loobkoob

It’s okay; I appreciate the apology! :)

I think it’s important to look for the nuance in situations and not treat everything as zero-sum. Both sides can have good points and be open to criticism at the same time (this isn’t an “enlightened centrist” take, I promise!). I think a lot of discussion online does tend to strip away nuance and take the position that if you show any empathy with one side then it means you must hate the other - I do my best to avoid that!

these people SHOULD be putting this negative pressure on them. It’s deserved

Was it not implied I agree with that when I said:

The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.

and;

• customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
• people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable

I’m not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it’s obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I’ve not played it myself) and should be improved.

?

I don’t see why that would make my opinion stupid. Yes, the studio/publisher should be held to account for the crappy release. But a big part of holding them to account should be not giving them money for it in the first place; not just handing over money and then complaining afterwards. Complaining afterwards is reasonable for the people who did hand over money, but they should also hold themselves accountable for financially rewarding a company that puts out a crappy product - they’re part of the problem.

The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.

• it’s hard to feel sorry for people who pre-ordered because they got exactly what they paid for - a game of unknown quality and quantity of content
• it’s hard to feel sorry for people who bought post-release because they also got exactly what they paid for - a game where reviews detailed poor quality and quantity of content
• customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
• people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable
• people abusing the devs is not reasonable

I’m not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it’s obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I’ve not played it myself) and should be improved. But I do think gamers could learn to be a little more responsible with their purchases and inform themselves before buying a game.

I’m pretty over the whole cycle of games coming out and not meeting expectations, people buying them anyway (through pre-orders or day-one purchases), people being unnecessarily rude/hostile/sending death threats to developers as if they were forced to buy the game as gunpoint. Yes, developers should try to do better, yes publishers should often give developers more time to polish up games rather than announcing the release date two years in advance and refusing to delay, but also consumers could really take some responsibility for what they decide to give money to.

I agree, but at the same time, I think a lot of people are still trying to build out their subscribed communities list here - especially because a lot of would-be communities are fragmented across multiple instances. Outside of just stumbling across communities you like because they’ve been mentioned in a comment section, or checking out communities that links have been crossposted to, looking at the all feed is the best way to discover things, I think - unfortunate though it is.

To be honest, I’d love to see a “weighted all” feed, if that’s even possible. So include everything, but let the user set custom weights for communities, so ones you weight highly show up more often (and nearer the top) and once you weight lower show up less often. There are some communities that I only really see if I look at my subscriptions because they don’t tend to show up in the all feed much. And there are some communities - a lot of meme ones, for instance - that I’ve blocked because they were clogging up the all feed; if I could just weight them lower so if still see them but far less often, I would do that instead of blocking them.

There certainly was some actual “ethics in video game journalism” discussion early on that I felt was legitimate, but that got drowned out pretty quickly by the misogynists (which, from what I gather, was the entire point - it seems the misogynists started the whole thing and used the “ethics in game journalism” thing as a front to try to legitimise their agenda).

I think the discussion about the personal relationships game journalists have with developers in general was a reasonable one to have. It unfortunately ended up just laser focusing on Zoe Quinn supposedly trading sex for good reviews, which was untrue, sexist and resulted in nasty personal attacks. But I think it was worth at least examining the fact that game journalists and game developers often have close relationships and move in the same circles, and that game journalism can often be a stepping stone to game development. Those are absolutely things that could influence someone’s reviews or articles, consciously or subconsciously.

And another conversation worth having was the fact that gaming outlets like IGN were/are funded by adverts from gaming companies. It makes sense, of course - the Venn diagram of IGN’s (or other gaming outlets’) readers and gaming companies’ target audience is almost a perfect circle, which makes the ad space valuable to the gaming companies. And because it’s valuable to gaming companies, it’s better for the outlets to sell the ad space to them for more money than to sell it to generic advertising platforms. But it does mean it seems valid to ask whether the outlets giving bad reviews or writing critical articles might cause their advertisers to pull out, and therefore they might avoid being too critical.

Now I don’t think the games industry is corrupt or running on cronyism, personally. And I certainly don’t believe it’s all run by a shadowy cabal of woke libruls who are trying to force black people, women (and worse, gasp black women shudder) into games. But I do feel it was worth asking about the relationships between journalists, developers, publishers and review outlets - and honestly, those are the kinds of things that both game journalists and people who read game journalism should constantly be re-evaluating. It’s always good to be aware of potential biases and influences.

The fact that the whole thing almost immediately got twisted into misogyny, death threats and a general hate campaign was both disappointing and horrifying. And the fact that it led to the alt-right, and that you can trace a line from it to Brexit and to Donald Trump becoming US president, is even worse.

I say all this as a non-American, just to be clear. All mainstream American politics looks right-wing to me.

voting green […] can have the effect of moving the Overton window and creating conversation

I’d love if this were the case, but the pragmatist in me can’t agree. Right now, if Biden doesn’t win, the Overton window shifts to the right. Voting Green won’t shift the needle, as much as the idealist in me wishes it could. No-ones going to care that 2% more people voted for the Greens this time if Trump wins. Trump’s already stated his fascist ideals and the Overton window will shift to the right if he wins. Which means if you care about the Overton window at all, you vote to keep Trump out.

If the Democrats were in a more secure position then I’d say voting for the Greens would be very reasonable. It’d be a way to indicate that you’d like to continue to shift things leftwards. But right now, the best thing you can do if you care about left-wing or green values in the long-term is simply to keep Trump out.

Think about where you want politics to be in 2028, or 2032, or even 2036; do you think Trump or Biden winning is the best path to that goal? Because those are the realistic options right now. And personally, I think gradually shifting the Overton window leftwards is the way to do it, rather than letting the country slip into full-blown fascism and then hoping people will suddenly flip to socialism overnight on the evening before the 2036 election.

they’ve had to push a “but trump!” Narrative to scare anyone else from even running.

There certainly has been some of this. But I also think that’s something that’s very relevant right now. The time for finding more progressive Democrat candidates was during the primaries. Now, as difficult as it may be, the best thing to do is suck it up, rally behind Biden and fight for your long-term future by doing what you can to keep out the fascists. It’ll fucking suck, but not as much as Trump winning will.

Not that your suggestion is necessarily bad in general, but I don’t really think it’s necessary when it comes to Factorio. I think it should be clear from playing the demo whether 100+ more hours of that seems worth the asking price for someone. It’s probably the most representative demo I’ve ever played; the full game is just the demo but more. There are no surprises down the line. There are no random pivots to other genres, or the game trying to stick its fingers in too many pies. There’s no narrative to screw up. There’s no “oh, they clearly just spent all their time polishing the first hour of the game and the rest of it is a technical mess”. It’s the same gameplay loop from the demo for another 50 hours until you “win”.

… and then another 50 hours after that when you decide to optimise things. And then another 100 hours when you decide to make a train-themed base. And then another 700 hours when you discover some of the mods that exist…

And also just websites compressing images without the user getting any input. A meme that goes from Facebook to Twitter to Reddit to Twitter to Tumblr to Reddit to here will likely be compressed every time it gets reuploaded. Most social media sites use some form of image compression.

And it obviously doesn’t help that artefacts from compression are multiplicative.

(It has been funny watching some of my coworkers learn a new coding technique and finding it to be so cool that they apply it everywhere regardless of whether it fits or not while I think to myself, “Ah, I remember when I went through that phase as a teenager!”)

I’m not a programmer (although suggestions on a language to start learning with - with no project in mind - would be welcome!), but I’ve found similar things with my old musical projects. I look back some old project files and see that I used various techniques all the time that I don’t necessarily use nowadays. Sometimes, I think I probably should use them more than I do now, but I definitely overused them back then when I first discovered them.

I guess it’s just exciting when you learn something and it opens up a bunch of possibilities for you!

“Landed gentry” was a social class of people who owned estates and, well, land. They didn’t have to work; they made their income by profiting off the work of the farm hands, merchants, etc, who worked on their land. The estates these landed gentry owned, along with their wealth, would be passed down to their children when they died. It meant the gentry did very little to earn their station in life, but still had a fair amount of power and wealth.

How spez thinks it applies to Reddit mods, I’m not entirely sure. But he definitely meant it as an insult. His full quote was:

And I think, on Reddit, the analogy is closer to the landed gentry: The people who get there first get to stay there and pass it down to their descendants, and that is not democratic.

So I guess he was upset that mod teams get to select who else is a good fit to join the mod team? Of course, the issue is that he is the landed gentry - users didn’t vote for him, nor can they remove him; and he’s profiting off the work of the people who post content and the people who spend their time moderating.

“That means that you won.”

Yeah, there’s a lot to be said for what the quality of the practice is. Someone just practicing something for 200 hours could see less (relative) improvement than someone who, for instance, records themselves doing something and watches it back so they can find the things they really need to focus on, and then practices those things for 50 hours. Coaching themselves, essentially.

Of course, it may just be that more focused, high-quality practice just lets people reach their ceiling faster and doesn’t actually give them any long-term advantage - I don’t know. It’s something that would be interesting but difficult to study.

“Mystery box” storytelling is the name for it and, yeah, Lost, especially, is the poster child for not executing on it particularly well. It can be exciting, and it does a good job of making following a story feel like a communal experience that everyone can participate in - speculating on where things will go next, for instance - but it also often feels like shows using it end up over-promising and under-delivering (and often leaves viewers feeling a little soured at the end).

I feel like Dark was a good example of it being well-executed, and proves it certainly can be done well. But yeah, BSG definitely didn’t end up paying off for me either.

I’m not sure if The Expanse (TV series) ruined Foundation (TV) for me, if it’s just not a good adaptation, or if the books are just not particularly adaptable (or all three), but I agree. I only made it through the first two episodes before I gave up. I’ve heard the second season is better, but I don’t know if it’s worth it to force myself to sit through season 1 for.

The Expanse is just spectacular when it comes to realising its world but also, with how much depth there is to the characters and politics, Foundation immediately felt very shallow in comparison. Obviously The Expanse books lay a lot of the foundations for the TV series to build on, but I think the TV series did a great job of adapting it to a new medium without much being lost in translation, and it even added to it in its own ways. Foundation’s world-building, characterisation and politics all kind of just felt like it was going through the motions and showing surface-level stuff because it felt it had to rather than because it actually had any substance to work with. Which wasn’t helped by the fact that the books don’t provide much in that regard to work with.

Ultimately, I don’t think the Foundation books aren’t particularly well-suited to being adapted to the screen. It’s so focused on the “bigger picture” - on civilisations rather than characters, on philosophical and sociological concepts rather than particular plot points, on macro-narrative - while TV needs characters and micro-narrative.

I will say that the TV series’ idea to use three different-aged clones of Emperor Cleon, and to keep the actors persistent through the ages, seemed like a great addition. It’s good to try to keep some recognisable faces while jumping across such long time periods.

You felt much more strongly about it than me then. I just found myself not caring about it in the slightest; the only thing I really felt was boredom. Which is arguably the worst possible outcome for any work of art.

Yeah, it has real “Orphan-Crushing Machine” vibes to me.

The big thing that was missing for me was culture. And it made me appreciate Cyberpunk 2077 that much more. There are people everywhere in Starfield, but the only real differences between them are that they’re generic American with cowboy hat versus generic American with business-casual clothes versus generic American with streetpunk clothes stood under neon lights. There’s no difference in how people talk. Even the people who’d never interacted with anyone outside of their own community before - who thought they were the last remaining humans - felt the same. There are people everywhere but no real personality.

Versus Cyberpunk 2077, where CDPR created so much culture. There are hours and hours’ worth of original songs for the game. There are adverts everywhere that really capture the feeling of the world. People from different parts of the city and different groups have their own dialects. There’s so much slang invented for the game. Even the architecture and design of the city tells stories. Sure, the average NPC has no real personality or routine on an individual level, but the world and culture are so well fleshed out. Starfield has none of that.

I also did seem to get hit with quite a few game-breaking bugs in Starfield. I couldn’t progress the temple questline - they gave no no powers and the quest didn’t advance properly. I had some terrible bugs regarding ship ownership that resulted in me having to load a save from 20 hours previous. It was just a disaster for me, and really killed any enjoyment I may have been getting from the game.

I’m attached the end of your rod, motherlicka

It’s necessary for the client computer to know where other players are, though. Like, if someone is walking in the other side of a wall to me, or shooting their gun around a corner from me, it’s important for me to get audio cues, for instance.

As for server-side input monitoring, that can only take you so far. It’s easy enough to add a random element to a script so things don’t happen at fixed intervals, for example. Most of these games do use server-side input monitoring on top of client-side anti-cheat.

I think following the main quest until the first temple is a good idea, personally. After that, you’re in a pretty good spot to decide whether you want to pursue the main quest line more or focus on side quests.