There’s something about Saints Row the Third that just tickles my funny bone.
It’s just the perfect level of absurd humour for me. It’s the first Saints Row game I played. I’ve since gone back and played Saints Row 2 and it wasn’t absurd enough for me. Saints Row IV on the other hand felt too absurd.
It’s a guilty pleasure of mine for sure.
Yeah there’s certainly a debate to be had regarding whether the realism/emptiness is actually implemented well.
I haven’t played the game and am not planning to (I’m in the camp of the “realistic haunting empty space” vibe isn’t one for me, therefore this game just doesn’t interest me at all) so I won’t comment on it. But I am interested in following the discussion, so thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
The point about planets in general being boring and empty is an interesting one to me because ultimately I think this is either going to be a positive or a negative for people based on their personal preferences. Video games don’t have to be realistic after all. It’s fine for someone to enjoy Starfield because they like the “realistic haunting empty space” vibe, but it’s also okay for someone to not like that.
I can’t remember much of how Starfield was marketed but I remember the “1000 planets” thing being parroted a lot. Was the fact that these planets were going to be realistically portrayed and mostly empty wastelands something that was made clear during marketing? If not, that might explain a lot of people’s frustration and disappointment.
I agree on your point regarding games that are rated 6 or 7 out of 10. I’m frustrated with people always jumping to a game either being “perfect” or “terrible”, and anything lower than an 8/10 being considered as a “terrible” rating. I remember with the first lot of Starfield reviews people were talking about how they were shocked one outlet gave the game a 7/10 when that rating communicates to me they thought that the game was great?
When doing game reviews, I’d like to see an outlet who doesn’t prioritise getting out a review on day one or before a games release.
I don’t think it really makes a review more objective if you invest tens or even hundreds of hours into a game before you review it if all of that playtime is done in the space of a few days. This gives the reviewer little time to reflect on their experiences, little time to discuss their experiences with others, or to let their initial “hype” die down so they can step back and look at the game as objectively as it’s possible for any single human to do.
I would call myself a “patient gamer” these days. I do not preorder anything. I don’t get anything on day one of release. I’m not in a rush. Therefore there is no value to me in reviews which are rushed out, if anything I’m less likely to trust it. I especially do not trust any review where review copies are involved.
Therefore, your idea of covering “older titles” gels with me. I’m usually buying older titles on Steam sales anyway. I also like the idea of having numerous potentially conflicting perspectives regarding a game presented together like Giant Bomb does.
My response here is targeted at the other people replying to this message.
I am extremely distressed at the amount of people justifying deadnaming and upvoting the comments justifying deadnaming compared to the amount of upvotes on this comment.
Deadnaming someone because it’s convenient for you is not a good justification.
It is very upsetting for the grand majority of trans people to be referred to by their deadnames. You should not do it unless specifically you are told that it’s okay! Please listen to trans people when they say that this is upsetting and that you should not do this.
Edit: Adding the following:
A simple search for “Emily Young LTT” is all you need to find out who she is anyway? So it reiterate the original comment, there is no NEED for the deadnaming. There is only your comfort and convenience.
- •
- 2Y
- •
I’m shocked at the amount of people in the replies here whose response to this is basically “no, I won’t, because its convenient”.
It is widely known that this convenience comes at the price of poor working conditions for Amazon workers. Our consuming habits have a very real and tangible impact. The article linked covers this briefly:
Amazon warehouse workers spend their days picking and packing in million-square-foot warehouses where they face punishing productivity expectations, constant surveillance, high turnover, and serious injuries, for a starting wage of $15 an hour.
Of course there are many other negative impacts caused by this convenience which are also covered in the linked article.
I would rather inconvenience myself than buy something from Amazon at all if I can avoid it. I understand for a non-zero number of people, Amazon is their only option, but for those of us who have a choice I would encourage you to reconsider your consumption habits.
Edit: Adding clarity in some statements.
The problem of “AI” and all labor-saving technology in the last few centuries is not the technology itself but is actually Capitalism.
Yes, you are absolutely correct.
I have something to add to the arguments you have already presented in your post.
The problem with Capitalism is that in order to live you have to make an income. In order to make an income you have to be able to work.
AI, and in the future, robotics, presents an issue to people because it creates less jobs for people to work. And what are people meant to do if they cannot work and therefore cannot earn income? Capitalism requires jobs in order to be a successful system, at least for the common folk like us.
But, should this be the reason that we work? In order to live?
This is how it has always been done, we have to work in order to survive. Whether it was because we worked to procure food otherwise we would starve, or if it’s to work to earn an income to buy food otherwise we would starve.
As humans, we are seeing perhaps the first breaths of an era where we could no longer need to work in order to survive. AI and robotics is still in its infancy and it presents a great danger if it is handled incorrectly (which is currently is). Imagine a future where menial, repetitive tasks are automated and we can all live lives of comfort as in order to eat, we only need to exist. We can focus our time to working for the sake of working, because we find the work meaningful, because it enriches our lives, and because it helps others. A world where we can create art for the sake of creating art and not because we need to create art in order to eat.
I know I am speaking in ideals here, and the real world is different. Basically, what I am trying to say, is that the future I strive for cannot be a Capitalist one. The issue is not the technology, it’s Capitalism.
Customer service chatbots are useful for helping someone use natural language to find an answer that already exists in the documentation/FAQ. I imagine this must be useful for a non-zero number of people who find it difficult to troubleshoot issues using an FAQ.
Personally, my first port-of-call is always to go to the documentation/FAQ myself to look for the answer. I will only use a chat service if I cannot find the answer. So having a chatbot trying to suggest me solutions from the documentation is always very disruptive and annoying because it’s just forcing me to press “no this doesn’t answer my question” enough times until it actually connects me to a human… if I’m lucky.
I think there is value pursuing and researching the technology more. For the benefit of people who aren’t like me and struggle troubleshooting issues on their own. It can be useful for helping with routine queries and allows for existing customer service personnel focus on the more complex issues. As it stands at the moment almost every customer service chatbot I have encountered has been a negative experience for me.
Oh… I’m not sure but I had a really hard time beating him… maybe I just sucked.
Just before you fight Alduin there’s some dude you have to beat up if I remember correctly, I think Tsun guarding the bridge to the Hall of Valor? I remember him just one-shotting me so I had to crawl into some terrain he couldn’t hit me from and I just very slowly killed him with a bow and arrow when I had absolutely no proficiency in archery.
I heard that Skyrim had a story which was hundreds of hours long. Therefore, when I played it I only played the main story missions and ignored all the side quests and locations.
I was horribly underleveled for the final boss and had to cheese it and I only realised I had played the game completely wrong when the credits rolled and there were no more story quests to do…
- •
- twitter.com
- •
- 2Y
- •
Has anyone here ever thought “I would like this game more if it had encumbrance in it”? Or “I would like it if I couldn’t pick up this item right now?”
Admittedly these might not be the right questions I’m asking here as I understand there’s a “realism” and “challenge” aspect to this debate (which honestly are two things I’m just not that interested in when it comes to video games I play).
Maybe it’s a delayed gratification thing…?
I’m not trying to be accusatory, I’m just genuinely curious. Everyone has different tastes after all.