Razumen wrote on Dec 11, 2024, 00:09:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Dec 10, 2024, 03:48:
The game is insanely similar to Overwatch. Both in graphics as with its heroes. Few examples:

Starlord = Tracer + Reaper
The Punisher = Soldier 76 + Bastion
Luna Snow = Lucio + xx (forgotten as I write this)
Magneto = Zarya + Sigma
Etc

I get the "better steal good ideas than have bad ones" mantra but this is crazy; shady and if they hadn't also copied the polish and fun of Overwatch, it'd be like you ordered Overwatch from Temu.

Except all of those characters predate Overwatch by decades. If anything, Overwatch's characters are all the Temu versions.

This is like the butthurt Blizzard exec whining and claiming that Black Widow was a copy of Widowmaker. 🤣

Explain how they predate Overwatch by decades? Mind you, I'm not talking about how they look. I'm talking about how they play.

The game is insanely similar to Overwatch. Both in graphics as with its heroes. Few examples:

Starlord = Tracer + Reaper
The Punisher = Soldier 76 + Bastion
Luna Snow = Lucio + xx (forgotten as I write this)
Magneto = Zarya + Sigma
Etc

I get the "better steal good ideas than have bad ones" mantra but this is crazy; shady and if they hadn't also copied the polish and fun of Overwatch, it'd be like you ordered Overwatch from Temu.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Dec 8, 2024, 12:10:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Dec 8, 2024, 11:33:
This isn’t Postal. This isn’t Call of Duty. To fail to see the difference is to show a profound lack of understanding

Or it's completely rejecting the notion that, in this context, what the title portrays is wholly and completely irrelevant.

"B...b...but war done by nations is A-OK because reasons" is probably one of the least informed opinions/excuses I read. Because it shows an astoundingly ignorant view, and a lack of knowledge and understanding of war. No one is the "good guy" in a war. It just ends up being which side sucks less. Every side in every war you can name committed what we now consider war crimes and atrocities. Every. Single. Side. So the argument that a game that depicts soldiers engaging in conflict is somehow ethically or morally superior is straight up bullshit. Because it's whitewashing actual events so the player can get their power fantasy on and conveniently ignore the actual reality without having to question their own actions and thoughts. The best example of a game bucking that trend was Spec Ops: The Line. In that game, there is a point where you are mowing down escaping civilians with white phosphorus rounds. If you don't know what that does to the human body, look it up. It's really fucking gruesome. A fact that the game itself shows you. Yet, although it has been mentioned in reviews of the time, it didn't generate nearly the same hue and cry as this title.

Why? Because it's not about the content, it's a political issue. Dog forbid anything in the West show Israel in any light other than as perfect angels with immaculately clean hands who were completely blameless victims of an attack that they in no way instigated by their actions over decades in the West Bank. That Palestine currently holds the largest number of dead children, maimed children, and child amputees is of no consequence when this game, such as it is, is allegedly the very apex of poor taste.

But I digress.

Take a dozen people and you'll get twelve different answers as to what titles they find offensive/objectionable/morally bereft.

Which one of the twelve is "right"? Why does their judgement supercede any one else's?

No one has yet to answer those questions. Instead we get pointless diversions in to whataboutisms.

I rarely see moral bankruptcy so openly displayed, BoP. I thought I was clear in emphasizing that the soldier (that you'd play as) matters. A soldier thrust into war by a nation’s political machinations can be a good guy, a bad guy, or any shade in between. But a "soldier" who storms into a festival full of carefree youngsters, mowing them down with gleeful, antisemitic hatred, is not just any guy. He’s a murderous, hate-fueled, Jew-hating piece of human garbage, plain and simple.

“B...b...but the West Bank!” Save it. The West Bank is irrelevant in this context. If Jews had escaped from a concentration camp and then turned around to massacre German children, decapitate fathers, and rape mothers, my sympathy for them would evaporate in an instant. Actions matter. Intent matters. And let’s not kid ourselves: Gaza wasn’t a concentration camp. If it was, much of that was of their own making.

If you can’t see the moral chasm between these scenarios, I honestly don’t think this conversation can continue. The sheer lack of distinction being made here is sickening.

Games like Postal are complete fiction, and military games based on real events, like Call of Duty, generally depict soldiers and war efforts -- often framed around either noble intent marred by collateral damage or the messy realities of political agendas.

But a game about October 7th is something else entirely. The perpetrators you play as weren't soldiers acting as tools of a state -- they were murderous, Jew-hating rapists. And the 'gameplay' isn't about combat with opposing forces, but the slaughter and violation of innocent Jews.

This isn’t Postal. This isn’t Call of Duty. To fail to see the difference is to show a profound lack of understanding

Yeah seems I have a special relationship with 4:30 don't I When I worked at a night club near the beach, at the end of my shift I went on a walk with my niece. There were 2 plastic chairs on the sand, catching the morning waves. We sat down. We were talking about some personal problems but ended up being completely captured by the stillness of the world. We talk about it to this day. It was pure magic.
It was at 4:30.

krinkle wrote on Dec 7, 2024, 18:56:
Worth a Buy is saying the game is very hand holdy, the AI is kinda garbage and it's made for modern audiences. He says the story is the best part of the game.

Worth A Buy sadly built a reputation so incredibly cynical, that anything other than "DING DING DING THE GAME IS WORSE THAN DRINKING RAT PISS" could actually be a pretty fucking great game.

As for waking up at 4:30... I'd actually argue that if mindfulness had a time attached to it, it'd be exactly 4:30. 4:30 is the time the (spring/summer) sky is incredibly beautiful, yet the majority of people aren't awake yet to witness it. There's an indescribable calmness at 4:30. If you're truly awake at that hour, even an atheist like myself is in touch with God.

Beamer wrote on Dec 5, 2024, 21:45:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Dec 5, 2024, 17:36:
Yay! The echo chamber is back! Let’s all gather ‘round and trash those "fucking disgusting cis-gendered MAGA incels" who got Trump elected!

Seriously though, social media is like toothpaste that’s already out of the tube -- it’s not going back in. The internet is the world’s public square now. Period. Moderators will always have political biases. Sure, maybe they’d be less biased if they were better vetted, but bias will still exist. Policing the public square only creates echo chambers.

It’s better for us, as humans, to adapt to the current reality and navigate disinformation and misinformation ourselves -- through open discourse and trial-and-error. We don’t need ideologues dictating what and how to think, propped up by their pet moderators. Let everyone speak freely (except calls for violence), and let the consequences of bad ideas play out naturally. Pain is a great teacher. The toothpaste is out, the ship has sailed.

But hey, yayyyy! Let’s all hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and screw MAGA! 😃

You're just rambling without making an attempt at a point. Isn't your presence here proof this isn't an echo chamber?

And humans have proven to be terrible at evaluating disinformation and misinformation. And bad ideas are growing, not spreading. Have you logged in to Facebook? It's all retirees saying "God bless" to ai images and then crying about trans people or chemtrails.

I don’t agree with much of what you say, but your description of Facebook is spot-on -- critical thinking really does seem to go there to die! 😂 Bravo.

That said, Facebook is moderated, isn’t it? So its problems reflect more on the platform being a retiree playground than on a lack of moderation. The issue isn’t whether platforms moderate; it’s how they moderate and the trust (or lack of it) that follows.

Take the Hunter Biden laptop story. At this point, just hearing the phrase makes my eyes roll, but you can’t deny it’s a poster child for biased moderation. Suppressing that story was a death blow to trust in platforms’ ability to moderate fairly. Can we ever get back to a place where both sides’ claims are fact-checked with the same rigor? Or are we better off following X’s model of letting most things fly? Would a platform like Bluesky allow Hagseth’s rape allegations to roam freely while clamping down on similar claims about a Democrat? (For the record, just mentioning Hagseth gives me the dry heaves, he's so fucking slimey -- I’m unpartisan on this.)

So yeah, I stand by what I said: The toothpaste is out, the ship has sailed. We’re living in the wild west of online discourse, and maybe it’s time we stop trying to play sheriff. I'm very open for convincing arguments against this view.

Remasters are such a waste. They always look as good/bad as you remember the original, unless you played the original not so long ago.

Yay! The echo chamber is back! Let’s all gather ‘round and trash those "fucking disgusting cis-gendered MAGA incels" who got Trump elected!

Seriously though, social media is like toothpaste that’s already out of the tube -- it’s not going back in. The internet is the world’s public square now. Period. Moderators will always have political biases. Sure, maybe they’d be less biased if they were better vetted, but bias will still exist. Policing the public square only creates echo chambers.

It’s better for us, as humans, to adapt to the current reality and navigate disinformation and misinformation ourselves -- through open discourse and trial-and-error. We don’t need ideologues dictating what and how to think, propped up by their pet moderators. Let everyone speak freely (except calls for violence), and let the consequences of bad ideas play out naturally. Pain is a great teacher. The toothpaste is out, the ship has sailed.

But hey, yayyyy! Let’s all hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and screw MAGA! 😃

I'll try it, but only because it's on Gamepass.

The game looks like a VR game to me, with about as much depth. Unless the story is phenomenal, I can't imagine being blown away by these gameplay mechanics we've seen since time immemorial. I think it's time to realize that Stealth in games is dead. It's done too many times and I am personally not creative enough to see how it can evolve: adding realism will make it suck very hard (look at Stalker 2 for a glimpse of that), but keeping it as dumb and easy as we're used to keeps it incredible predictable and boring and shallow as a puddle.

RedEye9 wrote on Dec 4, 2024, 10:40:
Sweetie,
Burrito of Peace doesn’t need your suggestions, recommendations or gatekeeping. You may want to note how not one single person has replied to your previous post. Do yourself a favor and buy a clue, if you can’t afford a clue one can be provided for you.

I don't need confirmation like that to assume my posts are being read. Unlike you, apparently. So here you go, "sweetie".

Burrito of Peace wrote on Dec 4, 2024, 09:28:

Teddy wrote on Dec 4, 2024, 01:26:
Pragmatism is generally not discussed in terms of things you'd "love" to see. That's an emotional connection to the statement that you made, not a logical one.

Untrue.

I would love to see artificial inflation due to corporate greed reigned in significantly and sharply. In turn, this would provide more financial motility to the average American. That's not emotional, that's also purely pragmatic. "Love" can be used as an expression for a desired outcome without emotional investment.

/---\

VaranDragon wrote on Dec 4, 2024, 02:37:
Holy shit that's cold. You must be really fun at parties.

It is cold. But whenever conflict is discussed, there is little room for emotion in making decisions necessary to ensure that the adversary is defeated with a finality that prevents them from being adversaries in the future.

As for parties, never been my scene. So whether I am "fun" at them or nor is wholly irrelevant to me.

I think we've hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of your logic. Let's forget about this and move on.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Dec 3, 2024, 09:19:

VaranDragon wrote on Dec 3, 2024, 02:20:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Dec 2, 2024, 19:31:
I'd personally love to see Moscow reduced to a glass crater. What's Russia going to do? Get more terrible soldiers and weapons from North Korea?

Oh look. Another person wishing for the death of millions. Hate is easy, isn't it?

Oh look. Another person making assumptions. Pointless reductionism is easy, isn't it?

My previous comment was removed for referring to your statement with a less friendly term for "uninformed" which is being thrown around here like confetti at a children's party 🎉 Now I’ve personally experienced Bluesnews’ questionable moderation, and I can confirm it’s just as frustrating as seeing it happen to others.

That said, let me rephrase: How exactly do you think bombing Russia would end? Do you not grasp the concept of mutually assured destruction? This nuclear stalemate is what cynically, yet effectively, keeps the peace between the US and Russia.

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Dec 3, 2024, 08:03. Reason: Personal attacks (rule 1)

Stalker 2 still performs poorly and doesn't even look good enough to justify its lackluster performance. If a game looks absolutely breathtaking, I can overlook some performance issues, but that's not the case here. That this game isn't getting nuked to oblivion just blows my mind. But hey, at least it isn't woke...

I remember Crysis 3 running bad. Then again, the visuals on that oil rig with the rainstorm still look amazing to this day.

FloorPie wrote on Dec 1, 2024, 20:06:

DarkCntry wrote on Dec 1, 2024, 02:01:
It literally is what Overwatch was during its heyday...with some destructible environments and Marvel skins.

I didn't get to play during any of the tests, but the people that I know who have played it enjoyed their time, as well as most of the Youtubers/Twitch streamers I watch. Depending on how the monetization lays out in the long run, I'll probably play it.

I played in the July beta, even tried some competitive mode games. Overwatch should be worried. Rivals is open queue, 6v6 like OW was on release. Overwatch classic during the past 2-3 weeks should tell blizzard enough is enough and to go back to 6v6.

I expect Rivals to be janky and not balanced but from my beta experience the game was fun enough to not care. Hopefully they have gotten the performance optimizations squared away though.

Maybe it's time for Overwatch to die, after having lived a good life. There's pros in there now that show you the rock/paper/scissor system of the game like it hits you in the mouth and knocks out your teeth.

But without Overwatch, the world is left with a huge void that needs to be filled with something else, and that could be Marvel: Rivals. Consider me enthused.

PS: It also looks/feels so much like Overwatch that I'm surprised there isn't a massive court case going on right now.

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 18:57:
How to say you don't think systemic racism is a thing w/out saying you don't think systemic racism is a thing.

Wouldn't you want to engage in actual conversation for once, Redeye? Instead of limiting yourself to sending links to your favorite articles and trolling people you disagree with, it would be nice to see you have a respectful discussion for once 🤭

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 09:18:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 02:17:
Nobody denies "merit" isn't a thing, it's just not one thing and often impossible to measure during those first impressions you get in job interviews. Is that a strong nutshell?

I think that is a fair summation of it.

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 02:17:
I think we maybe talk over eachother too, because what we haven't been debating is what DEI should never be about is selecting people for a job based on something that says absolutely nothing about them, like the color of their skin. And I think this is what it all comes down to. When two people somehow show the exact same skills and impressions during an interview, but one is white and the other is black, the color of their skin should never be the deciding factor, because exactly that is racism or discrimination. The same goes for gender, if gender should mean nothing for that specific job. In this situation, you either continue to interview them until someone comes out stronger, and in an almost fictional scenario where it remains 50/50... the final selection should be picked randomly.

Except in the real world, this almost never happens. One, because humans are not robots stamped out of a mould. I have never in my life, in decades of employment, met two candidates that were identical in every way with the only difference being their phenotype. There is always one candidate, for a variety of reasons, that stands out and edges the rest of the candidates out. Always. Two, no org that purely hires based on a checklist stays in business for very long. Ideology doesn't build teams or departments that can significantly execute reliably or pivot on a dime if necessary. It doesn't provide the leadership necessary to promote growth either as an organization or encourage growth in individuals.

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 30, 2024, 02:17:
Having observed the whole DEI public opinion for a few years, I believe this is the issue, and while debating what is and isn't "merit" or how useful it is while gauging the most competent applicant is interesting, I doubt it addresses the elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room is low skill individuals, usually white and male, being butthurt because they weren't automatically granted a job based on the color of their skin or gender. You'll never hear high skill individuals screeching about DEI because they've made a career for themselves and have climbed the corporate ladder.

Though it is not always white men whining. I'll give you a real world example. About six years ago I was asked to sit in on a hiring committee due to my interviewing techniques. It is important to note that on this hiring committee I was the only person who was white and the only person who was male.

We interviewed a bunch of people that day. I gave my recommendation on a candidate and thought nothing more of it. Two weeks later, my org's lawyers contacted me and asked me about a particular candidate we elected not to hire. This individual had filed a DEI complaint with the state and was moving forward with a lawsuit. The grounds, such as they were, for their complaint was that we discriminated against her because she was black and a woman.

When she interviewed to a panel that overwhelmingly consisted of women of color. Let that sink in for a moment.

Were DEI such the rampaging force that some people whine so loudly about, she should have been an automatic shoo-in for the job, right? The reality is that she bombed that interview so hard that, after she left, one of the other panel members joked we should rename the conference room to "Hiroshima". It was epic levels of bombing an interview. Truly breathtaking to behold in hindsight.

That's why I have no time for whining about DEI from low skill people and reject the notion that "merit based hiring" is anything but a smokescreen for "I should automatically get the job because reasons". You want the job? Interview better. Demonstrate a better grasp of the array of skills necessary to do the job, not just the function of one aspect of the job itself. Learn how to write a resume that sparks interest. Learn to network so that people know your face, your name, and something about you so that you are recognized as a known quality should your name come up for an interview.

In short, grow as a human being and don't come home from your McJob (and I am not throwing shade on any level of employment here) and whine on the internet that you didn't get the CEO job for which you applied.

When you started your anecdote, I thought you were going to say the lawyered up black woman applicant was actually fit for the job but some deep rooted bias for people of color and/or women blinded you and your panel (ironically consisting of predominantly black women) to her merit. Instead, your story went the opposite direction and she was absolutely terrible.

I don't agree that the point you made was strong. I think that's because I don't believe opponents of DEI hold the idea that black women, by checking two DEI marks, automatically get the job regardless of their interview performance.

My albeit exaggerated point was that if two applicants are basically equally impressive, the deciding factor should never be their skin color or gender (naturally, unless the job specifically requires it, a simple example being a model for a specific photo shoot). I don't believe it's only white paupers who are against this DEI version of the vision at all.

Wow, there's a nice conversation going here! And I see everyone's point quite clearly now, I think.

Nobody denies "merit" isn't a thing, it's just not one thing and often impossible to measure during those first impressions you get in job interviews. Is that a strong nutshell?

I think we maybe talk over eachother too, because what we haven't been debating is what DEI should never be about is selecting people for a job based on something that says absolutely nothing about them, like the color of their skin. And I think this is what it all comes down to. When two people somehow show the exact same skills and impressions during an interview, but one is white and the other is black, the color of their skin should never be the deciding factor, because exactly that is racism or discrimination. The same goes for gender, if gender should mean nothing for that specific job. In this situation, you either continue to interview them until someone comes out stronger, and in an almost fictional scenario where it remains 50/50... the final selection should be picked randomly.

Having observed the whole DEI public opinion for a few years, I believe this is the issue, and while debating what is and isn't "merit" or how useful it is while gauging the most competent applicant is interesting, I doubt it addresses the elephant in the room.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 28, 2024, 11:01:

Beamer wrote on Nov 28, 2024, 07:32:
It's so baffling that some people are still ignorant enough about the world to cry "merit based employment!"

The fact that such people have employment should demonstrate that little in life is truly merit based, as there's no singular definition of "merit."

Bingo. In fact, it's a time worn truism in employment that it is often not what you know but who you know. I have networked heavily in the past to gain employment and it has always worked in my favor. There may have been more qualified candidates on paper than I but I was a known quantity. So I got the job.

Then that's not merit based, is it? Not sure what your argument is -- employment based on merit is bs because you got selected through networking? Lead me down your path, please.

When people advocate for merit, they object against employment based on the way you look or identify, or any other factor that literally says nothing about how you function. How is that a bad argument? What's the alternative people like Beamer and Bop advocate for? Because I can't read between the lines.