Video Games: Keanu Re3ves Is Breathtaking

[KiDisaster]

1 hour ago, Bittersweet Distractor said:

I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned in the thread already but is anyone else hyped for the vampire:the masquerade sequel game coming next year?.

I’m still undecided about wether to play Jedi Fallen Order or not.

I am keeping my hype on a leash until we can see more of the game. I loved VTMB and have replayed it more than most games, and when I found out we were finally getting a sequel I was extremely excited, but there's every chance this one ends up being a disappointment. I hope it's good though. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Surprise!

 

Mechanics.

I liked this comment: "EA makes a lot of sense. Just like kidnapping, it’s just surprise adoption"

[Sivin]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Personally I take issue with this post, not because of whether or not CDPR is sexist / transphobic / homophobic or whatever. But that you seem to be belittling video games as an art form. Debate about the way people are depicted and represented in art, especially mass market art should not exclude video games merely because they are video games. Just like all art, video games can be, and are, influential on people, and also reflect prevailing attitudes (good and bad). You do a disservice to video games by dismissing debate on a socio-political topic with a response of "it's only a video game."

Tell people they are being pathetic and overly PC (and explain why if you can), but please don't say "it's only a video game."

 

 

3 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Did someone posting on a entire forum dedicated to dissecting in depth a book series really think "it's just a video game" was going to be taken seriously as an argument?

Alright, I had no intention of posting further but I don't want what seems to be a misunderstanding to undermine my point. I'll admit it was a bit of a rant, but boy have I been filled with impotent exasperation for like a week so bear with me.

Video games can absolutely be art. The Witcher 3 is a masterpiece that I personally don't much enjoy, for example. Now whether all games are art, that's a different conversation for the Madden message boards. My intention was never to denigrate games as an art form themselves, which I can only assume was inadvertently suggested by my use of italics and bolding.  I was just trying to stress both words in a visually interesting way. That's my bad if this is what caused confusion.

In more succinct verbiage I would posit that making broad (and ignorant) proclamations against a piece of -unfinished- art and demanding that it conform to your personal interpretations of X subject is antithetical to what art is. I literally cannot understand the idiocy required to do this.

Criticizing art? Sure, call out how fucking gross Birth of a Nation is. Please, do that. I'll help. Don't even get me started on the character assassination perpetrated on Kate Austin and Hugo Rheyas in LOST revolving around their gender and weight, respectively. 

But having to watch people who claim to be my ally use an infrequent representation of people like me as a chance to up their liberal cred over nothing is fucking demeaning.

Maybe I'm wrong, I just happen to know something about what it's like to find out (and cheer, I actually cheered when I first heard trans people were normal in Cyberpunk and you could customize your character accordingly) that game you've been interested in for 5 years is gonna have trans people in it. Then watch as the game was trashed by "allies" who just can't bear the thought of me getting to have a sliver of representation somewhere unless it's exactly the way they want it.

That's my piece. Thanks for listening, way cheaper than a shrink. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

9 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

 

 

Alright, I had no intention of posting further but I don't want what seems to be a misunderstanding to undermine my point. I'll admit it was a bit of a rant, but boy have I been filled with impotent exasperation for like a week so bear with me.

Video games can absolutely be art. The Witcher 3 is a masterpiece that I personally don't much enjoy, for example. Now whether all games are art, that's a different conversation for the Madden message boards. My intention was never to denigrate games as an art form themselves, which I can only assume was inadvertently suggested by my use of italics and bolding.  I was just trying to stress both words in a visually interesting way. That's my bad if this is what caused confusion.

In more succinct verbiage I would posit that making broad (and ignorant) proclamations against a piece of -unfinished- art and demanding that it conform to your personal interpretations of X subject is antithetical to what art is. I literally cannot understand the idiocy required to do this.

Criticizing art? Sure, call out how fucking gross Birth of a Nation is. Please, do that. I'll help. Don't even get me started on the character assassination perpetrated on Kate Austin and Hugo Rheyas in LOST revolving around their gender and weight, respectively. 

But having to watch people who claim to be my ally use an infrequent representation of people like me as a chance to up their liberal cred over nothing is fucking demeaning.

Maybe I'm wrong, I just happen to know something about what it's like to find out (and cheer, I actually cheered when I first heard trans people were normal in Cyberpunk and you could customize your character accordingly) that game you've been interested in for 5 years is gonna have trans people in it. Then watch as the game was trashed by "allies" who just can't bear the thought of me getting to have a sliver of representation somewhere unless it's exactly the way they want it.

That's my piece. Thanks for listening, way cheaper than a shrink. 

I think you did a pretty good job of conveying this originally--I didn't even notice/take away the small comment about it just being a video game. I'm glad you feel representation in this way, and I hope this only continues to increase in all parts of our culture. I was listening to a gamer on a podcast (I think it was Retronauts) explaining how he'd (as a gay man)  grown up never seeing anyone else like him in games or movies--unless it was a negative reference. His explanation of how important it was to see aspects of himself not represented as a joke or a villain was really moving, to be honest. I wish I could remember where I listened to it, but it helped me realize a lot about what people mean when they say privilege often boils down to ignorance. You never have to think about yourself in the context of what you see, because what you see is always representative of you.

P.S. The article that really gets me (in this specific debate) is the RPS one that tries to argue this image of a trans person in the trailer is a problem because it doesn't (and can't) have context. See what you think, but to me, it seemed like some real mental gymnastics to make a point...about something.

[Impmk2]

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

 

 

Alright, I had no intention of posting further but I don't want what seems to be a misunderstanding to undermine my point. I'll admit it was a bit of a rant, but boy have I been filled with impotent exasperation for like a week so bear with me.

Video games can absolutely be art. The Witcher 3 is a masterpiece that I personally don't much enjoy, for example. Now whether all games are art, that's a different conversation for the Madden message boards. My intention was never to denigrate games as an art form themselves, which I can only assume was inadvertently suggested by my use of italics and bolding.  I was just trying to stress both words in a visually interesting way. That's my bad if this is what caused confusion.

In more succinct verbiage I would posit that making broad (and ignorant) proclamations against a piece of -unfinished- art and demanding that it conform to your personal interpretations of X subject is antithetical to what art is. I literally cannot understand the idiocy required to do this.

Criticizing art? Sure, call out how fucking gross Birth of a Nation is. Please, do that. I'll help. Don't even get me started on the character assassination perpetrated on Kate Austin and Hugo Rheyas in LOST revolving around their gender and weight, respectively. 

But having to watch people who claim to be my ally use an infrequent representation of people like me as a chance to up their liberal cred over nothing is fucking demeaning.

Maybe I'm wrong, I just happen to know something about what it's like to find out (and cheer, I actually cheered when I first heard trans people were normal in Cyberpunk and you could customize your character accordingly) that game you've been interested in for 5 years is gonna have trans people in it. Then watch as the game was trashed by "allies" who just can't bear the thought of me getting to have a sliver of representation somewhere unless it's exactly the way they want it.

That's my piece. Thanks for listening, way cheaper than a shrink. 

Thanks for the more considered response. This one is actually worth replying to, despite the odd ad hom attack. Still, you seem to be largely railing against a strawman.

As far as I'm aware people, in this thread, haven't called anything transphobic, and haven't called for any kind of boycott, or asked for any kind of changes without seeing the finished product. A few people here have brought up concerns that CDPR may not deal with the subject matter well given that's its a gaming company which in the past has had literal in-game female sex cards to collect.

Sure, you're excited that there's representation in the game. I get that. But surely you can see why there's at least some level of skepticism about their ability to pull this off.

[Toth]

Okay, directly after my rant about my loss of my US base I started a new game. This time manually setting the Mystery to an "easy" one instead of random to get another batch of alien death spheres out of nowhere.

Now I'm playing the EU. And I must say, as a faction they are a lot harder to play than the US. They start with one rocket less, less starting funds, their rockets have less payload, selling rare metals gives you less money, their probes aren't as ridiculously good as the US ones, they don't get unlimited funding over time and the mission objectives are not only much more science focused, they also seem much harder (50 mars-born scientists, really?!?)

The plus points however is that you get funding for researching techs, have more base research from mission control and I must admit I have come to appreciate the "Seeker drone" replacing the command drone. Not only can you build outposts with it, it is equipped with a sensor tower that allows you to just roll it into the sectors you want scanned and immediately raise the scanning speed to 400%. It makes uncovering the map a little micromanagement-heavy, but super fast.

I have manually set the starting location to what seemed at the time like a good one, but it's flat as board unlike the canyon I had before. So much for relying on wind energy... I also find finding resources a lot harder despite the map overview having maxed out almost all the resources. I am especially taken aback by how hard it is to find any metal deposits. Well, at least I am learning. I go about the placing of my buildings in a far more planned way, spacing things out to reduce the dust accumulation. Now I was rushing the construction of a dome bringing in human colonists on day 8. The founder stage is still annoying as hell. Though I am also quite mad that I didn't manage to research either farms or fungal farms by now. I intend to fill up my colony right away, so I'm wondering whether to go out of a limp and build a ranch despite the high upkeep since hydroponic farms don't cut it at all. But seriously, how come feeding farm animals doesn't need research, but farming plants on martian soil does?

I also prevented myself from building a huge ass cable network again. Instead I've started to dig a tunnel to the only minuscule plateau that possibly allows me to build a small wind park. Not sure I am going to get much from it, but I try...

Edit: So... this is odd. Founding phase ended on day 18. I've unlocked the Hawking Institute but have no farming. My bio-engineering sucks. I can only see the first three as of yet and have researched only one.

So I ended up building a ranch just outside my dome and filled it with ostriches. Sometimes I really wonder what exactly went through the minds of the developers when brainstorming what animals they would take onto a mars mission. Goats as basic animal and cows as the ones with the highest food yield? Seriously? If I went to the trouble of attempting animal husbandry on Mars, I would take animals that need the least space and consume the least resources. So... how about chicken? But ostriches? I also can't believe that these suckers only need water and oxygen to survive. I had thought that ranches need food to produce... less food? Like in real life. But then again, the variety of food doesn't make a difference. Except that vegan colonists drop in moral when you force them to eat meat. Anyway, so now I've got ostriches on Mars. And their food yield is ridiculously superior compared to crops. 180 food after 8 days? Comparing that to potatoes generating 60 food in 5 days...

Well then... now onto the next phase of my grand plan: Grab the underground metal deposit in the south and then connect my two small domes with a medium one in the middle.

[Jen'ari]

15 hours ago, Werthead said:

Modded FF7 is a thing of beauty. It makes such a difference to playing the game, not squinting at the pixels trying to work out what's a piece of scenery and what's an interactive part of the game.

Just got out of Midgar at the 9 hour mark, although I did leave the game on for about 2 hours whilst I had dinner and did other things, so that was a bit slow. Interested to see how the Remake takes 6-7 hours of game and turn it into 30+, although there are a few things you can do (bigging up Biggs, Wedge and Jessie at the start, having a few more side-quest areas the size of Wall Market and Honeybee Inn etc). However, I'm wondering if that's going to make the main story too diffuse. Will be interested to see how they pull it off.

I'm cautious about the V:TM sequel. It's a relatively low-budget game but they're trying to hype it and make it look like an AAA game, which I suspect will only confuse those who see it superficially as an action game. I suspect for fans of the original it will be just fine.

I was on the fence about Fallen Order until I heard it was a mix of KotOR and Jedi Knight, are which point I was fully on board.

 

15 hours ago, KiDisaster said:

I am keeping my hype on a leash until we can see more of the game. I loved VTMB and have replayed it more than most games, and when I found out we were finally getting a sequel I was extremely excited, but there's every chance this one ends up being a disappointment. I hope it's good though. 

I didn’t even know there was a sequel to VTMB coming until this week so I’m a bit hyped after seeing the gameplay, I really hope they have kept elements of the original though as, despite it being so buggy I loved it when I was 16!.

 

With Fallen Order I think the gameplay looks really good so I’m tempted to play it, but I’m a bit  about their lack of choices, I want a red lightsaber and to be able to learn force lightning, it’s biased towards the light side .

[Proudfeet]

16 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Surprise!

Mechanics.

I liked this comment: "EA makes a lot of sense. Just like kidnapping, it’s just surprise adoption"

Didn't watch the video, but EA continues to demonstrate how terrible they are with "surprise mechanics". 

I wouldn't be as offended if they compared it to trading cards, which are also gambling but is at least established, but the toy is an extra to the chocolate of Kinder Eggs. At that age range, any toy is fine. With loot boxes and trading cards, people are going for specific things that they want. Not to mention that the odds are nowhere near the same.

[Sivin]

14 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

Thanks for the more considered response. This one is actually worth replying to, despite the odd ad hom attack. Still, you seem to be largely railing against a strawman.

As far as I'm aware people, in this thread, haven't called anything transphobic, and haven't called for any kind of boycott, or asked for any kind of changes without seeing the finished product. A few people here have brought up concerns that CDPR may not deal with the subject matter well given that's its a gaming company which in the past has had literal in-game female sex cards to collect.

Sure, you're excited that there's representation in the game. I get that. But surely you can see why there's at least some level of skepticism about their ability to pull this off.

Every time I think I'm out... 

What does the bolded mean? "Pull this off." Pull what off? Depicting people in a piece of art? There's no magical standard of representation that a producer of art has to reach in order to present their vision. That's not what art is. You, the audience, are presented with a depiction of the world as the artist or their creation sees it. "Art is not a democracy", to quote a certain someone we may all be familiar with. It can be criticized, it can be analyzed, but it should never ever be standardized. That's how you get network television. 

I took an extra minute here to avoid any impulse to take a cheap shot, but do you understand how patronizing your last sentence sounds? You're saying that representation of my specific minority group is contingent on some kind of litmus test, with the obvious implication being that CDPR shouldn't have touched the subject at all. That if some people have doubts they just shouldn't have trans characters in the game, it's the only way to be sure. Surely you can see why that would make some people apoplectic?

For the record, I know in here the discussion was mostly centered around representation of women by the company and workplace habits. That seemed like it was under discussion already, whereas the trans thing I wanted to bring up myself. 

One more time, for absolute clarity's sake. We are not talking about a company that made a Rape Simulator or Women Strangler 5: The ReStrangling. They made some games that objectified women in the orbit of a boring white guy. And I've heard some things about gay jokes! And... what, exactly? Women are objectified by nature in our society. It's called 'giving away' a bride when a woman gets married, a transfer of ownership. Gay kids get electrodes stuck to their brains. Trans folks get lynched. These are actual problems, and an immature depiction of said persons is not comparable at all. 

I can handle a tasteless joke or juvenile attitude towards something, thanks. I do that every day. I'm an adult. Not being purposefully maligned is all that I ask before considering a subjective work, and there is nothing, nothing, to indicate that CDPR set out with the intention to be mean to transgender people. So even just expressing "skepticism about their ability to pull this off" comes across immediately as having taken patronizing offense on behalf of a subject entity.

And finally, finally, the whole point of art is to express and consider. For both parties. The audiences considers the material and expresses their own response, whereas the creator expresses their vision and then considers both the material and the audience's reaction. By every account, women got better representation as the Witcher series progressed, with that sex card system being in the first game that came out twelve years ago and not appearing since. You have to give them a chance to try, and especially to fail, so that they can learn. Attacking without consideration is how you drive people into the hands of the Nazis or make them divorce entirely from the issue. That's basic human interaction dynamics.

[aceluby]

I think last night concludes Sekiro for me for a bit.  Took an hour to grind out the last levels to get all the skills, then I went ahead and beat the final boss on NG++ and NG on two different plays to get the final two endings I needed for the platinum trophy.  Best action game I've played in a while. No idea what I want to play next

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Didn't watch the video, but EA continues to demonstrate how terrible they are with "surprise mechanics". 

I wouldn't be as offended if they compared it to trading cards, which are also gambling but is at least established, but the toy is an extra to the chocolate of Kinder Eggs. At that age range, any toy is fine. With loot boxes and trading cards, people are going for specific things that they want. Not to mention that the odds are nowhere near the same.

But even with trading cards the card you get is yours forever. With lootboxes the loot you get is really only yours for as long as the game is actively supported online. And with annual releases like FIFA and CoD the online support disappears relatively quickly.

[TrueMetis]

Added to that, because trading cards are, you know, meant for trading. It's possible to go out and just straight up buy the thing you actually want. Last I checked if I wanted to buy a specific skin, there's not way to do that.

[House Balstroko]

On 6/18/2019 at 5:20 PM, Ran said:

There's a 48 minute video from last year already. That's more showcase than some triple-A games get before their release.

And they're rolling out footage of the E3 demo to the public at Pax West, so that's going to be another 30+ minutes of gameplay a year out from release.

Yeah I know, but I still feel like they should have shown this to the public now so that they can get more feedback.

[Impmk2]

7 hours ago, WinterFox said:

Snip

This is my last post on the topic. This is obviously far more personal for you than it is for me. I respect that. We're really not going to agree and are going to keep going around in circles.

Just a couple of quick points:

On how CDPR could not 'pull off' a diverse society in the context of the game? That's obviously going to be subjective. But unless you think it is literally impossible fail at (which I assume you don't) the question also doesn't make any sense. A society populated with stereotypical caricatures played for laughs would one way to do it.

Do I think CDPR would be intentionally mean? Fuck no. Do I think people can be insensitive assholes without trying? Fuck yes. Apparently I'm being one right now.

On CDPR being allowed to fail and grow. Sure. Absolutely. But part of that process is being subjected to critical review and analysis. And with that comes an increased scrutiny when they're trying to do ambitious projects in the future. If a level of scrutiny of CDPR and Cyberpunk is enough to 'drive people to the Nazis' I really don't know what to say.

Having said all that. I'm very much looking forward to playing the game myself. CDPR for their faults make some of the best RPGs in the business.

 

[Proudfeet]

2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Added to that, because trading cards are, you know, meant for trading. It's possible to go out and just straight up buy the thing you actually want. Last I checked if I wanted to buy a specific skin, there's not way to do that.

Its highly dependent on the game. I think its possible in some games like Team Fortress 2 which uses Steam's inventory system. In Overwatch, you get currency from duplicate items that allows you to buy the skins but obviously the cost of the skin is much higher than the refund you get from duplicate items.

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But even with trading cards the card you get is yours forever. With lootboxes the loot you get is really only yours for as long as the game is actively supported online. And with annual releases like FIFA and CoD the online support disappears relatively quickly.

Yes, that is true, but its a more reasonable position than Kinder Eggs.

The only thing I like about loot boxes is when whales pay for the game while I get to play the game for free. Its the only merit of the system but even then its a selfish position based on exploiting other people. Loot boxes can't be defended, so its a losing argument any way you do it, but you should at least try to do so without inviting ridicule.

And annual releases are another kind of bullshit that makes me despise EA even without stuff like loot boxes and DLC.

[KingintheNorth4]

I downloaded and started playing Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy yesterday, and it's brought back fond childhood memories for me.

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Its highly dependent on the game. I think its possible in some games like Team Fortress 2 which uses Steam's inventory system. In Overwatch, you get currency from duplicate items that allows you to buy the skins but obviously the cost of the skin is much higher than the refund you get from duplicate items.

Yes, that is true, but its a more reasonable position than Kinder Eggs.

The only thing I like about loot boxes is when whales pay for the game while I get to play the game for free. Its the only merit of the system but even then its a selfish position based on exploiting other people. Loot boxes can't be defended, so its a losing argument any way you do it, but you should at least try to do so without inviting ridicule.

And annual releases are another kind of bullshit that makes me despise EA even without stuff like loot boxes and DLC.

But what pisses me off about some countries, mine included apparently, is that our regulators don't seem to give a shit. They say, "It's not gambling" and then walk away, and then EA gets to point at us and say "see Belgium, it's not gambling, New Zealand says so".

The freemium model is problematic if they need lootbox revenue to be profitable, in which case maybe freemium games should no longer exist. But if they can be profitable with just direct to purchase and other revenue sources that aren't games of chance then there's no need for the loot boxes. But lootboxes in $60 games is especially egregious and they should never have been able to get away with that. Indeed if no one had put lootboxes in $60 games then the FTP games would have been able to keep flying under the radar indefinitely, because people would have continues to just shrug their shoulders and say "well, they gotta make money somehow." without ever realising that it isn't without it's harms

[Proudfeet]

18 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But what pisses me off about some countries, mine included apparently, is that our regulators don't seem to give a shit. They say, "It's not gambling" and then walk away, and then EA gets to point at us and say "see Belgium, it's not gambling, New Zealand says so".

The freemium model is problematic if they need lootbox revenue to be profitable, in which case maybe freemium games should no longer exist. But if they can be profitable with just direct to purchase and other revenue sources that aren't games of chance then there's no need for the loot boxes. But lootboxes in $60 games is especially egregious and they should never have been able to get away with that. Indeed if no one had put lootboxes in $60 games then the FTP games would have been able to keep flying under the radar indefinitely, because people would have continues to just shrug their shoulders and say "well, they gotta make money somehow." without ever realising that it isn't without it's harms

Sometimes I wonder if they just don't understand the concept and are out of touch. There is no way that it isn't gambling, and really, most of the other existing comparisons are also gambling. 

The problem with loot boxes for freemium games isn't that it is required to be viable. That may be true, but regardless of that, loot boxes are just a lot more profitable than direct purchases.

Here's a simple example. You sell a value set of loot boxes for say, $50 with a couple of rare items that are desirable in the lottery. Some people may get it on their first try and have spare loot boxes for the next event and others may fail and have to get another $50 to try again. Lets average it out to 100 loot box sets per event so it works out to $5,000.

If you sell directly, at $5 per item, you'd need to sell 1,000 items to at least 500 people. Even if you can get more customers with direct purchase and lower cost, you are unlikely to make up the difference. You are putting a cap on the people that are willing to spend while the people who aren't are unlikely to be converted at a high enough rate.

It has to be legislated out. It just doesn't make business sense not to do it.

[The Anti-Targ]

Yes, direct purchase will definitely lead to lower revenue. I don't think any country (certainly none of significance) will legislate lootboxes out, they will only legislate them out of games with E and T ratings and I imagine in jurisdictions with age ratings, and with gambling laws with age restrictions I suppose they would have to be legislated out of any game with a <18 age rating.

Of course in every single country, whether or not age ratings are legally binding or not, parents buy those higher rated games for their kids, so in the end slapping a restriction on games based on age rating only ends up hurting the E/T games and all the M/R games will be fine. So it will be a completely ineffective solution, but regulators and companies will say the job's done.

[Fez]

Since there are examples of FTP games being profitable without lootboxes, such as Path of Exile, examples of full-priced games being profitable without lootboxes, such God of War (2018), and examples of subscription games being profitable without lootboxes, such as Final Fantasy XIV; I think any argument that lootboxes are necessary for the modern video game industry is complete nonsense. Games are viable without them, it's just a way of making even more money.