- 0 Posts
- 35 Comments
I have a very simple reason for hating Concord and being slightly happy that it failed: They bait-and-switched the hell out of all of us with that reveal video.
You can’t build up an interesting world filled with characters like that and then give us a PvP-only hero shooter. Who do you think you are, old Blizzard?
I agree that your setup would be perfect, but the reality of the situation is that it depends on the engine and how much time the programmers/artists/whatever have.
Like if the engine doesn’t support dynamically resizing equipment, then you have to make every single piece of equipment over again for every body shape. That is a potentially massive amount of work, even if there is tooling that will automate most of it and only require retouching. There’s only so much time in the day, and every hour that people are working on this is an hour that they aren’t working on building more levels or adding more systems, etc.
Is it better to have “Body Shape A/B” or “Male Body / Female Body”? Because those are the options that are the same amount of work.
It would be better to have a ton of body options. It would be even better to have sliders and have everything adjust itself to fit whatever shape you make. But both of those options take time to work on, and time is money.
I don’t think it’s fair to call (for a specific choice) BG3’s developers lazy because they only have 2 (or 4 for some races) body sizes. They are just optimizing their time investment.
I’m pretty sure that you generally can’t do that, in the US at least.
A C-level officer is required generally to act in the best interest of the company, but as long as the genuinely think that what they were doing was an attempt to improve the company in some way, you’d be hard-pressed to ever prove that they weren’t acting in the best interest. You’d have to find physical proof that they were intentionally sabotaging the company, and (probably) no one who is smart enough to become a CEO is going to do that.
I mean that might be true, but those key reseller sites are also often grey-market. Sometimes they are legit, but sometimes they resell keys they bought with stolen credit cards etc.
I personally wouldn’t buy from a site that I couldn’t easily verify is legit (steam, gog, hb, etc)
Multiple indie developers I’ve seen (wube who makes factorio has been very vocal about it) have complained about losing significant amounts of money from grey/black market keys since they end up being on the hook for fees when people do credit card chargebacks.
The problem is a matter of numbers. If every enemy is trying to shove me off a cliff, they shouldn’t also be able to do damage.
Regardless of that though, your last sentence seems to be implying that the player should have just not positioned themselves that way, but I regret to inform you that there are a lot of fights where you don’t control everyone on your side. I save-scummed a fight three times because my ally spent his first turn every single time running straight into combat and standing on a peninsula surrounded on three sides by lava.
People literally beeline my casters and shove them every fight that I don’t stack them behind front-liners. Maybe it’s a difficulty thing?
It’s also super fight-dependent because the only reason to use shove is if you can push someone into something. If it’s just a fight in an open field there’s no use.
Though it is a super easy way to just try to get away free from a AoO from a melee person in range. The action economy is supposed to be “if I don’t want to take an AoO and can’t teleport, then I have to Disengage and that’s my action”, but now they can try a shove for “free” and if it works they can move freely and still attack.
Thunderclap requires a spell slot and isn’t a bonus action. Part of the problem is that every enemy gets to do their full attack, and then go ahead and try a shove just to see if it works for funsies.
If shoves work to the way that they do in d&d, then an enemy going for a shove and failing would mean that they had done nothing on their turn and that you would be net-positive on the round. That doesn’t happen in this game because they get to have their cake and eat it too by getting to make an attack and a shove in the same turn.
You say “besides the technical issues” as if that was something small enough that you can just casually brush it aside. Andromeda performed like absolute trash when it came out, and that was a huge reason why people panned it.
As for the story reasons you highlight, I don’t agree with most of them personally, but they’re subjective so that’s on you.
The technical state that Andromeda released in is the biggest reason why I consider it an absolutely trash game.
That’s true for sure, but that doesn’t mean that it’s valve didn’t do an absolute fuckload of work to get proton to be actually functional.
Getting direct3d and vulkan working with actually useful performance was the turning point for Wine being useful for games in addition to just standard applications.
They definitely spent an ass-load of money on that and the fact that Wine was around for 25 years before that just goes to show that no one else was willing to do that.
That’s not a good metaphor. A better one would be:
“A building is flooding and you need to invent the concept of a mop. While you are plugging the leak, send one of your people to start working on creating a mop to use later, everyone in the room can’t be plugging the hole anyway.”
Sequestration tech isn’t there at the moment. If we wait until we we figure out green energy entirely, we will then have to wait again while we figure out sequestration.
We need to be doing both, but we need them to have separate budgets and separate people working on them, because otherwise, yeah, we’ll be in a bad situation where we are diverting green energy time/money into sequestration. The problem is that we are fighting against people who don’t want to spend any money on any of it. If the fossil fuel people want to work on sequestration instead of green energy, fine, let them. Hell, force them to. Pass laws making them be net-neutral on carbon and that can either be from shutting down plants or capturing everything they put out. If they don’t choose to shut down, they’ll spend R&D on capture, and we can use that tech more widely in the decades to come.
Yeah, I’ve said before that as much as people liked to hate on Chris Metzen, it seems that when he left it was a massive migration of optimistic talents out of the company. Now, that’s not to say that he caused people to leave, as opposed to him leaving for the same reason that everyone else did, but I’ve looked at it as a big turning point in blizzard’s history of being generally good-natured.
From reading the article, I don’t think that this is an accurate description of the situation.
I believe that Twitter employees have been getting a discretionary bonus, so normally Musk would have been fine simply not paying it out, but as part of the acquisition he promised that he/the company would pay it out as it had been in previous years, with some stipulations, etc.
So the issue now is that he promised he would pay it, which means that he’s obligated to do it, because the employees made decisions based on that promise that cost/lost them money.
It seems like very simple promissory estoppel.
That would be a ridiculous position to hold.
So glad that the court system is working efficiently. This happened in 2020 and we’re only just now going to trial for it in 2024.