shiho wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 04:22:You're talking about Doom 3.
Isn't it ironic how Doom 1 used to require a mere 4MB of RAM and remains a shining example of a much better designed, enduring gameplay, created by much smarter and more passionate people.
These modern abominations have nothing to do with Doom except the name. They play like an even more retarded version of Serious Sam 3.
RedEye9 wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 14:20:"Sometimes corporate media jerks do disingenuous things to draw attention to themselves" isn't exactly "Bush did 9/11," guy.
Step away from the keyboard and seek professional help. https://www.nami.org/#
Beamer wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 13:10:You are operating under the assumption that the people responsible for making Fembusters are rational actors and generally honest. Leaving aside that that is far too generous for that shitpile, all the interviews where they talk about their woke bullshit and all the backlash they supposedly received for it makes it pretty clear what was actually going on. They wanted people to argue about it on the internet, because if you have no real faith in your product, you think any publicity is good publicity. They multiplied their advertising budget by tenfold by stirring up controversy.
Reread this and ask yourself if it sounds reasonable, or if you're putting illogical motivations to people.
Beamer wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 08:12:What was political about Fembusters was its creation and marketing. It was made primarily to appeal to the left culture warriors and secondarily as a comedy and not at all as a Ghostbusters movie. The intention was to make fans of the originals angry so that shitty woke people would defend it. They did not, of course, spend money on it, but I suspect that wasn't important; it's an open secret at this point that certain movies are effectively money laundering schemes.
I saw the new Ghostbusters. It sucked. What about the actual film was "political?" What plot points? Or do you mean it was made primarily for women?
Blockbusters rarely can afford to place politics high up. Or "art," at that. You see it more in small films, like Moonlight, or Green Book, neither of which went "broke."
hispeedsquirrel wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 12:43:I'm not sure you know who Cliffy B is. He is not and never has been in the cycle you describe. He helped make Unreal, got an ego, and made a career out of being a ridiculous assclown who makes a good game once everytime Halley's comet shows up and blaming his audience the rest of the time. He's usually blaming piracy and threatening to do batshit punitive DRM schemes. This is his first time coming to the culture war trough and it's ridiculous because nobody was complaining about his game's politics. You'd have to give a tenth of a shit about it as a piece of software to even get that far, and nobody did.
>Makes game with "inclusiveness" in mind.
>Game ultimately flops.
>Blames failure for trying to appeal to "woke" culture.
>Next game will inevitably attempt to seduce the "alt-right" fan-base.
As long as his pattern of thinking is locked within the paradigm of "identity politics", which appears to be his underlying motive for creativity, he will never escape this viscous cycle.
Steele Johnson wrote on Nov 27, 2019, 14:04:Making a PC build that games on the 800-lb. gorilla distribution platform can standardize around is a great idea.
Do you remember the Steam Machine? Everyone but them knew it was a bad idea to sink money into a new console.
Cutter wrote on Nov 26, 2019, 08:50:This isn't really about "how long should it work?" It's about "how long should it be legal for you to try to make it work?" The answer is forever.
For how long? New vehicles are generally the second most expensive thing a person ever buys and they have a limited warranty. My 36k for my Niro nets me 5 years and 100k bumper to bumper - the best warranty for vehicles in Canada, most are a lot less. So how much should $60US cover and for how long? I don't know but I think they should just leave the final game as freeware at any rate.
Kxmode wrote on Nov 25, 2019, 19:51:People bought a game, they didn't subscribe to a service. In a country with sane consumer-protection laws, (not that they're enforced consistently even in those places) providing some bare-minimum end-of-life support to allow people to create their own servers would be an ironclad obligation, not charity. According to the legal framework provided by traditional media, companies that shut down games without making buyers whole are essentially committing fraud.The_Pink_Tiger wrote on Nov 25, 2019, 19:16:
It is almost as if they /don't/ really care about their game or customers.
They don't care about either. They run a business, not a charity. The game wasn't profitable, so they're shutting it down.