wow I was not expecting AAA cinematics, too bad they couldn't hire a decent writer

Task wrote on Jun 13, 2021, 19:43:

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 13, 2021, 15:53:
Dammit, I am getting AMPED up for this, like a sucker for the 6th time.

I would just be mindful of pre-ordering FOMO which they are good at from a marketing perspective. I remember BF3,4,5 being very rough at launch - they pulled a gotcha on me 3 times, so at least for me, I intend to wait a bit to buy after launch to assess how stable the game is.

Here, here!

Overcooked is MUST HAVE couch gaming with friends, grab that one next week.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 10, 2021, 13:22:

VaranDragon wrote on Jun 10, 2021, 05:55:
I stopped watching when the pilot ejected from his F-35 so he could shoot a hand-held missile at the Su-57. I get it that's its a game, that it's set in the close future, and that the trailer has probably very little to do with the actual gameplay, but this trailer is so ridiculously over the top that it was painful to watch. What little interest I had in this game (and I actually did have a little interest) has now waned almost completely

Yeah, I'm with you. I realize that it's emergent gameplay that manipulate the game mechanics to achieve a crazy kill like that, but I'm not sure it needs to be in the advertising. Still, with the inclusion of bots (I don't really like playing with strangers, but if I can convince my family members to pick this up, we could play 4 person coop vs. bots, that would be cool).

Then you are missing out on the most entertaining thing about the Battlefield style of gameplay: frantic chaos resolving into absurd sequences of events. It's a sandbox of combat carnage, and sharing stories with your friends of what you've witnessed or done on the Battlefield is part of the experience.

One time I was in the back of a transport chopter as we pursued a buggy that was hopping through the hills. It was making a break for it's home base. We started taking on anti-aircraft fire, and when alarms went off I put away my repair tool and bailed, safely landing outside the base. I turn to watch our pilot weave unsuccessfully, his chopter now engulfed in flames and tumbles during free-fall into the enemy base. The pilot jumps out just as the chopter falls between two warehouse buildings, but having timed the exit of vehicle perfectly, he does a holy-mofo-Jesus-walk seamlessly onto the building's roof... takes no fall damage, whips out his rocket launcher and fires a round towards the AA turret, then back to his assault rifle for some spawn kills like Rambo. And then he's sniped in the face!

Don't scorn its preposterous nature... embrace it!

The PC variant has been running more clunky as of late, makes me wonder what's already been tweaked under the hood.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 9, 2021, 17:26:

Slick wrote on Jun 9, 2021, 16:56:

Riahderymnmaddog wrote on Jun 9, 2021, 16:40:
EA had better not allow players to choose god damned female characters this time around. That woke shit 100% broke Battlefield V's immersion and made the game very unrealistic and unplayable.

To quote Patrick Soderlund: "we don't want you playing our game" lol

Also, it made the game "unplayable"? Goddamn! Snowflake, doesn't take a lot to make you wither.

I mean, there are multiple females clearly visible in the trailer, and it's modern-era, so you know, womyn can do things men can, like vote. Hate to break the news you obviously 120-year-old man.

Riahderymnmaddog was being sarcastic. That's his schtick. Satire is hard to with just text.

Let in every gender and race! I want to kill them all! muwuauahahahaa!

Wingsuit troops flying out of tornadoes? What have you become Battlefield...

ForgedReality wrote on Jun 7, 2021, 18:08:
Please. Anonymous is like half a dozen fat, hairy neckbeards on 4chan flexing their self-importance for all to see. I'd bet they don't really communicate either, one of them randomly releases a video or something independently to make it seem like there is some organized group of nerds, but it's just a handful of dudes with bad hygiene and no real potency in terms of "hacking" skills. 🙂

To think Musk is pursuing his glorious endeavors for all of us and planet Earth, is reminiscent to the level of ignorance possessed by people tricked into thinking Trump as President would be good for Americans and the USA.

Musk has laughed off threats (on various topics) from governing bodies of nations and industries, regulators and judicial systems, plus other corporations... anyone that tells him he can't do what he wants. And yet a threat from Anonymous may just be the most potent of all against his empire... and it's to protect cryptocurrnecy? Take the deal, Musk

Looking at the vast cityscape, I'm guessing a lot of the environment will be non-destructible

Makes sense, but too late?

Unique player count has doubled since going F2P in December 2018 (peak daily players from 500k to 1mil, monthly unique from 12mil to 26mil).

NortonLifeLock Unveils Norton Crypto. "the launch of Norton™ Crypto, a new feature designed to enable consumers to safely and easily mine cryptocurrency through its trusted Norton™ 360 platform"

Funny how resource-hogging was a major concern about antivirus, and Norton has flipped that into "Let us help you make 'money', by you helping us mine Ethereum"... at least Norton is smart enough to incorporate a separate entity for this scam.

jdreyer wrote on May 30, 2021, 18:28:
Doesn't OW have a bunch diverse characters already? And if the complaint is that they are stereotypes, isn't that true of most of the characters, including the white ones like McCree and Soldier?

This reddit post seems to reference the most up-to-date hero selection and evaluates the ethnic diversity of it compared to the worlds population. Generally speaking, the OW lineup is reasonably close, and the presumption that it should be this way is derived from the original story and lore that Blizzard created: "In a time of global crisis, an international task force of heroes banded together to restore peace to a war-torn world. This organization, known as Overwatch, ended the crisis and helped maintain peace for a generation, inspiring an era of exploration, innovation, and discovery."

jdreyer wrote on May 30, 2021, 18:31:
I wonder why they don't make 5v5 with role locks just another mode, leaving the original in place?

Fair point, I find it hard to imagine the new maps can't handle both 5vs5 and 6vs6. The 'original' modes of OW1 are still available as Classic Quick Play and Open Queue Competitive (except no duplicates). Who knows if those modes will still remain 6vs6 after the OW2 transition.

Overwatch seems to struggle with an identity crisis: the devs are trying to maintain gameplay depth for the pro-league scene, but the VAST majority of the paying-customer-base are filthy casuals who (apparently) struggle to enjoy the game's complexities with 6vs6.

He's got some good, technical thoughts about the evolution of the Overwatch gameplay over the years. But stuck in the middle of the opinion piece, is the following:

Competitive gaming's white, cisgendered player base has long been an obstacle for many players....Blizzard has repeatedly embraced racist stereotypes in both its storytelling and cosmetics, and it has refused to further diversify its (somewhat diverse) cast with new heroes...And it offers only weak tools to manage the game's routinely toxic chat.

The writer goes on to say:

Blizzard's reluctance to alienate the kind of players competitive shooters have made comfortable since their inception has led it to erode some of the smartest parts of the game.

Add that up, and it reads to me like he's calling out a subset of people, of a specific skin colour and gender, as being the culprits of why the game is (in his opinion) worse today. And the devs should "alienate" and censor those people moving forward.

Seriously, Tyler Colp? Your own opinion boils down to prejudice beliefs based on generalizations? Your bait successfully got my click, but you sir, are as much of an asshole as the ones you are blaming for breaking the game you adore.

This comment was edited on May 30, 2021, 15:48.

It will become an epidemic, especially as predators try to hide their tracks by disguising victims of their sexual abuse, even children.

CoH1 was really well done back in 2006, not surprised the sequel couldn't surpass it.

Most likely to be Valve's next-gen, wireless VR headset featuring new controllers.

buckrussell wrote on May 24, 2021, 12:46:
they charge that much because there are people dumb enough to actually PAY it

That's a bit harsh.

Apex is a free game that has been out for +2 years, and lots of gamers have migrated from Battlefield, Call of Duty, CSGO, Halo, etc and now play Apex as their primary FPS. It's common to see players with thousands of hours of gameplay experience. Many of these 'regulars' value the exclusivity of the cosmetic, and considering how much they frag, will feel like they get the mileage out of the cosmetic.

More over, if you buy the season pass (950 coins), at various levels you are rewarded with more coins, and if you finish the pass you actually end up with 1200 coins. So a player can buy the season pass once, and 'earn' every subsequent pass without having to pay more money, plus have enough coin left over to buy some of these exclusive cosmetics. Yes, there are more cosmetics than you can earn in-game coin to afford... but 'needing' to collect them all is a fault of the consumer, not the business model.

Meanwhile, Apex's Heirloom Shards may be the biggest "scam" in all of mainstream gaming. Every loot box has < 1% chance to award you 150 shards; you need 150 shards to buy one of five 'melee' weapons. There is a 'pity timer': if you open 499 lot boxes and never earned the shards, your 500th box will contain the shards. You can buy lot boxes for about $1 each, but you also earn 100s of them if you play regularly.

This comment was edited on May 24, 2021, 13:25.

"With that goal accomplished and the game not feeling pay-to-win"

What about all those kiddies paying for cheats to win? Running into a aimbotting squad certainly feels like pay-to-win...

That's a fine retort, albeit from a pessimistic perspective. If the past is such a clear indicator of the future, funny how today is better than 100 years ago. I guess I'm a foolish romantic at heart, that would prefer a dog on my coin than a president cheers!