Jump to content

Fez

Members
  • Posts

    18,237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fez

  1. 2 hours ago, Raja said:

    76 was rightfully panned by a lot of critics given the dubious market practices by Bethesda and also the terrible state the game was released in; approaching the next release with skepticism makes perfect sense to me and there's no 'bias' in that.

    Though I guess I understand Bethesda staff being miffed about Skill Up coming out with that review - but I think the proof is really in Bethesda's response to Eurogame - as soon as Eurogamer made it public that

    1. They did not receive review codes

    2.  That is unprecedented for Eurogamer and hasn't happened to them in a long time and how that's bad for transparency & reviewing of games

    Once that article was made public, Bethesda released a review code in 2 hours for Eurogamer, which tells me it's just not great behaviour from bethesda and once the optics didn't look great they decided to release the code to them immediately

    ( It's also not just these two, there are quite a few other outlets that haven't received codes)

    Fallout 76 is hot garbage, especially in it's release state. But "skepticism" is not the same "actively hostile" when thinking about a potential future game.

  2. 15 minutes ago, Raja said:

    It's not just Eurogamer, but other UK/ EU outlets too.

    Re: Skill Up - you're going to have to find the exact quote for me because I haven't read/ seen that. Skill Up's 76 reviews were good in that they correctly criticized several of Bethesda's marketing practices & the mess that that game was. I don't think there was anything 'biased' in those reviews at least. Those reviews were exactly what critics should be doing.

    I'm not sure about the specific quote you're talking about there, but happy to read it if you can provide it.

    starts at just after the 23:52 mark.

    The exact line is:

    "I've gone from being giddy with excitement for Elder Scrolls 6 to being actively hostile."

    Any reviewer saying they have predetermined thoughts about a future game should be rightfully blacklisted.

  3. 12 hours ago, Raja said:

    Bethesda not giving review codes to some big EU/ UK outlets such as Eurogamer is a bit meh. Same with Skill Up

    The Eurogamer one is definitely suspect. Seems like Bethesda didn't give review codes to any reviewer owned by ReedPop, which is a division/subsidiary of RELX; a large UK conglomerate. Which feels like the result of some sort of weird corporate bad blood between them and Microsoft itself. But Eurogamer is big enough in the gaming space that as soon as they publicly complained someone high enough up at Bethesda/Xbox made sure to get them a code quickly.

    The Skill Up one makes sense though. After Fallout 76 released, he said he was going to be "hostile" to the next Bethesda release. If a reviewer has publicly said they'll be biased against you it makes sense to blacklist them from review codes.

  4. 5 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

    You mean cake right? 

    Nah, he mean Coca-Cola.

    It's not actually as exciting as it sounds though. I had hoped it was basically a Chinese soup dumpling filled with Coke and deep fried, but it's not. Basically you just mix coca-cola into your batter instead of milk, make donut balls, and deep fry them. In some recipes, you reduce the coke down to it's syrup and use it as the butter instead. And either way, after the deep frying is done you top the donut balls with coke syrup.

  5. It's for precisely conversations like this that the term 'lean' was invented. MN isn't a swing state in that it doesn't regularly vote for one party and then the other. But any state that gets even with 5% in a presidential election, much less 2%, certainly isn't a safe state either. Minnesota leans Democratic for sure, and Democrats have an extremely high floor that makes it very hard for Republicans to get to a win. But it's not a sure thing like Hawaii or Vermont.

    Also, Amy Klobuchar regularly demolishes her senate races; but other Democrats aren't so dominant. Mondale straight up lost in 2002 (though that was a weird circumstance; Franken won by only a few hundred votes in 2008; Franken did have a good re-election in 2014 and Smith had a good special election in 2018; but then Smith only won by 5% in 2020- again, not safe.

     

  6. 3 hours ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

    I'm suffering from my usual restartitis. That usually happens when I'm still discovering new mechanics in a game.

    Nothing new I never reached the endgame in Pillars of Eternity despite playing the game for more than a hundred hours and my Baldur's Gate 1+2 replays usually end before Throne of Bhaal.

    I have been thinking about a future evil playthrough. I guess the standard approach is to play The Dark Urge when you play evil.  I find the idea of playing as an evil Karlach amusing though that will probably lock me out of romances.

    The dark urge can be played as either evil (giving in to the urge) or good (resisting the urge). And I think both are way more interesting than a baseline custom character. There are two evil things that you have no choice about in the game (and one you actually can avoid if you have 'speak with animals' up), but besides them you can resist the urge the entire time. And since you aren't in control of yourself for those two evil things, and have dialog options to express deep remorse over them, arguably you are still 'good' despite doing them.

    I like the idea I saw of manually rolling a d20 when dark urge options come up, with a DC of whatever you feel is appropriate, to decide if you resist or give in. That basically lets you play a third way, of being a dark urge who doesn't want to give in but doesn't have enough self-control to always resist.

  7. 46 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

    It does sound incredible tedious but I found the idea behind it really amusing.

    I googled it because I just found that weapon for the first time(restarted for the 3rd time...).

    It also sounds like an unintended interaction that'll probably eventually get nerfed. It reminds me of a similar tedious interaction in Wrath of the Righteous. Pathfinder 1e has the spell 'cave fangs' which lasts 10 minutes/level; and as a free action (which you have an unliminted number of per turn) you can burn 10 minutes of it to do 3d8 damage (or half of that on a saving throw). So it's a decently powerful spell, which if you cast at level 20 could do 60d8 damage. Which seems high, but is kinda nothing compared to what level 20 casters can do in that system. Anyway, in Wrath you could get get a mythic feat that lets spells that last over 5 minutes actually last 24 hours instead. Which was intended mostly as a QoL feature to cut down on how often you needed to cast buff spells. But it also applied to cave fangs since it was a spell with a duration of over 5 minutes. You could get the spell by level 5 and have the feat by level 9. Meaning at level 9 you could do 432d8 damage. As soon Owlcat had dealt with the game breaking bugs they nerfed the feat to not apply to cave fangs.

     

    Anyway, back to BG3, I'm noticing a lot of new gameplay bugs since patch 1. Stuff poison clouds no longer being visible but still causing damage, more dialog lines where the audio bugs out and it's silent, etc. All rather frustrating really. 

  8. 15 hours ago, Maithanet said:

    2012 and 2020 were pretty similar in terms of the popular vote (d+4).  Texas went from r+16 in 2012 to r+5.5 in that time.  At that rate of change, it would be basically tied in 2024.  Now, I'm well aware that will be a hard lift, those final five points will be very hard.  But if we're talking about a great night for Dems, it is definitely possible.

    That's true, but at the same time Democratic vote shore in the Rio Grande valley (and I suspect other Hispanic areas in the state too, but I don't know the numbers for sure) has been in decline. A Republican winning TX-15 in 2022 should be a massive alarm bell about trends in the state. Demographic change has helped make the state closer, but I don't think it flips until Dallas-Forth Worth is like Atlanta (it's getting closer, but isn't there yet).

     

    48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

    Hence my objection to primaries.  Particularly, the Republican Party Primaries where (in the Presidential context) they are winner take all allowing a plurality candidate (like Trump) to pull away early and where a big field with one slightly more popular candidate favors that slightly more popular candidate and allows that slightly more popular candidate to build a big lead early.  

    At least the Democratic Party has “superdelegates” baked in to the process that creates the potential to disarm a dangerous populist candidate at the convention (I’m still curious to see how that would work and how the voting public would react).  

    I’m suggesting, speculating, that  “open” primaries where everyone in a given State or SMD has the ability to participate in all primaries being run might result in less radical candidates being selected in primaries.  South Carolina does have “open” primaries.  Anyone can vote in either primary, but not in both.  

    The issue around "winner take all" Republican primaries is separate from whether they're open or closed.

    And as for getting less radical candidates, generally speaking the issue isn't the primary structure; it's how radically gerrymandered the districts are. There's a reason why it's GOP Representatives are so much crazier than the GOP Senators, and why GOP state legislators are overall worse than the Governors.

    Granted, all of them are quite bad compared to a baseline. But that's a function of the whole party getting more and more nuts. But changing the primary structures doesn't really help that. Most people vote in the primaries of the party they identify with, even if there's more value voting in the other one. Alabama has open primaries for instance. And theoretically every Democrat should be voting in the Republican primaries for which candidate is least worst, since that's the only opportunity that exists to influence politics in the state. But they don't. Most either don't vote at all, or vote in the Democratic primaries for whoever the sacrificial lambs are for the election.

  9. 18 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

    I agree with most of your post, but I would put Biden's best case (but still realistic) a bit higher than that.  Texas is definitely flippable if we're talking about a great night for Dems.  It is moving left pretty fast, and if (as some of election twitter insists is the case) Latino voters generally prefer incumbents over challengers, that could make a huge difference.  If Biden does 5% better with Latinos than 2020, he's basically won Texas. 

    To me, flipping Texas in 2028 is a great night. Flipping it in 2024 seems unrealistically optimistic. Especially since Democratic performance among Latinos is generally getting worse, not better. Growth in the Latino population is still helpful, since it is more Democratic than not. But the state flips when the suburbs get blue enough, and they aren't there yet.

    If we're looking for any states to flip blue beyond North Carolina (which remains the most likely despite it continually not happening except in 2008), I think it's a small, idiosyncratic state that is already open to electing Democrats statewide. Like Kansas or Alaska, pulling off a 2008 Indiana kind of thing.

  10. 1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

    Something I have been wondering about for a few weeks now...

    The Buildup -

    1 - Republican candidates...underperformed...during the midterms. We came within a hair's breadth of a couple of surprise upsets - like a certain congressperson from Colorado. 

    2 - Since the midterms, republican behavior has not improved. Indeed, it has arguably gotten worse, alienating more of the populace. Case in point, republicans lost a ballot measure lately. Every time abortion comes up for a 'peoples vote,' they lose - but republican politicians seem incapable of learning from this.

    3 - A number of republican redistricting schemes have been ruled against or face severe legal challenges. If these changes actually get implemented, then republicans are in a bad spot.

    4 - Been seeing more and more references in various political articles about severe campaign money issues in multiple states. Seems the usual big pocket donors are unhappy with the radical fruit-loop candidates or are otherwise less than thrilled.

    The Possibility -

    Taken together, the above points seem to offer the possibility of a democratic party blowout in the 2024 elections. Not just a simple D majority, but the coveted 60 vote majority in the senate and whatever it takes in the house. I don't see this as likely, but it *might* be possible.

    And the Question -

    Assume the political stars align, Biden wins, and the democratic party gets the 60 vote senate majority and whatever is required in the house. Now, granted, there WILL be the 'Manchin' faction to deal with, but allowing for that, what is realistically possible here? Some version of Medicaid For All? An abortion rights law? Build Back Better mark 2?

    There's not going to be that kind of senate majority, no matter what. In the wildest fantasies of Democratic strategists, they end up with 53-47 senate majority. And that only happens if they defend every incumbent who's up successfully, and somehow flip Texas and Florida. To get to 60, they'd have to win 7 out of Utah, Nebraska (2 races), Wyoming, Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi. It's just not happening. Not a chance

    The politically stars aligning for 2024, means Biden winning the electoral college 318-220, a continued 51-49 senate majority, and re-taking the House with probably a 230ish to 205ish majority. And also flipping the Arizona state legislature while successfully defending all the legislatures they currently hold. And, maybe filpping Wisconsin's legislature if the gerrymander lawsuit is successful and there's new maps in place.

    That's an extraordinarily good night. And all it does is ensure another 4 years of status quo instead of things going to utter shit. Also, it ensures the federal judiciary continues to slowly get unfucked a little more; and maybe we get really lucky and Thomas dies so the supreme court gets a little better too.

  11. 42 minutes ago, Werthead said:

    This patch addresses the logic flow of the ending better, apparently, so some of the Kotor 2-esque "WTF is going on now?" logic breaks in the ending should be fixed.

    But only some. It sounds like there's still a certain trigger that incorrectly blocks your final scene with whoever your love interest is.

  12. 15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

    ok so it's mostly just fixes and balance changes. That's fair. Any idea when they might do a patch with new features (hint hint changing my characters visuals after I've created them)

    IIRC, they are planning to get Patch 2 out before the PS5 launch on Sept 6. Although so far the only thing they've said is that it'll have performance fixes. TBH, I wouldn't expect much else considering the short time frame left. Though maybe there's a few other, bigger things that just weren't ready in time for Patch 1.

    There's been no announcement yet of what the roadmap post PS5 launch looks like. Personally, I wouldn't expect much in the way of new features until a definitive edition (which hasn't been announced, but seems likely based on their past 2 games), probably about a year from now. That's probably when any changes to the structure of Act 3 would be implemented as well.

    It seems like this patch does address my biggest concerns, about logic flows of key conversations. So I will continue playing. Although I think I'll start over to ensure a cleaner playthrough.

  13. 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

    I'm not convinced he'll show up to the general debates either. There's zero upside for him debating at all given how clueless he sounds most of the time these days and how he's walking punching bag. 

    The upside is that he (and importantly, many of his advisors) think that Biden can barely string a sentence together and that the debates will be a knock out to clinch victory. 

  14. 30 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

    My take is that conservative innate racial hatred and loathing of women disqualifies at least three of the candidates at the debate.

    The other thing I am wondering more and more about is this:

    'Will Trump participate in *ANY* debates?'

    Yes, Trump is loud and bellicose, but he seems even more unfocused than before, continually going off on tangents and rants. Then there is the way he walked out of at least two interviews not that long ago because he couldn't handle even softball questions. True, this incoherence and hostility wouldn't phase most Trump voters - but he can't afford to lose any.

    Not in the primary, unless it someone does become 1-on-1 and is losing.

    But I think he'll absolutely debate Biden in the general. He, along with most Republicans, have bought their own bullshit that Biden is totally senile and he thinks he'd destroy him in a debate. Despite that also being what he/they thought in 2020 and proven wrong.

  15. 8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

    I don't think Scott has much of a chance. Maybe I'm too biased because I've been saying this for years, but Haley is the biggest threat if she can clear out the field and make it a head to head challenge. She was the most dynamic person on the stage last night. 

    That said, Idk how anyone could vote for any of these clowns. Murika is the land of stupidity though so nothing should shock us at this point. 

    Scott is enough of an empty vessel that lots of different GOPers can project whatever they want on him; it's why he has the highest favorables of any of them (including Trump) among primary voters. But so far, he hasn't translated that into a ton of support; partially because one of the bigger natural support groups for him, evangelicals, are being split with Pence (and Trump of course).

    I think Haley would be their strongest general election candidate, but I don't think she'd do great even 1-on-1 with Trump. Being both a woman and POC I think is too big a hurdle for those voters.

  16. 7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

    Not if there are still this many contenders. If it got down to one or two things could get interesting, but as of now this is going to be 2016 2.0.

    Even two is probably too much. But in a one-on-one race, I could see a couple of the candidates being able to beat Trump; Tim Scott still being the strongest of them I think. But it won't be a one-on-one race until far too late. Too many of them are running for reasons other than trying to actually win, and so have no incentive to drop out.

  17. 17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

    If it was inexplicably dumb of Prigozhin, do you suppose he faked his death? Was it confirmed that he was on the plane?

    He does have a second plane that was in the air at the same time. I suppose it is possible that he was on that plane. But it seems pretty likely he's dead.

    What an unbelievably stupid man. He inexplicably folded during his one shot at victory and then seemed to think he'd actually be safe to just roam Russia?!

  18. After looking at a few more trailers, I'm thinking maybe Armored Core VI actually isn't a game for me. That kind of impersonal (I haven't seen a single human character model or artwork) mission-structure game gets boring for me way too quickly; like the Ace Combat games.

    But I do want something new to play while waiting for Starfield and patches for BG3. Maybe this would be a good time to get Shadow Gambit actually, or one of the other small games I mentioned before.

  19. 11 minutes ago, karaddin said:

    I think anyone that's thinking about stopping until it's in a more complete state is unlikely to regret that decision. I've enjoyed it a lot, but I've definitely got mixed feelings now. I continue to be struck by the comparison to Cyberpunk - there was a complete lack of extending any benefit of the doubt there where Larian are getting a lot here, but there's enough that it the narrative of this release was negative it would be getting dragged to shit. I'm glad it's not, those narratives are dumb, I just wish others got more of this as well.

    I liked Cyberpunk, though I understand many of the complaints. I think the difference is that Act 1 of BG3 is so good, and is exactly what the complaints want the whole game to be, that there's a lot more good will towards Larian than CDPR. Also, because Act 3 has the biggest issues, and the game is so, I think a lot of players just haven't experienced the issues yet. I wouldn't be surprised if there starts being a growing backlash over the next couple weeks though (unless Patch 1 is very big indeed).

  20. 1 minute ago, IlyaP said:

    Is it cut material whose cutting impacts the logic of anything in that act? Like, is it like, non-necessary content? Or....

    Act 3 design and gameflow, but not story, spoilers

    Spoiler

    Originally, Act 3 was supposed to have two massive areas: the lower city and the upper city. However, the upper city was cut from the game sometime in the final two weeks before release. So instead, Act 3 is the lower city and heading to the upper city just triggers the final boss fight.

    The most important locations that were supposed to be in the upper city seem to have been shoe-horned into the lower city instead (via loading screens, like the goblin's shattered sanctum in Act 1 being a loading screen away from the main map). Which sounds like it sorta works, but it means the pacing of quests can be pretty off-balance.

    Also, only the most important upper city stuff made the transition in what I assume was an incredibly hectic time at the studio. Everything else is just absent from the game. For instance, one companion literally can't get the good ending to their personal questline and the endings you can get are supposed to be the different fail-states for ignoring the quest. This is because their quest relied on talking to someone from the upper city.

    And, the endings themselves seem to have been screwed up by the quick transition to this new design flow. There are 56 minutes total of narrated ending slides in the game files (someone uploaded them to youtube) describing the impact of the various major decisions you make. However, none of them actually play right now. Instead you get a quick ending and then cut to credits.

     

  21. 40 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

    Like, it seems to be mostly fine, aside from these weird, bizarro-land bugs that come out of nowhere, like I've had in Act 2, and like the egregious stuff that Forbes has reported on in Act 3. But apparently not everyone is experiencing them, which is equal parts fascinating and strange. 

    It's a mix. There's some bugs that are very random, especially the more technical ones (I had a conversation last night where the NPC's head rotated around like Linda Blair's). But there are also bugs that everyone is experiencing, it's just that some people don't realize that it's a bug (like with a certain companion being too quiet).

    And there's the cut content. Some of it seems like normal cuts that happen during game development due to changes in design decisions. But the Act 3 stuff that was cut literally less than 2 weeks before release (and was being actively promoted at a PR event at that 2 week mark) feels like it was absolutely meant to be in the game but was so broken that it had be excised to ensure that there was a shippable product. To me, it feels like a reasonable assumption that such content will eventually be put back into the game once it's working correctly. Probably not in the first patch, but at some point. And it sounds like, if/when it is, Act 3 in general would flow a lot better.

  22. 2 hours ago, Relic said:

    Any news on patches?

    IIRC, there's been one patch mentioned so far. Patch 1 will have "thousands" of bugfixes according to Larian. They haven't given a time frame, but the rumor is that it'll be in advance of/at the same time as the PS5 release.

    The one major bug that Larian has confirmed will be addressed is that the companion you get by going evil in Act 1 is supposed to be a lot more fleshed out then they are right now. Apparently the various dialog triggers aren't working correctly.

    Also, I don't know all the details because I've been trying to avoid spoilers, but it sounds like there's a lot of bugs in Act 3 stemming from the fact that a major area of the game was cut sometime in the final 2 weeks before release (which likely relates to the last minute 'crisis' that the studio head accidentily mentioned in an interview). And quests that relied on going to that area are all screwed up. The hope is that either the area gets restored or that the various quest triggers get fixed (e.g. one companion's good ending is literally impossible to do right now). But there's been no announcement of if/when this will get fixed.

  23. 2 hours ago, Fez said:

    Either the game is getting buggier in Act 2 or Larian didn't expect that some players would ever take certain options.

      Reveal hidden contents

    I got to the Last Light Inn and I didn't like how aggressive Jaheria was upon meeting me, including casting a spell on me. So I went down the dialog tree that ended up with either "Wait, let me explain." or "Attack!" and I thought it was entirely in character to attack. This triggered a huge fight against like 15 Harpers, which I eventually won. Afterwards, there was a lull in the combat because even though the rest of the Inn was auto-hostile it turned out, they were also too far away to start a fight until I wandered closer. In that lull, Karlach had a "!" appear over her. Which I figured would be a scene of her really pissed off at what I just did. Nope. It was a dialog about how cool Jaheria is and how she wondered what bars Jaheria goes to in Baldur's Gate. 

    Which was extremely odd since Jaheria's lifeless body was at our feet. It felt like the dialog that was supposed to trigger after a more peaceful encounter. And then I went back to camp since I had zero resources left, and absolutely no one had anything to say about what happened (though maybe they will if I finish killing off everyone at the Inn?).

    So either there's some bugs or Larian just assumed no one would ever actually attack in this situation.

    The whole thing felt really disheartening. And I'm thinking I'll probably reload from before that moment and act more the way the game expects.

    Okay the game is definitely showing its cracks now. I reloaded and...

    Spoiler

    I had a friendly conversation with Jaheria. But in it I passed a rather difficult CHA check to hide the artifact's existence from her. Then in my very next conversation with her she's talking all about the artifact and how I should use it to help the Harper.

    I think maybe I'm going to put the game down until it gets a few more patches. Maybe come back to it after Armored Core 6 and Starfield.

  24. Either the game is getting buggier in Act 2 or Larian didn't expect that some players would ever take certain options.

    Spoiler

    I got to the Last Light Inn and I didn't like how aggressive Jaheria was upon meeting me, including casting a spell on me. So I went down the dialog tree that ended up with either "Wait, let me explain." or "Attack!" and I thought it was entirely in character to attack. This triggered a huge fight against like 15 Harpers, which I eventually won. Afterwards, there was a lull in the combat because even though the rest of the Inn was auto-hostile it turned out, they were also too far away to start a fight until I wandered closer. In that lull, Karlach had a "!" appear over her. Which I figured would be a scene of her really pissed off at what I just did. Nope. It was a dialog about how cool Jaheria is and how she wondered what bars Jaheria goes to in Baldur's Gate. 

    Which was extremely odd since Jaheria's lifeless body was at our feet. It felt like the dialog that was supposed to trigger after a more peaceful encounter. And then I went back to camp since I had zero resources left, and absolutely no one had anything to say about what happened (though maybe they will if I finish killing off everyone at the Inn?).

    So either there's some bugs or Larian just assumed no one would ever actually attack in this situation.

    The whole thing felt really disheartening. And I'm thinking I'll probably reload from before that moment and act more the way the game expects.

  25. 1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

    Yeah I refuse to multi class because the system seems so gamey and breaks immersion. I was fine in BG2 making a fighter thief but here it’s all one level of this, a level of this and then get a level of that to really min max. There is no fun in that at all for me. 

    Even in WoTR, where multiclassing is a lot more common/necessary I try to only use two classes at most and have them be thematically related. So far I haven't multiclassed at all in BG3 and I haven't felt the need to. I might do it in a second playthrough, sticking with my thematic rule. But I'm hoping they patch in a class progression encyclopedia first. I don't want to have to use any outside tools to figure out what I want to do. 

×
×
  • Create New...