which is also made in the Lien article, is that the "pink aisle" is the sole domain for girls, and all of the rest of the toy/video game store is for boys. I'd say the pink aisle is simply a designation of what you'll find there. It's just shorthand that a kid can instantly understand. It's a signpost saying, "Hey, you like toys that are more about social interactions, playing dress up, and daily life stuff? Come over here!". Nothing inherently sexist at all.
Jesus, these 'feminists are the real sexists' posts are the worst fucking thing.
First off, you clearly don't understand what patriarchy means. It's not a council of evil men stroking their long white beards and deciding how they fuck over women. It's just a reference to ingrained societal beliefs about how things are. Second, patriarchy does not solely hurt women, it also imposes stupid and outdated rules on men and we should be fighting against that, too. Even beyond that, thinking about these issues solely along the axis of patriarchal societies is actually limiting, but only because it doesn't touch on issues of intersectionality enough. The reason why it's so pervasive as a concept is for the same reason that the term 'feminism' is still around; because it started with women pushing back against male power structures and the names stuck. You're so fucking obsessed with the notion that we should all just automatically know that things ought to be equal, but guess what, the rest of society is not as enlightened as you.
Case in point, the problem with the 'pink aisle' is not that it exists. I wholeheartedly agree that it and the products you can find in it should exist. People want princesses and stuffed animals and whatever else, the real problem is that we automatically associate the pink aisle with girls and femininity. Guess what, that's patriarchy at work and it's fucking terrible. Boys should totally be able to get stuff from the pink aisle if they want and no one should ever judge them. If you honestly think that's how the world actually works then you're crazy.
The kind of change you're describing absolutely does need to exist, but you seem entirely unwilling to realize that there are two kinds of change that has to happen. There need to be the activists fighting against shitty societal structures like patriarchy, but there also need to be awesome people who are living breathing examples of why those structures are stupid in the first place.
But just by being where she is, she upends assumptions about women all the time. She redraws the map of feminism by fiercely and unapologetically being herself.
I don't know that I trust EA to put out any game in a working state anymore. Does this inspire confidence that they'll give Respawn the necessary time to make sure Titanfall is in good working order?
I don't think they're comparable situations. BF4 was presumably in development while BF3's various expansions were still coming out and BF4 launched about seven months after the last BF3 DLC pack.
On the other hand, Titanfall is a standalone game with 100% of their dev team working on it (with no preceding game splitting resources, I mean) and Titanfall was in pre-production sometime in 2011. So 3ish years of solid dev time from the full team (and no record of broken-on-release games) vs. 2ish years with a broken up dev team.
I'm not saying it's not reason to worry, because EA's gonna EA, but I'm not too incredibly worried. Most of EA's more catastrophic fuckups (SimCity, BF4) came from EA's internal studios rather than their third-party partners who usually release stable products (Syndicate, Crysis, etc.).