Task wrote on Dec 31, 2020, 11:58:
They have 3d radar and targeting computers so the whole cockpits in star wars is a moot point.

Anyways the game is fun, but I wish they wouldn't have adopted the slow speed for everything but interceptors.

In the old games everything felt slow then too but that was a limitation of the perspective/engine (might have made it harder to hit things). Unfortunately you can't live out the fantasy of flying fast in other ships like the Y-Wing aces in RoTJ that you see literally bouncing and destroying tie interceptors. And enemy player ships including your self feel lake laser sponges to compensate for the slow evasion and overall speed.

Imagine if they implemented speed in the way Ace Combat 7 feels for a example, dog fights would be real knuckle clenchers.

Ehhh, you're asking for something that isn't even consistent with the feel of the movies. If you look at the first three (release date) movies, the fighters were flown like WW2 aircraft, especially Pacific Theatre aircraft (close range and low energy fights). Dogfighting was not high-speed off-angle passes (like the Korean War jets), but more like sustained low-g turns with tailing. Most high-speed engagement scenes in the movies portrayed nose-to-nose entries into the merge.

Honestly, where Squadrons falls flat to me, is because you spend most of your time shooting at long range enemies (tiny dots on the monitor) that zip offscreen quickly, as opposed to the much shorter range and lower pitch and yaw-rate engagements on film (granted, part of that was so the audience can see all of the action in frame, as it is a movie and not a simulation, but it does create a certain feel this game doesn't replicate).

Kxmode wrote on Dec 30, 2020, 18:20:

Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 30, 2020, 16:23:

Kxmode wrote on Dec 30, 2020, 16:13:

Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 30, 2020, 16:09:
He who dies with the most points, wins.

Did Carl Sagan say that?

I don't think Carl would say anything quite that silly.

You never know. I'm sure he had a jocular side. A center of attention of soir�es and other gatherings.

Apparently he was quite charming. As evidenced by the fact that he nailed so many of his female grad students that he could have been a carpenter...

Saboth wrote on Dec 25, 2020, 16:09:

Cutter wrote on Dec 25, 2020, 13:59:
I found this game to be just too brutal and depressing as well as too RNG.

Same. I played it until the point where it was time to go into the final dungeon and then I just stopped. I didn't want to lose all my characters and gear I'd worked so hard to obtain. In my game world, the heroes surrounded the darkest dungeon and prevented it from spreading, boarded it up and put up signs warning people not to go in.

And this is the same experience I and several of my friends had with the game. There were just too many oppositional mechanics at play for me to really enjoy the ride. Once I got to a decent level and had most characters in a balanced state, it just wasn't worth the risk to keep playing, since I knew that my position would never improve, and probably never even reach the point it was at at that moment ever again. There's something wrong with a game mechanic that compels a player to stop playing the game...

GinRummy wrote on Dec 18, 2020, 10:45:
NEW MISSIONS! Deliver refunds to Playstation gamers across the map! Avoid angry XBoxers trolling in random areas! Display the new SMUG emote on the PC version! Something for everyone.

OK, that's funny right there!

Dev wrote on Dec 18, 2020, 11:40:

Bill Borre wrote on Dec 17, 2020, 20:38:

Court rules for Plaintiffs...Plaintiffs have shown that Federighi is a higher-level decision maker

That's interesting. I didn't know that judges had the power to determine the corporate pecking order of a boardroom.

Sounds to me more like the judge said that epic asked for him because epic claims he's higher level, and they should get him, and if they chose wrong, too bad for epic, they need to stew in their own juices a while more. While apple was just trying to swap him out for someone else for an unknown reason.

The reason may very well be that Federighi's communications are probably more policy and high-level communications on the subject, whereas Neuenschwander's may be more down-in-the-weeds and based on different concerns. If you are trying to frame this as a "policy based on technical reasons" as opposed to "policy based on competitive reasons", one set of communications might help paint the process the way you want the judge to see it better than the other. Same is true if you're Epic and doing the discovery...

MattyC wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 22:04:

the next time someone wishes to sue Youtube for viewpoint discrimination

It will be thrown out of court because viewpoint discrimination is a first amendment issue and Alphabet is not a government entity...

Websites were never common carriers and they do not magically accept responsibility for all user generated content just because they take down something that they do not want to host.

Was the original quote too long for you to read? You are arguing against a narrow statement I didn't make:

Just, the next time someone wishes to sue Youtube for viewpoint discrimination or other issue, depending on the laws involved, the courts simply won't absolve Youtube based on the fact that they are feigning viewpoint neutrality and claiming whatever legal protections come from it, if any.

Suppose a private entity does not want to broadcast a view it finds objectionable. The state, by means of the law and its penalties, says that the private entity must broadcast it. The private entity broadcasts the view. Why, under your framework, has the private entity not been compelled?

Because that company can now admit that they will be responsible for any and all content on their website, as they are curating it based on the viewpoint. Something Youtube execs insist (including under oath in front of Congress) that they don't do. You want companies to declare they are non-profits to avoid taxes, and then not follow the rules for non-profits? I have no problems with Youtube declaring that it has decided that no opinions other than its approved ones are acceptable on its platform. And then it should lose any protections it receives for not being a publisher.

Obviously, private entities are not compelling anyone to post on their platform. I am asking why you feel they must broadcast views they don't want to broadcast under threat of being treated as a publisher. See below.

Because that's the definition of publisher.

I understand that you believe platforms have gone too far in moderation. How does classifying them as publishers lead to less moderation? If, under your asserted legal regime, platforms are now liable for their content, won't that lead to more aggressive moderation and banning, not less? Legacy publishers all place substantial editorial boundaries on what will or will not be published. How would classifying social media as a publisher lead to a different result?

Because Youtube has reached near-monopoly status by leveraging legal, financial, and social protections afforded it by claiming it is not liable for the content posted (note that copyright strikes are totally a Youtube invented process to avoid liability for Youtube under the DMCA, and exist nowhere in the legislation itself. And this quasi-legalese processes are then presented as if they aren't also used by Youtube to pick and choose content to approve/reject. It's the same thing with respect to moderation.). I haven't said anything about this leading to less censorship (though I would like less). It will result in Youtube no longer leveraging legal protections to dominate the market and allow the potential for more competition. which may result in less censorship. There is a chance, whereas now there is none.

Who do you propose should enforce this demand?

Are you dense? No one needs to enforce it. Those opinions need never be posted by Youtube. Just, the next time someone wishes to sue Youtube for viewpoint discrimination or other issue, depending on the laws involved, the courts simply won't absolve Youtube based on the fact that they are feigning viewpoint neutrality and claiming whatever legal protections come from it, if any. I have no problem with Youtube being held to the same standards as every other publisher. You need to explain why they shouldn't.

Amusingly enough, this entire discussion proves my point. Here we have a bunch of internet randos "sucking the dick" (as you accused another poster of) of the largest internet media company on the planet, and who I guarantee would lose their minds if Youtube decided that LGBT or racial issues were inappropriate for a corporate brand to be promoting. And yet, you would empower them to do that, while giving them government protections while doing so. The assembled wisdom and foresight of these internet Nostradumbasses, were it converted to water, couldn't drown a microbe...

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:33:

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:21:

JohnBirshire wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:16:

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 18:02:
Neither google nor youtube return the video if i search for the name of the video "Cyberpunk 2077 Review - A gamers perspective, not a corporate one"

I just tried this out of curiosity...you're right, doesn't come up in search results. North America.

WAB's location is the United Kingdom.
I'm guessing it ain't location based.

Duck Duck Go does return it.

Which is interesting, since DuckDuckGo partly uses Google on the backend (at least the last time I checked) and just anonymizes the request. More to the point, the owner of youtube doesn't show the result, but a non-aligned engine does? Color me suspicious...

Nice strawman there. No one is compelling speech. Compelling speech means I am required to say something (you know, like when various interest groups say that you must publicly support them or they will doxx and destroy you and your business) I would not normally say. We are talking about intentionally hiding, deleting, or banning ideas that the corporation dislikes. If the corporation's platforms are providing a public platform, then they are allowing public speech, not compelling it. This is the basis of the safe harbor protections internet websites enjoy. By not publishing, endorsing, or restricting speech beyond what is illegal in their jurisdiction, they are granted immunity for what others post on their platforms. Once they start to decide what speech is allowable, they have become publishers, by choosing which ideas they publish. It's not hard. The fact that you have to work really hard to try and conflate forced speech with viewpoint neutrality just shows that even you know your point is bogus. No one is demanding youtube announce that Cyberpunk 2077 is a glitch-ridden mess. They're just demanding that youtube allow others to make such a statement on their supposedly public (which is what they claim themselves in order to maintain safe harbor) platform.

thestryker wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 14:15:
Seeing as a director is the one in control of a team delivering a product on a set timeline they very much are a part of the crunch problem. They allowed the scope to exceed the timeframe they had to deliver it, and the rest employees paid the price. This means they failed to do part of their job well, and thus shouldn't be winning an award for it.

Dude, quit while you are behind. The idea that this is supposed to be a managerial award and not directed at the artistic, creative, and gameplay innovations (whatever you think of TLoU2) is so risible that I can't believe anyone other than a knee-jerk attention-seeking contrarian (so, basically a Kotaku employee) could even suggest it with a straight face. Just... no...

It's a good gig if you can get it, I guess. It's a hell of a thing to be able to make your living through your hobbies...

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 13:16:
Here's something really crazy. The only truly honest review of the current state of the game is Worth A Buy, and his video is now being censored. It will not come up on a Google search. You have to go directly to his channel on youtube to watch it. He recently released a follow-up video about the situation. The Internet is really turning into a big pile of fake news. It favors fake over facts. Ugh

Here's Mack's (pc) review (which is actually quite funny, particularly the rating segment at the end. He does it that way to try not to butt-hurt the fanboys lol):
WaB Cyberpunk 2077 Review

Here's his follow-up vid:
WaB Cyberpunk 2077 Follow-up

So many people are firmly behind corporate censorship ("It's not censorship unless it's the government, man..."), never dreaming that their own opinions and speech will be the next to go. Like Robespierre to the guillotine, they are shocked that the monster they created has turned on them.

In fairness to Mack, I have no idea on his stance about social media and search engine censorship, and I'm not advocating he be censored. I just find it funny that some of his fans are all butthurt about his review being hidden (not directing this at you), but have no problem demanding that anyone else that doesn't agree with their opinions be memory-holed tout suite! As if anyone can be trusted to decide what is and isn't allowable...

Sure, we can award "Best Direction" for things other than "direction." Of course, it begs the question as to why we would have categories in the first place, if the actual category doesn't matter in the award.

If studio working conditions are important to you, or the people giving the awards, then why not create an award for "best working conditions" or something? Sounds like a worthwhile award. But I hate this seemingly modern attitude that we should judge the performance under one benchmark by throwing in elements of other, unrelated, considerations. "Sure, your game has only 30 minutes of content, but we're gonna give you the 'Longest Play-time Award' because we like your stance on renewable energy." This attempt at intellectual and cultural hegemony is stupid at best and pernicious at worst. It is also the indicator of a very limited intellect. But that's par for the course at Kotaku...

JTW wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 09:13:
Eventually we'll only have three game companies left.

Why not? We already have only four media companies, three retail outlets, one online marketplace. The main thrust of the modern world is corporate conglomeration, apparently. Seems Cyberpunk 2077 is being used as an instruction manual (as is 1984)...

Anybody got this? Does the "custom games" option extend the single-player value of this (I'm more interested in that than online matches)? Is this more worth getting now if I'm mainly going to fly vs computer?

Zyrxil wrote on Dec 7, 2020, 12:02:
So did any Blind people actually complain to Twitch or was it a bunch of white people trying to feel like they're doing something? This is useless corporate signaling on the level of the Aunt Jemima change. Costs them nothing, benefits no one. If Twitch really cared they'd implement accessibility functions into their site, but that'd require real work.

None of the people who are quoted in the article are blind. One is disabled, though why having one disability allows you to speak for others with a different disability is not addressed in the article (and will never be addressed, as long as it promotes the voices those in the media want heard). All are self-described "advocates" for the disabled, so take that for what it is worth...

Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 29, 2020, 13:36:

Eirikrautha wrote on Nov 29, 2020, 12:57:

Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 29, 2020, 11:40:
Let me see if I have this right... You believe "Having the freedom to choose whether we'd like to wear a mask or not is more important to us than the chance we'll die." But you then turn around and criticize others by saying, "Because you are so weak and selfish, so pampered and self-absorbed, you can't imagine anything more important than your own life." Got it.

Correct. The fact you can't understand the rationale that makes both obvious says far more about you than me...

I do understand the rationale you are putting forward, I simply dismiss it as "obviously" without any merit. You believe your right to not wear a mask is more important than your responsibility to the rest of your community to NOT spread a dangerous virus. This is the thinking which has made the US the country with more infections and more deaths than any other nation in the world. I can hear you from here chanting, "We're #1! We're #1!".

It's the sentiment that makes me a citizen, and you a subject. Those who fought the Stasi understand. May your chains rest lightly.

Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 29, 2020, 11:40:
Let me see if I have this right... You believe "Having the freedom to choose whether we'd like to wear a mask or not is more important to us than the chance we'll die." But you then turn around and criticize others by saying, "Because you are so weak and selfish, so pampered and self-absorbed, you can't imagine anything more important than your own life." Got it.

Correct. The fact you can't understand the rationale that makes both obvious says far more about you than me...

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 29, 2020, 08:41:
Lockdowns and masks don't infringe upon your rights.

You aren't qualified to make that assertion.

Beamer wrote on Nov 29, 2020, 00:41:

Eirikrautha wrote on Nov 28, 2020, 14:25:

eRe4s3r wrote on Nov 27, 2020, 20:10:
If that were only true .. on my local regional TV station in Germany (RBB) they brought a documentary just yesterday about the eastern German freedom fighters from my HOME REGION that brought the wall down with their actions and activities against the STASI, ALL OF THEM (not a joke, ALL) are Covidiots now. I even knew some of them, I had talked to them years ago in school, as examples on how to fight oppression by the STASI. And they ALL think that wearing a mask is fascist akin to STASI regime.. I mean.. WTF?. If I were to meet them now, I'd punch them.

As if wearing a mask is any different than wearing pants.

So, men and women who have done more for western society and liberty than anyone on this board, at greater risk to themselves, disagree with you about what freedom means... and it never crosses your mind that they might understand something more clearly than you do? That perhaps they might have a different set of priorities? That death is less important to them (since they've already risked that for freedom) than the ability to choose for themselves? Talk about unintentionally proving a point about internet idiots...

Sorry, thinking covid is just the flu isn't understanding anything. It's trying to get our parents killed.

This isn't a difference of opinion, it's not believing basic facts

These are "our parents." And nobody said "it's just the flu" (but we both know that strawmen are your only arguments). What they say is, "Having the freedom to choose whether we'd like to wear a mask or not is more important to us than the chance we'll die." And that is a matter of opinion.

This is why the present few generations have squandered the freedoms they have inherited. Because you are so weak and selfish, so pampered and self-absorbed, you can't imagine anything more important than your own life. And so you'll willingly give up everything that makes life worth living in order to extend your time on this earth by a few measly moments. There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom, and you (our last few generations) have been found wanting...