ahifi

1. The Empire Strikes Back

2. Return of the Jedi

3. Rogue One

4. A New Hope

5. Revenge of the Sith

6. The Force Awakens

7. The Phantom Menace

8. Attack of the Clones

9. The Last Jedi

@sammo21: 10 months late to this, I know... But the reason you saw more ads during that RAW piece of TV is because the show you were likely watching was made for a Network in USA, so the production is tailored around that. This means that other networks from around the world who distribute such a show have to run ad breaks during these slots too - otherwise you'd just be staring at a blank screen, or a logo, for 5 minutes every 10 minutes. As someone who likes watching the smack be layeth down, I can assure you that the level of advertising during these shows is almost an absolute anomaly compared to the rest of UK television.

Only other times it happens here? MLB, NFL, NASCAR, etc.

UK commercial channels (i.e non-BBC) have way less ad breaks than American TV. However, that has been slowly shifting throughout the years due to the 'less eyeballs on TV' problem. So both are getting worse - but evidently both started at different positions due to cultural and societal reasons.

As such, I don't think UK TV ads today are even anywhere near as prevelant as the American TV ads I saw when I visited there about two decades ago...

(This is pretty darn long, I just typed, and typed, and typed... my apologies!)

Topically relevant to me - I was watching the Monster Hunter World stream last night. At one point, the dinosaur (or monster) was hobbling away to escape the players. It hit me hard. I was left wondering: why on earth are they hunting down this beast? Is it for sport? Some 'greater good' purpose? Or is it a threat to their way of life?

I lost complete interest in the game at that point. After asking on chat, some people stated that it was mostly to do with protecting villages, but that it was also a bit of all three of the aforementioned reasons.

Anyway, here's some incoherent chatter on your question...

I think what bothers me the most about this question is that someone would want to 'hurt' anything else. I think 'hurt' is loaded with intent. Of course, it is used to describe pain - but it's a word that evokes intent: 'Ouch, you hurt me!'

In this case, I think the 'hurt' we are discussing is some form of violence or ill-will distributed with intent.

So why would you commit 'hurt' with intent?

Well, you may be an anti-capitalist who wants to 'hurt' the means by which people accrue, and sit on, capital for what you perceive as selfish means.

But in this instance, we are talking about hurting something that is likely being made in the image, and with the response, of a living thing.

Sure, you could strip this down to the likes of: 'Does it hurt a punching bag if I punch it?'

The 'reality' is that this punching bag isn't sentient and has been crafted with the purpose and durability to be punched; just as pavements are crafted to stand up to the durability of being walked on all day, all year and all decade long.

That perception, and our whole perception of 'life', may change that one day - but that's where we're at now.

Of course, that punching bag may have been sculpted in the form of a human being. But it doesn't react; it doesn't respond to your violence. It shows no fear. It isn't life, nor was it ever alive or dead. It's a thing.

That's how we justify our everyday, let's say, 'abuse' of materials (I write as I sadistically hammer down on the keys of my keyboard).

Science and our survival is our justification for this behaviour.

But if a robot is being crafted in the image of a sentient being, and the robot is attempting to emulate that form, then isn't it 'alive' in some way?

I mean, imagine we had been constructed by a group of robotic overlords at a molecular level. Imagine that they programmed us to behave as they do.

So we aren't the same as the robots, our creators, but we are being sculpted in a way that is true to their image or behaviours.

So if those robots caused us 'harm', would they perceive our guttural screams to be akin to what we perceive as the clicking and whirring of a computer fan when a robot is tasked with a heavy load?

Would we be 'life'? After all, humans wouldn't be the ones defining 'life' in this context.

Now, pavements and punching bags and just about everything made by humans has been developed and constructed to stand up to a particular form of 'abuse'.

But has the robot been crafted for the purpose of taking 'abuse'? Or is it acting as if it were alive in some way?

Not living, as we generally define that, but 'alive'?

Anyway, I'm extrapolating way too much from your base question of: 'Do you think it's wrong to hurt robots?'

My answer back to you would be 'Why would you want to 'hurt' robots? And how would you 'hurt' robots?'

So my answer to such a question will always be yes. This is because I think it is largely wrong to hurt living things with intent - whether emotionally, psychologically or physically. There are, however, circumstances where it may be required to stop harm to you or others.

And there may be circumstances where you have been hurt, and in order to show that you have been hurt, you feel that you must confront others (perhaps those who hurt you) with your pain which may (or may not) hurt them.

That's my justification; that's the way I live.

So until I know more about how these robots of the future (sculpted in our image) come to be, I'm going to apply my 'living things' justification to this situation by default. Robots aren't living, by our general definition, but I theoretically see that an argument could certainly be made for them being 'alive' (operational) and 'dead' (non-operational).

The robot in a room argument is certainly one to think about it.

It reminded me of the story of this cat by the name of 'Granny', who spent nearly 20 years in the basement of a New York apartment.

To me, it's absolutely tragic. But given that cats perceive time differently to us humans, is my heart hurting due to anthropomorphising Granny's plight?

By the way, Granny isn't living in that basement anymore (if you're interested).

A robot in such a situation wouldn't be living as we define it (organic), but is it alive?

Again, it is all contextual and I don't think it can be boiled down to a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. C'est la vie.

We use our own individual interpretations of 'life' and 'alive' as a justification for our daily 'abuses'.

Some eat meat, and fail (or don't care) to see living livestock as, well, 'alive'.

Some don't eat meat for ethical purposes, because these animals are (in their view) life, but drink dairy milk - and do not engage with the hurt, pain and death caused to animals on dairy farms.

And some don't eat meat or dairy products, also for ethical reasons, but don't consider plants to be 'alive' - just living - so have no problem in eating plant-based produce that has resulted in the 'death' of these organisms.

Life, living, alive... it's all a minefield.

But, past the potentially infinite argument on the semantics of this issue, I sincerely hope we stop needlessly harming and killing billions of animals every year - simply because they offer food and produce.

Then there's the 'animal research' issue. We benefit from these advancements, whether we like it or not, and I'm sure someone living with a crippling disability that could benefit from the advancements brought about by animal research may have different (or perhaps more conflicted) views on this subject from me. Of course, advancements in computer modelling could remove this as an issue one day.

Either way, I believe animal rights to be a way more real and pressing issue than the robot rights issue right now. I see its struggle and outcome as the clear precursor for the seemingly inevitable robot rights discussions of the future.

Anyway, I'll bet that if these forums are properly archived, one day this thread is going to be read back by a bunch of robot schoolkids as an example of the views of early 21st century BRR* 'beatnerds', who knowingly inflicted pain and suffering on virtual avatars for decades, and who served as the inspiration for the shameful usage of robots for entertainment purposes by the late 21st century/early 22nd century BRR 'robo-rollickers' - the primary agitators of 'The Great 01010111 01100001 01110010'.

* Before Robot Revolution

Yeah, XCOM 2: War of the Chosen will not get mentioned at all. Which is a damn shame because, wow, that completely transformed my outlook on XCOM 2!

As aforementioned, Gravity Rush 2. I never played it, but it definitely had something to it in that Quick Look - a lotta style. If I remember rightly, Jason was playing it (and liked it) and Jeff was intrigued. I don't think it will be mentioned due to it being a distant January release that had minimal impact.

Rock of Ages 2. Good fun, like its predecessor, but not a lot to it. Art style too similar to the last game to likely be stand-out, although Dan may mention it.

Slime Rancher may go under the radar due to it being early access last year - unless they have a 'C H I L L G A M E' category or a 'Best Out of Early Access' category

Lastly, after just posting about it in the forum, Fortnite may be lost in the shuffle - but I think the Battle Royale mode will, at least, ensure it a mention. I mean they may do a 'Best PUBG Clone' to commemorate PUBG in a way that avoids including it in this year's deliberations?

EDIT: Also, totally forgot that core game Fortnite isn't 'out' but Fortnite: Battle Royale is... So that's a confusing one...

@cikame: Hey! I think the lack of responses is telling about how many people really sunk their teeth into the core game! :)

I'll try and speak from my 2-3 weeks of playing Fortnite after launch. Apart from going back to play the BR mode, I haven't touched the core game since then so my info may be a bit outdated.

I added a TL;DR at the bottom too:

Okay, so here's what I recall in no particular order and without much depth or critique or structure:

I actually really liked it. I'd imagine with a group of people playing it together, it'd be kinda neat. You do missions (with varying objectives - but mostly defensive) away from your base and your loot rewards are dictated by how well you do. If you build the right amount, defend the right amount, kill the right amount and find the right amount on your map, you get better loot at the end of the game.

But you also do missions at your base which you can fully customise to your standards. This is really fun and the building aspect is inuitive and simple. You're not going to be creating masterpieces, but you can make something that looks really good. It's pretty unique.

You do these base missions to unlock more content and field missions. You and your friends can all help each other out at your respective bases - basically trying to protect your facility's core (and, eventually, some other outer facilities). You end up consistently altering and growing your base, which is possible via resources gained in the field/surrounding your base and/or via loot boxes.

Speaking of loot... They were quite generous with all of those initial packs. I bought the standard edition and ended up with more than enough good stuff to never even think about paying for any loot. It never crossed my mind once. It didn't seem in any way egregious. However, worth noting that I've never paid real money for a loot box in any game.

But, then again, I got so many 'free' loot boxes for buying the game. It may be different if you decide to try it once it's F2P. All I can say is that I got more than enough loot to start.

I've only played up to the end of the 1st environment. I believe there are four (I think the higher level one was called 'Twine Peaks'), so I can't speak for whether or not the game gets super hard and whether or not most of that initial loot becomes invalid.

The great thing is that once you unlock a high level weapon/trap blueprint, you can just keep making them (provided you have the resources - which can be found in the field). Weapons do degrade over time, but blueprints mean that you don't have to wait to receive another legendary (or Mythic - can't remember which) weapon from a loot box.

I would note that I may have got lucky with my loot boxes and YMMV. However, you can drop weapons/resources to your friends in-game - so even if a couple of you only get good blueprints, you could work together to share the spoils.

I unlocked a top tier rifle blueprint and it's great - I tried to build multiple back-ups in advance so that if one ran out of durability, another would be in its place.

Pro Tip: If you build your replacements in the field, you will contribute to the team 'Utility' score. There are medals for utility (finding things, chopping things down, fixing defences and building new weapons/traps from blueprints), base building (self-explanatory) and kills (same) within a map. Get them all to Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum and you get increasingly better loot rewards upon completion.

You also unlock 'Defenders' (friendly AI that you place on the map to fight in lieu of missing friends). However, since you'd be playing with friends, that shouldn't be an issue.

And then there are 'Survivors' who are just people masquerading as stat boost cards. They aren't playable or actually rendered in the game engine, just cards with different values that give you a boost if you are able to create a team (i.e. hand) of compatible personalities and abilities (i.e class and type).

Then there is your playable character. You get four main classes (not actual class names but: constructor, assault, assassin/sniper and utility). You unlock different types of these classes via cards - so varying types of assaults, constructors and so on with different abilities and aesthetics. Just like with weapons, survivors, traps and defenders, they come in tiers of rarity.

With all of the aforementioned cards, you are able to level them up. You do this via specific XP that you gain from completing missions or from loot boxes. Cards have levels and star ratings. I can't remember what these both mean, but higher stars + higher level = better stats.

For me, as a hoarder, the amount of stuff that I had was intimidating. It wasn't that I had too little loot - I had TOO MUCH. Inventory management became a problem and I did begin to run out of space - so the larger inventory, offered by the more expensive editions, would have been very useful.

I have been meaning to get back into it, but have just been distracted by other games. I was excited for the game, and the concept, after the announcement trailer (5+ years ago?) and was shocked to find out that it still existed. So that's how I came to buy it. Worth the wait? Not really. Intriguing? Definitely. Offers something new? Yes.

I think it's hard to properly recommend it at this stage knowing that it will be going F2P soon, but no-one can tell you how it will be for someone going the F2P route as everyone playing it right now has bought in and received loot for doing so.

Worth going back and listening to some of the Bombcasts from when the game was first available to buy during, I believe, late summer? I'm sure it was mentioned in the descriptions. Jeff talked about it a fair bit and most of what he said is pretty spot on.

However, Jeff has been aware of, and was playing, this game for years without breaking the NDA - so his experience with, or somewhat muted enthusiasm for, Fortnite is likely based on him having super early access.

TL;DR: I could see this being really fun for you with a group of friends playing together. If you buy in with the Standard Edition, you'll likely end up with too much loot to the point of inventory management woes! Never felt tempted to buy a loot box, nor did I feel that the game was dependent on me doing so. However, my experience is coloured by buying in early, not playing to the higher levels and maybe getting lucky with loot. At this stage, with F2P looming, it might be worth waiting. But I, nor anyone else really, can speak for the F2P experience due to it not existing right now.

Hope some of that helped!

@fatalbanana said:

If it didn't come across in my post that I meant boycotting EA, fair enough, but you could have just asked me rather than assuming my intent?

I mean, for example, I could assume that you wrote 'overblown' because you believed I was being rather pretentious in my use of the word 'boycott'. After all, the dictionary definition of 'overblown' is:

adjective

1. made to seem more impressive or important than is the case; exaggerated or pretentious.

I do not think it would be unreasonable me to think, or feel, that was your intent given the definition of 'overblown'. But that's not true, right? Because then I'd be assuming your intent was to be needlessly passive aggressive in your response to me (without clarifying if that's what you intended), and that wouldn't be a nice assumption to make!

Finally:

As aforementioned, I've only bought two EA games in the past seven years (The Sims 3, as a present for someone else; and Battlefront) so, in my mind, me boycotting this game and boycotting EA is pretty much one for one. Again, if that didn't come across in the initial post, I get that, but I think the above post makes it clear that I've made up my mind on all of this. As long as EA don't do the progression-based micro-transactions, I may still yet buy Battlefront II. If they re-introduce MTs to the game within that context, I'm not going to buy any of their games ever again. Now THAT'S me being overblown!

Anyway, given the EA announcement, and the off-topic exposition, I think this thread has ran its course - thanks for the input all!

@hassun: Sounds about right. What we can likely assume is that they will be re-introducing micro-transactions for customisation. So in that sense, they were never going to switch micro-transactions completely off - nor could they make such a definitive statement. Shame the game didn't ship with them as that uncertainty would be cleared up. However, if they do indeed do as you have suggested, I will never buy a game from EA ever again.

Which, ya know, isn't as dramatic as it sounds - given that I've bought two EA games in the past seven years... But still!

@hassun said:

Oh absolutely, it wouldn't surprise me.

If they had just said that they were taking them out temporarily, I'd be convinced that it was a grimy tactic; but it's the introduction of the idea, on EA's website no less, that progression will not be tied to micro-transactions. I cannot even see EA getting away with that one. It'd be outrageous. Remember that Disney also has a stake in all of this too and you've got to wonder if the LA Times debacle has factored into them putting their foot down with EA.

Again, customisation options have already been confirmed (they have to be approved by Disney, apparently) so I find it more likely that they'll transfer the micro-transaction heat onto even more over-priced cosmetics. Or it could be related to the 'Free' DLC. Perhaps they will tie any new items or heroes to micro-transaction, while keeping the new maps free?

Anyway, this seems like a victory nonetheless. The big, bad wolf of video games has been humbled (or, rather, humiliated into submission) by the sheep.

@hassun said:

Yup, totally right to pull that quote out. But a crucial thing here is that they state: "and all progression will be earned through gameplay."

I don't think they could get away from reneging on a statement like that one, even if they justified it as 'but we meant temporarily', and I presume micro-transactions will be in relation to customisation options. I think my boycott may be over.

Yeah I get that, but the problem for me is that I was quite invested in buying the game for the longest time and then, right at the cusp of doing so, I found out about the P2W aspects of the game. There are not a lot of games that I've been looking forward to in recent years (I don't buy many games at all these days) and I found myself actually wanting this one. It's way easier for me to ignore games I have some interest in that include such tactics. This one stings, hence my conflict.

Thanks! I do think this is a pretty important one. Sure, we've seen shady tactics in the past that may be of a similar nature to this one, but I think the difference this time around is that everyday players have very fluid communities that can easily extend to hundreds of thousands of people - if not millions. It's a far cry from the competitive nature of gaming communities in the past. Everyone is so much more interconnected now (thanks to social media) so it makes these stances undeniably easier to communicate to a mass of similarly-minded people.

The thing that's really interesting about this is that the younger generation of gamers are making a very political statement over this debacle. Perhaps they don't realise how political they are being, but it is nevertheless a critique of corporate behaviour towards a consumer base.

Well, there seem to be many thousands partaking in this boycott of corporate practices that are seemingly intended to allure or cajole the everyday consumer into a single lane where they either choose to commit to the game for 'x' amount of hours, or buy a shortcut. I'm sorry that you cannot see the wider political machinations at work here and I too am disheartened by the historic, and continued, treatment of targeted ethnic groups in Myanmar by the junta, and the continuation of these atrocities under the 'civilian' government. A special shout-out to the complicit behaviour of the Thai government who have been exploiting the natural resources and unwilling diaspora of Myanmar for many, many years. Anyhoo, this is a video game forum, so I'll be turning the topic back to that. Thanks.

Well, I call it a boycott because it's a dictionary definition of what I'm electing to do, along with many others, so I wouldn't describe it as overblown at all. But yeah, I am looking forward to the reaction. EA just switched of all micro-transactions (for now) and said "sorry" for getting the launch wrong. Progression will be through gameplay. Seems like my boycott may be over!

Yup, great point that I hadn't even considered. There has to be a cut-off point where that sale doesn't do anything for them. And, of course, pre-owned is still an option (for now).