Cutter wrote on Oct 13, 2017, 22:57:

Choobeastia wrote on Oct 13, 2017, 21:27:

Why would anyone against online harassment be on Twitter in the first place?

That's a very victim blaming sentiment.

No, it's jut common sense. If you walk into a biker bar or enter some ghetto then the odds are pretty good some shit is going to go down and it's no one's fault but your own.

That's a poor argument. First off, twitter isn't a "biker bar," or a "ghetto." Both of those places wear their looks of danger on the outside. If we were talking about the somethingawful forums, I wouldn't argue, but we're talking about twitter.

MOST of what goes on there, from what I've seen, is not aggressive or nasty. There is some of that too, but someone on the receiving end of it isn't to blame, and shooing them away from the site or service is an argument that will lead to everyplace online being off limits to anyone who isn't an asshole, or good at pretending not to care when they're hurt.

Why would anyone against online harassment be on Twitter in the first place?

That's a very victim blaming sentiment.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 27, 2017, 04:20:
...

The other thing: this game does not respect the player's time. All that getting up, suiting up, walking, sitting down, parking, etc. etc. is going to get old really quickly. People are going to get tired of taking 45 mins to set up their mission. They're going to want get a group together in a few minutes and start the mission.

I think that it's for a different target audience than those that want to drop and play. For some of that, there are shortcuts. Nothing stops you from wearing your suit as I understand it, or from using shortcuts rather than the interactive menus in the cockpit. I feel like SC is for people who want to roleplay being Han Solo, rather than ones who want to get in for a quick 30.

Unrelated, wouldn't say that all are naysayers. Some are just offer criticism, which is fine. Just like not all who support the game are fanboys. I personally think that Chris Roberts is insane. He has unreasonable expectations, and puts a lot of pressure on those working for him. They're working for a fanatic, but... a fanatic is what I'm looking for, in a game like Star Citizen. I don't want corners cut, I want to see pie in the sky dreams, and hope that as they strive for it, they don't produce a horrorshow.

Right now, it's buggy, but it's looking on track, at least to me. Only time will tell.

I would say that this doesn't constitute being news, so much as being a link to an advertisement as their 'report' is basically an advertisement for their own product.

NKD wrote on Jun 25, 2017, 16:59:
Their official statement is out. I don't know enough about how the UK does things to pass any judgement on it, but people might want to read it.

The TL;DR is they claim they are simply getting an advance on a tax rebate they are owed by the UK government, and by doing so they can avoid losing money in a conversion from USD and EUR.

It would be nice if Blue added that to the post. Regardless of anyone's feelings on SC, I've often felt like Blue is super anti-SC, and tends to favor the anti-SC posts. The fact that he posted Derek Smart at all is a little horrible. It's like posting Flat Earther webpages as 'articles,' rather than satire.

xXStellarDadXx wrote on Jun 25, 2017, 11:51:
I hear u can sell the pre order trench coat for a few hundred minimum...ill have to check into that...

Provided you can make it through Steam's horrific marketplace posting system. "You didn't download our app and give us EXTRA personal information, so your posting will be on hold for 15 days, after which your item will be posted without regard to any price fluctuation."

Season 4 started off weak, but after following it a bit I started to get into it. A second viewing, having seen the whole thing played out, pushed it mush higher still in my mind. I'll definitely take a 5th seasons. The lack of lost momentum will likely benefit it greatly.

Orogogus wrote on Dec 27, 2016, 14:06:

Cutter wrote on Dec 27, 2016, 13:53:
The whole model is about keeping the money flowing in without nothing to show for it except the illusion that things are really happening. The alpha's they keep releasing is the same shit for several years now. That's a classic ponzi scheme.

That's not what the term Ponzi scheme refers to :/. That would just be a regular con.

Plus, it's not accurate in the slightest. There have been substantial additions, improvements, and overall progress shown in the different alpha releases. Either Cutter doesn't realize that because he hasn't hasn't actually played/watched them as they've been released, or he's engaged in hyperbole in order to bolster a weak position that supports his odd emotional investment in the idea that Star Citizen is a scam, or will fail.

Honestly, I would agree with you, but I feel that the more devout are the anti-followers. Full disclosure, I own a basic package, and I'm just sitting here waiting. I invested, now I wait to see if it was a good investment or not. I haven't even updated since the very first demonstration of the hanger module.

Some people, though, seem to have heavily invested themselves, emotionally, in being right about the game failing, or Chris Roberts failing. You could nearly believe Chris Roberts murdered their parents, with how dedicated they are, and how unwilling to see even the possibility that some development might represent progress towards a full release. It seems very odd to me that they might take such glee towards the idea of something failing, rather than investing in hope towards progress.

It seems clear that the article is pushing a specific perspective on the topic of video games and their effect on our psyches and our families. However, their skewed push doesn't invalidate their position.

For your anecdotal comment on shooters, please bare in mind the reason you lose interest in those earlier titles faster may be any number of things. The technology behind them is worse, you've aged and matured, and your expectations from games has changed over time. I do agree that video games hold components that are designed to provide a reward for behaving in a way consistent with the purpose of that game. Some people, specifically people prone towards gambling addictions or the like, or those needing in an extreme way an escape from their reality, may be especially susceptible to that, and find themselves either addicted, or at least relying on the game as a crutch/distraction.

Regardless, it seems rather clear the article is crafted in such a way to promote the idea that video games are dangerous to our minds and potentially our family values.

When I say clear, I mean clear from the perspective of pure journalism. The lead sentence is "Video games are more addictive than ever. This is what happens when kids can't turn them off." That states as fact that video games are addictive, and promotes the idea that they've become more so.

Next, if we take the first few paragraphs, we are treated with a narrative tale during which the video game addict is unreasonable, uncontrolled, emotionally abusive, and potentially violent. Meanwhile, the mother is presented as reasonable, "almost always triggered by a simple request from his parents: 'Byrne, please turn off the game. Please get off the computer.'" The parents are presented as polite, requesting not demanding, and as a result as a victim of her son, or more specifically what video games have turned her son into.

MOST people don't finish new articles or stories. Most only read the headline. Next up are the first 3 or so paragraphs. Blue does post one-sided articles from both sides of the aisle on matters like these, and both sides should be ashamed. Either way, that doesn't change the fact that this article is more editorial than journalism.

Morgan19 wrote on Nov 4, 2013, 17:02:
^ Assuming you're not playing HC, wouldn't spotting be more effective and efficient?

Sorry, I forgot to mention, I exclusively play on HC servers with no mini-map, no 3d spotting, and no hit-indicators.

For the flare grenade, I had a friend running as support using this to great effect. I was in the attack jet and if he ran into a vehicle he would flare the area for me so I could make a more precise run. It worked decently.

Other than that, no area of any map is dark enough to justify it.

While I know there's a whole lot of EA hate out there, what you're saying sounds to me like, "listen, the other guys are crapping on you and they're JUST pissing on you, grow up and take it."

I appreciate the 24 hour period of time, but unless a release was as extreme as Sim City's was so far as badness goes you don't always know within the first 24 hours if you hate something. Many people will get up in the morning, try a round of BF4, then go to work and not be able to play until the next day and thus not get a reliable window in which to form an opinion of the product.

Only because it's a licensed product can they get away with it. Most states have laws concerning return policies that are up there a bit in days, while video games float over that issue nicely by being licensed.

What I hear from this? "NSA has great success cracking Tor, plants honeypot story."

I kind of love that their big innovation is having the browser and other information in the game itself. It's like they're trying to sell as a major new feature something we've had since the late 90s.

I see lots of problems with their development and the title in general, but this isn't one of them. The truth would be more, "pay for variation." The variants that you get for MC aren't really any better, just slightly different (sometimes even worse!) except for the fact that you can get a C-Bill boost from them.

Just my two cents, as I hate access to something being called pay to win when the thing you're paying for isn't an advantage in the field.

I'm not even sure I'd give them functional. I play strictly for multiplayer, and even when dealing with the insane turn time (as you mentioned) two of my friends and I (in separate games) have failed to get past turn 100 due to crashes.

I want to like the game, I like the concept behind it all. What I don't like is the crashing (I haven't bothered with the forum in a while, as it was 90% people telling me to wait for the next patch, including devs), the counter-intuitive interface (the research window especially. Why oh why didn't they keep the research screen movement from SotS I, where it was easy and intuitive?!), the auto-resolve system, and the already mentioned turn times.

Basically I like the devs, I like the concepts, I like the world and story, and I don't like the game, nor can I stand to "try it again" as I've been told many times in the past and kept getting burned by.

Sorry to take it all off track. Hopefully this game is fun, and it funds an expansion that fixes SotS II. I just don't want anything more to do with the devs until I see something fun from my preorder and choice not to take advantage of the refund.

Oh, I think the Pit is a deviation as well. They made something fun, but it just wasn't what I (and I know a few others) hoped for. Basically, I would like them to either make SotS II amazing somehow, or make a new one that is.

Effectively, I'm looking for a space-based multiplayer 4x game that's fantastic and stable. This new game might be tons of fun, but it's just not what I hoped I see from them next.

I'm made really sad by what this company has been producing. I loved Sword of the Stars, and I enjoyed The Pit for what it was. Sword of the Stars 2 never managed to be properly functional for TONS of people, and this doesn't look to be anything that I'm interested in. Basically, I would like for them to continue making classic Sword of the Stars things, but I just don't love the angle that they're taking with their new products.

I just hope things turn around.

I'm a big fan of the game so far. There are some balance issues, but they've been correcting them. As for them sticking too much to the table-top damage model, they're starting to drift away from it as they get things in. As well, I've found that many of the complaints about balance sometimes have a counter, such as LRMs and ECM.

The gameplay is visceral in both feel and sound, and it's speed is based on your choice of mech and the situation. If you get together with even one person you can organize very well and the game is extra fun then.

We're all waiting for the metagame, and I think that when it comes out the game will really start to shine if it's done well. I have high hopes. I just wish that mechs and maps were being released a bit faster.