He said a farewell to me in email which sounded rather final. So I would assume that he is not reading anymore. But who knows.

Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Sep 8, 2024, 09:16:
...if you can say the same shit and it's accepted, and when I do it I'm being mob-fucked.

From what I have read of your posts, I can offer my opinion as to why that happens. You paint in very broad, general strokes. You present an idea or an opinion but do not give well defined specifics that support that opinion or idea. You also nearly always resort to emotionally laden language. A well presented opinion or idea stands on its own merits and doesn't require falling on appeal to emotion to support it.

I'm not suggesting that I always succeed in doing so. But generally when I resort to a long form answer, I try to provide data that supports my assertion.

Diversity in games and movies is similar to using more impressive cameras or better CGI. It absolutely provides the ability to create a better game or movie, but it can't be the only reason you make a movie or game. That's why if you create something to showcase your new thing or technique, it's called a tech demo or a "proof of concept" type thing, not a game or movie. If you make a production whose only point is diversity (or exclusion) you have failed. The only reason it's viewed with all of the rage and passion is because it is another front on which the utterly meaningless culture war can rage, where self-important, self-styled "enlightened" people can make braggadocios claims and performatively declare that this or that minor thing that no one cares about is actually a huge concerted effort by their "opposition" to fundamentally change our society to be worse. I have got news for you my little chickadees; movies and games DO NOT fail or succeed because of diversity. They never have, and likely never will. They succeed or fail on many factors, but all of your huffing and puffing and beating your drum is completely, utterly inconsequential. Conservatives call liberals communists. Liberals call conservatives fascists. The vast majority of people call both groups nuts. I instead wish people would learn what communism and fascism is. Well, not really. I think all of you are nuts too but I still hope that one of you nuts might play a game in coop with me.

A bad game is a bad game, and likewise a rotten game is always rotten, whether it is F2P, or the dev/publisher thinks to charge $$$ for the game. And if a said game is thoroughly rotten, it will remain rotten regardless of which of its developers, if any, are sleeping with each other. These sorts of lame and irrelevant "explanations" *choke* are fodder laid out for the venture capitalists who funded the game. It is hoped that presenting a bunch of semi-rational "reasons" as to why a rotten game is so rotten the publisher can't even give it away(!) will prompt investors to put up more money in order to rinse and repeat...;) (As an aside, I've really enjoyed the hours I've put into Path of Exile because I think it is a decent game, better than many games that are not F2P, imo.)

It's OK to simply dislike a product, be it a book, a movie, a computer game, or a car, a house, etc. It's A-OK, in fact. Disliking is not "hating," and never has been. Often described as "humans with discerning, personal tastes," consumers who live in capitalist countries discriminate among products on a daily, continuing basis. It is called "market competition" and/or "choice."

Apple-of-the-walled-garden is the origin of the "dislike = hate" nonsense, IIRC, when Steve Jobs first began insulting American consumers by stating obliquely, and sometimes directly, that if you disliked Apple's products and were capable of expounding on and explaining exactly why you disliked them, then you were a "hater." Insulting the very people you are asking to vote for you, or to buy your products, is commonplace today, isn't it? Fortunately, I'm thankful it is a trait that does not seem to be profitable for politicians or businessmen, and has a rather bleak future in both politics and business in the US...;)

Blue wrote on Sep 8, 2024, 10:28:

Cutter wrote on Sep 8, 2024, 10:13:
Sure they do, so long as its their ideology. The problem is we now live in an age where people feel they have the right to be outraged over the slightest thing - and I do mean slight.

This is sadly super common. People will follow a chain of logic or make an observation that is bordering on true insight, but then completely miss that final step to relate it themselves and their actions.

Cutter wrote on Sep 8, 2024, 10:13:
Sure they do, so long as its their ideology. The problem is we now live in an age where people feel they have the right to be outraged over the slightest thing - and I do mean slight.

Cutter wrote on Sep 8, 2024, 10:13:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 17:35:
Regardless of their persuasion, no one likes having an ideology, any ideology, shoved in their face and that is exactly what happens when you make "representation" a selling point. Do it naturally and do it in a way that makes sense to the overall universe your entertainment is presenting. Then it becomes part of the universe.

Sure they do, so long as its their ideology. The problem is we now live in an age where people feel they have the right to be outraged over the slightest thing - and I do mean slight. South Park nailed it so long ago with the angry mob yelling "Robble! Robble! Robble!" over the most inconsequential shit. So when something comes along that's actually, really political, people are going to be apoplectic. Used to be you'd just take your ball and go home and sulk. Now everyone wants everyone else to know of the stinging injustice they've so obviously suffered and be compensated for it somehow. This is where woke got us. It's all participation medal bullshit. That's the problem when you do away with the meritocracy and we're repeatedly told what unique special little snowflakes we all are. In the end we're all just a pile of cold, wet bullshit that needs to be shoveled away.

Cutter, what percentage of posts do you make here that you'd consider to be in outrage and full of rage?

It's gotta be a solid 50%, no? Almost always over slight things?

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 17:35:
Regardless of their persuasion, no one likes having an ideology, any ideology, shoved in their face and that is exactly what happens when you make "representation" a selling point. Do it naturally and do it in a way that makes sense to the overall universe your entertainment is presenting. Then it becomes part of the universe.

Sure they do, so long as its their ideology. The problem is we now live in an age where people feel they have the right to be outraged over the slightest thing - and I do mean slight. South Park nailed it so long ago with the angry mob yelling "Robble! Robble! Robble!" over the most inconsequential shit. So when something comes along that's actually, really political, people are going to be apoplectic. Used to be you'd just take your ball and go home and sulk. Now everyone wants everyone else to know of the stinging injustice they've so obviously suffered and be compensated for it somehow. This is where woke got us. It's all participation medal bullshit. That's the problem when you do away with the meritocracy and we're repeatedly told what unique special little snowflakes we all are. In the end we're all just a pile of cold, wet bullshit that needs to be shoveled away.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 17:35:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 16:05:
Are you saying the battle of woke vs anti-woke is what killed this game more than anything? I agree that it's a polarizing force that ended up hurting more than helping but the bad core game play and bland design was the real cause imo. The over-the-top reactions by everyone I agree is a big issue, primarily because of social media's ubiquitous nature. It just amplifies everything and we see the impact immediately instead of days or weeks afterwards now.

I'm saying the reaction to the game was a primary cause in its demise. Optics and publicity are an important part of selling a product. Dustborn has a similar problem (and is also laden with gameplay complaints). Both it and Concord were not overly well received by both sides of the woke/anti-woke divide. One sides blows the DEI dogwhistle and the other side says it's pandering. Thus my previous statement of extreme reactionism and every side playing the vicitmhood card comes in to play.

You can recover from a bad launch. It's difficult as Hell but not impossible. No Man's Sky is a good example of this. So are most Bethesda games (Not you, Starfield. Sit down). What you cannot recover from is a bad look.

I want to be clear that I am all for inclusion and I think there plenty of examples we can use to illustrate where it was done well and naturally. For example, Suvi in Mass Effect: Andromeda was gay and Claire in Cyberpunk 2077 was trans. Those were neat bits of information about them as characters but it wasn't their whole personality. But when you make that one of the points of your game, you're not stepping on a landmine. You're jumping up and down on it with both feet as hard as you can. It's like the corporations that go balls deep on Pride Month. My LGBTQIA+ friends look at it with no small amount of derision because they know it's pandering to generate more revenue. Then you have the other side (MAGAts, "DEI IS TEH DEBIL" mouthbreathers, and so on) that go apeshit as well.

Regardless of their persuasion, no one likes having an ideology, any ideology, shoved in their face and that is exactly what happens when you make "representation" a selling point. Do it naturally and do it in a way that makes sense to the overall universe your entertainment is presenting. Then it becomes part of the universe.

Did you just join the hill I was fighting on and got all the fucking shit for?! Fucking hell I'm worse in the English language than I thought, if you can say the same shit and it's accepted, and when I do it I'm being mob-fucked. Fucking hell.

Anyway, been a good one. PEACE! ✌️

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 17:35:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 16:05:
Are you saying the battle of woke vs anti-woke is what killed this game more than anything? I agree that it's a polarizing force that ended up hurting more than helping but the bad core game play and bland design was the real cause imo. The over-the-top reactions by everyone I agree is a big issue, primarily because of social media's ubiquitous nature. It just amplifies everything and we see the impact immediately instead of days or weeks afterwards now.

I'm saying the reaction to the game was a primary cause in its demise. Optics and publicity are an important part of selling a product. Dustborn has a similar problem (and is also laden with gameplay complaints). Both it and Concord were not overly well received by both sides of the woke/anti-woke divide. One sides blows the DEI dogwhistle and the other side says it's pandering. Thus my previous statement of extreme reactionism and every side playing the vicitmhood card comes in to play.

You can recover from a bad launch. It's difficult as Hell but not impossible. No Man's Sky is a good example of this. So are most Bethesda games (Not you, Starfield. Sit down). What you cannot recover from is a bad look.

I want to be clear that I am all for inclusion and I think there plenty of examples we can use to illustrate where it was done well and naturally. For example, Suvi in Mass Effect: Andromeda was gay and Claire in Cyberpunk 2077 was trans. Those were neat bits of information about them as characters but it wasn't their whole personality. But when you make that one of the points of your game, you're not stepping on a landmine. You're jumping up and down on it with both feet as hard as you can. It's like the corporations that go balls deep on Pride Month. My LGBTQIA+ friends look at it with no small amount of derision because they know it's pandering to generate more revenue. Then you have the other side (MAGAts, "DEI IS TEH DEBIL" mouthbreathers, and so on) that go apeshit as well.

Regardless of their persuasion, no one likes having an ideology, any ideology, shoved in their face and that is exactly what happens when you make "representation" a selling point. Do it naturally and do it in a way that makes sense to the overall universe your entertainment is presenting. Then it becomes part of the universe.

Thanks for explaining and I agree with you on all of this. Sadly, there doesn't even have to be a reason (let alone a good one) for people to go in to review bomb mode now it seems. There's a FOMO of NOT being a lemming which is so ironic. *Shakes first grandpa style at kids these days*

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 17:38:

Pr()ZaC wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 16:08:
You can get your boobs done in a jiffy nowadays. Do it!
😂

I was referring to my late wife in that post. I do miss her singing and humming as she puttered away around the house being the housewife she always wanted to be. I also miss her DDs.

I'm sorry man

Prez wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 18:06:
In the meantime I am considering a breast reduction

Your back will thank you.

Meanwhile I am looking for an actual review of Dustborn on YouTube that isn't people complaining that it is woke propaganda or saying it's great because it pisses off the anti-woke crowd. I never thought this would be an issue. Guess I am just buying it and I'll see for myself. If it ends up sucking I blame you woke/anti-woke crusaders.

In the meantime I am considering a breast reduction

Pr()ZaC wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 16:08:
You can get your boobs done in a jiffy nowadays. Do it!
😂

I was referring to my late wife in that post. I do miss her singing and humming as she puttered away around the house being the housewife she always wanted to be. I also miss her DDs.

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 16:05:
Are you saying the battle of woke vs anti-woke is what killed this game more than anything? I agree that it's a polarizing force that ended up hurting more than helping but the bad core game play and bland design was the real cause imo. The over-the-top reactions by everyone I agree is a big issue, primarily because of social media's ubiquitous nature. It just amplifies everything and we see the impact immediately instead of days or weeks afterwards now.

I'm saying the reaction to the game was a primary cause in its demise. Optics and publicity are an important part of selling a product. Dustborn has a similar problem (and is also laden with gameplay complaints). Both it and Concord were not overly well received by both sides of the woke/anti-woke divide. One sides blows the DEI dogwhistle and the other side says it's pandering. Thus my previous statement of extreme reactionism and every side playing the vicitmhood card comes in to play.

You can recover from a bad launch. It's difficult as Hell but not impossible. No Man's Sky is a good example of this. So are most Bethesda games (Not you, Starfield. Sit down). What you cannot recover from is a bad look.

I want to be clear that I am all for inclusion and I think there plenty of examples we can use to illustrate where it was done well and naturally. For example, Suvi in Mass Effect: Andromeda was gay and Claire in Cyberpunk 2077 was trans. Those were neat bits of information about them as characters but it wasn't their whole personality. But when you make that one of the points of your game, you're not stepping on a landmine. You're jumping up and down on it with both feet as hard as you can. It's like the corporations that go balls deep on Pride Month. My LGBTQIA+ friends look at it with no small amount of derision because they know it's pandering to generate more revenue. Then you have the other side (MAGAts, "DEI IS TEH DEBIL" mouthbreathers, and so on) that go apeshit as well.

Regardless of their persuasion, no one likes having an ideology, any ideology, shoved in their face and that is exactly what happens when you make "representation" a selling point. Do it naturally and do it in a way that makes sense to the overall universe your entertainment is presenting. Then it becomes part of the universe.

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Sep 8, 2024, 10:39. Reason: Pointless vulgarity

RogueSix wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 16:20:

SimplyMonk wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 15:43:
The reason for this is suspect, but my friend said the cinematic director was sleeping with the game director (married at the time) and received three promotions in the space of the year to creative director.

Typical. Someone can't keep their dick in their pants and everything goes to shit. The failing of Concord may luckily be rather insignificant but entire nations have disappeared this way throughout history. Seks is the devil's work!

That's why I'm a devil worshipper.

SimplyMonk wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 15:43:
The reason for this is suspect, but my friend said the cinematic director was sleeping with the game director (married at the time) and received three promotions in the space of the year to creative director.

Typical. Someone can't keep their dick in their pants and everything goes to shit. The failing of Concord may luckily be rather insignificant but entire nations have disappeared this way throughout history. Seks is the devil's work!

SimplyMonk wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 15:43:
Having talked with a former coworker on the dev team, it was supposed to be F2P except that management changed their mind in the last year. It was designed a more of a Counterstrike/Valorant style game, but again the lead designers pivoted in the last year to more casual. 4 characters had years of design done for them, but the rest came in hot with a lot of complaints internally as they failed to have distinct silhouettes and were not recognizable in fast paced gameplay. Designers didn’t listen to feedback thinking they knew best even after the horrible playtest.

Lastly, tremendous amount of time, effort, and money went into the cinematics. They had a year of cinematics backlog made. The reason for this is suspect, but my friend said the cinematic director was sleeping with the game director (married at the time) and received three promotions in the space of the year to creative director.

If you want to make a year of cinematics, locking down the look of the entire roster early and with no room to pivot is what happens. Characters had to be rushed to make movies for them and then they couldn’t change since their “look” was locked in.

Ignoring the gossip about the affair, that alone would cause your character design to be flawed. Using the Sony Motion Capture studio is expensive and probably also another reason the additional characters were just generic humanoid as you don’t have the cash to do motion capture for extreme body types.

Why someone thought a multiplayer game needed weekly movies is beyond me.

Really appreciate sharing inside info like this. It's very obvious that someone in charge of design decisions made a lot of bad choices with the game. The $40 entry fee is likely the #1 cause of the game's failure. I think if it was free, more people would have tried it and been a little more patient instead of jumping on the hate bandwagon so quickly.

As for the cinematics, that's yet another page from the Overwatch play book they borrowed. Corcord was all in with the characters being the stars just like OW did but they missed the mark even if one ignores any, "woke/anti-woke" opinions. It seems like the creative direction was just stuck a few years too far in the past that ended up missing the mark by a lot upon landing. If the game had done well enough, I think the cinematics would have helped keep the hype going very much like it helped OW.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 14:23:

RedEye9 wrote on Sep 7, 2024, 12:50:
...large mammalian protuberances and exhibit tradwife qualities...

<secretly misses having that in his life>

You can get your boobs done in a jiffy nowadays. Do it!
😂