I started watching the trailer for God's Trigger and I wanted to like it so much, because the premise has legs. But wow the execution is a hard wall of derivative cringe.

Then I noticed this is on EGS and I felt much better.

shiho wrote on Mar 7, 2020, 04:22:
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.

You're talking about Doom 3.

Doom 2016's singleplayer campaign was a masterpiece. The multiplayer was kind of redundant, but it was only disappointing in comparison to what I expected of it.

I'm in a "please say it ain't so" amount of trouble. :/

You're not a collector until you open your Steam library and can find at least three titles that make you ask "when did I buy that? What the hell even is it?"

Beamer wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 15:03:
"Fembusters," now that doesn't sound rational.

You're confusing irrationality with bias. Of course I have a bad opinion of both the movie and its political context. It is entirely possible for a criticism to be slanted but still make sense.

RedEye9 wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 14:20:
Step away from the keyboard and seek professional help. https://www.nami.org/#

"Sometimes corporate media jerks do disingenuous things to draw attention to themselves" isn't exactly "Bush did 9/11," guy.

Beamer wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 13:10:
Reread this and ask yourself if it sounds reasonable, or if you're putting illogical motivations to people.

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.

Now CliffyB seems to want some of that, or at least to be able to use his values (that he's never demonstrated in any of his work, becuase he's a puerile macho idiot who makes puerile macho games even when theyr'e good) as a crutch to lean on when his sales numbers give him a hard whack.

Beamer wrote on Feb 7, 2020, 08:12:
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."

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.

To the people still arguing about "get woke, go broke," even though it isn't actually relevant to LawBreakers, it's a real thing that happens, but it doesn't apply to media the way you guys think it does. The phrase originally started propagating not because of the creation of woke products, but of woke codes of conduct and hiring practices. Companies in many industries were observed to throw their profitability into the shitter over internal shake-ups related to this stuff.

When you're making something, whether it succeeds or not is mostly down to marketing; it's just that what the product actually is is a significant part of marketing. Garbage can succeed, but it needs really good marketing in the sense we usually know the word, and "this product is woke" is possibly the worst way to do it if the thing you're making wasn't originally popular with the people who want that.

hispeedsquirrel wrote on Feb 6, 2020, 12:43:
>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.
>repeat

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.

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.

There wasn't any controversy about the game's values. Nobody knew what they were, because nobody bought it. He's reached the point of stealing other peoples' excuses for his failure. Somebody please help him.

Not actually a new kind of shooter: Time Rifters did the self-coop idea first. This is still the first time it's been used in a competitive context, though.

"I need to create" should be considered a terrorist threat from that guy

Tencent presents: Desert Bus but it's unironic

Dash wrote on Dec 5, 2019, 02:34:
Just seems weird seeing a Studio pulling this kind of shit, as opposed to a Publisher. We almost expect this kind of terrible practice from, like, EA or Activision, but seeing it reversed feels peculiar.

I guess Gearbox is a trendsetter now.

Who is this a more fitting punishment for?

Steele Johnson wrote on Nov 27, 2019, 14:04:
Do you remember the Steam Machine? Everyone but them knew it was a bad idea to sink money into a new console.

Making a PC build that games on the 800-lb. gorilla distribution platform can standardize around is a great idea.

The problem with Steam Machines is they didn't do that. They tried to sort of become a certification body for other companies to do it, with varying specs and price points. So there go the advantages of consoles for both seller and user; no economy of scale, and a much more complex value proposition.

In other words, great idea; execution sucked.

Cutter wrote on Nov 26, 2019, 08:50:
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.

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.

It's more than worth it for this price. I switched to a DS4 because I found getting good configs for some of my games troublesome, and the touchpad is just never quite as good as a thumbstick. It has excellent build quality, tough, and if you have more patience with the config tool than I do, you'll enjoy it.

Kxmode wrote on Nov 25, 2019, 19:51:

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.

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.

Excusing shamelessly abusive capitalist behavior with shit like "it's not a charity" is very popular among fans of this industry for some reason. Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps? In any case, it's slimy.