Jump to content

daisekihan

Member
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I don’t know Ross, the premise of this episode seems to have so many plot holes that I don’t know if it’s really worth considering in depth. -We’re supposed to believe Planet A has never even once had someone go without the drug and live? -How did this whole scenario get started to make Planet A think they had a virus? -If Planet B only knows how to make the drug, then all scientists, doctors, and engineers needed to make society work are on Planet A, but they never managed to figure this out? -If Planet B does nothing but make the drug, doesn’t that mean they have no military? Why hasn’t Planet A just invaded them and taken the drug? And I could go on and on, but you get my point.
  2. That was another annoying point, the idea that the G-Man could just teleport Breen into space and that would be problem solved. He’s already calling the Combine Tripods from the Tripods series of novels, and based on that he should realize that would solve nothing because the Combine would just replace him, and the real enemy is the Tripods/Combine themselves.
  3. But compared to HL one he seems to do little but complain, which only works in small doses. I think that Ross is missing a key element of Freeman that he understood before— that’s the reason he was able to survive before is because he is an unstable person (a “powder keg”) but also that he kind of enjoys all the violence on some level.
  4. I have binged it, many times in fact—why do you think the earlier parts are so fresh in my mind. All I’m saying is, having Freeman spend so much time pointing out the plot holes in Half Life 2 is getting a little old. Yes, he does it it the original, but he’s at least amusing about it, like, “get high before you die!”
  5. I don’t know why he thinks he has to keep making FM if he doesn’t want to. From the donations list he’s making decent money and ad revenue is basically gone now so he doesn’t really need the views. And he’s only made 12 episodes in like nearly three years so it’s not like the channel depends on it. If any of you watch some other parody series on YT like the Abridged series, even when they are tearing those shows apart there is still a lot of affection. But especially with Half Life 2, I can tell that isn’t the case at all for Ross. He’s even said that doing the series has made him like the HL in general a lot less. So whereas old Freeman used to try to fill in the plot holes with something amusing, now he’s barely even trying. I mean his rant in this one might as well have been “I’m a character in a video game being tormented for the amusement of the player!”—which might be the case, but it does’t feel particularly original or amusing as a take. I just wish we had the Freeman who treated a tram like pirate ship back, instead of the current Freeman who’s treating a pirate ship like a tram. And if we can’t maybe Freeman should go on a long hiatus until Ross can feel less negativity about it.
  6. I don’t know, it feels like all Freeman does in FM2 is scream and complain. Not that he doesn’t have reasons to scream and complain, but he used to dwell on cliff dwelling cultures, sing Gilbert and Sullivan, and pretend to be a pirate. I used to be looking forward to Freeman getting the gravity gun because of how much fun it was for me as a player and seeing how Ross’s Freeman might reflect that. But now I’m pretty sure he’s just going to call it lame and impractical or something and take no pleasure in it at all. I mean, I get it that FM is trying to be realistic and that Freeman was always meant to be an self centered asshole under a lot of stress, but it feels like he used to be almost enjoying himself on some level now it’s just a total chore. And I wonder if that isn’t because Ross doesn’t just dislike Half Life/Half Life 2 and making Freeman’s Mind 2 as a project, he practically hates it.
  7. Well, it just “seems” like a technicality to me, but I’m not a a lawyer. Not to mention, given that there are still free online only games even in Canada, I would imagine their legal teams for these companies would fight you on them being dead to rights. Not that I agree with them, but laws are usually not black and white. As to the loopholes, I think my scenario might be more plausible than you think, but even if it isn’t, there are certainly other ways they could think of to get around a legal ruling that required them to fork over their part of the game when they shut down servers if they are so reluctant to now for whatever reason, if it really would be as cheap as you posit to not do so. One problem you are probably going to have is that there are so many political and legal issues people are worried about right now due to the rise of the far-right—just yesterday they got back into the Spanish parliament for the first time since Franco—that they would see this sort of thing as low priority. Like, the effects of the environmental deregulation by the current U.S. administration are already pretty scary at this precarious point, so it’s easy to completely focus on things like that if you’re trying to reign in corporations.
  8. Well, in a sense I agree, but on the other hand it seems like you’re skating by on a technicality of the distinction between a good and a service. It seems more like these games are something in between a good and a service. Also, supposing you’re right and any online-only game is committing fraud if they don’t charge a fee and shut their game down. You say all these games couldn’t afford to go back to subscriptions—why couldn’t they just charge $0.01 for a yearly subscription? I mean, when you try to catch a company on a technicality like that, there’s always going to be loopholes. I think it would be hard to make this stick unless you could prove that when people buy an online only game with no subscription fee, they have the expectation that they will be able to play it indefinitely.
  9. I feel like when you used to get questions like, “What’s a controversial opinion you hold?” or “What are your political views?”, you wouldn’t answer. I kind of wish you would’ve stuck to that practice. There are some views I want to know people whose content I like hold. It’s like JonTron all over again.
  10. I was by no means trying to gaslight anyone. Alright, my apologies. I guess I'll just release the 10GB version, I can see the compression on parts in the 5GB copy. Even the 10GB probably has some minor loss, but I'm sure it's night and day compared to Youtube. I may host it elsewhere since things are going to be changing soon on the site. I'll release it and the green screen segment people wanted in a couple days and have a post here. I’m sorry for not being more careful in the wording of my critique. I think I will probably never agree with you about HR, but I respect you as a content creator and like your stuff a lot, so the last thing I would want is for you to think I was trying to troll you.
  11. I was by no means trying to gaslight anyone.
  12. Look, I don't know if you're doing it on purpose, but the reality is what you're doing is gaslighting. We're not going to have a productive conversation from that. You say "I felt little need to pick apart the conspiracy theories from the original." Is that what you call me quoting Eisenhower, giving figures on the military industrial complex, large media conglomerate merging, analyzing the shift in terrorism coverage, and how new institutions were formed and constitutional rights were altered after. If that's not picking things apart enough, I think you'll have to look elsewhere for more serious coverage of a videogame. The original had MANY themes, conspiracy theories being one of them. I outright dismissed some things as "fun game stuff" when talking about the stories, not meant to be taken very seriously and said as much in the video. Things like the greys, augmentation, giant mechs, exploding men in black, etc. For the most part, the game didn't take those elements very seriously either. I'd say the game took themes like terrorism, poverty, disease, role of government power, etc. more seriously and I tried to touch on some of those also. I WAS critical of things like the police tactics, as I was in Human Revolution also. In Human Revolution, it basically just had ONE theme, transhumanism, with discrimination being a part of that. I didn't think the premise was very believable, so I was critical of it because the game itself was treating it seriously. Even if I was suspending my disbelief however, I found the human behavior unbelievable also, so I found it failing on both levels. Hacking for example, was more of a fun game element, which neither the game nor I took very seriously, thus I wasn't critical of it. The clothing is an example where by itself, would simply be a fun game element, but in a prequel, it was a clear divergence from the source material thematically. I only took apart the theme of augmentation because the game itself took it so seriously. It's not the theme of discrimination I have a problem with, it's handling it poorly as a sole theme in an already established franchise that was known for a more multi-dimensional look at the world. The basis of your argument so far is attributing things to me that I didn't do when I did do them, or that I did do when I didn't do them. Again, I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally, but you're basically characterizing me as someone else in your mind, then arguing that. That's not an honest way of conducting a conversation, I don't really see the point of continuing this if that's your approach. And again, we have sort of a less direct form of gaslighting. First off, Euro Truck Simulator 2 sold 4.5 million copies. I would not call that "extremely niche", and it undermines your other points, but it's clear you thought I was talking about the original at 300k copies, so fine, let's go with that. Your original statements say: "Surely, you must realize that almost no one plays driving games to aimlessly drive through the environments, no matter how nice they are." "For most people (at least the ones this game was aimed at) if they wanted to go on a road trip they would just go on one." but then you go and say: "I didn’t say that that wasn’t the target demographic, just that you really shouldn’t be surprised it isn’t very big." You JUST SAID the people that this game was aimed at are people who don't care about driving around aimlessly in the environment, then you reply and say you DIDN'T say that people who care about the environment aren't the target demographic. Well logically, they CAN'T be the target demographic if they're not being aimed at, in your words. Except, now you're saying the exact opposite, and claiming you didn't say anything to the contrary, except you did. This is gaslighting. At best, you're being hypocritical and strawmanning me without meaning to. At worst, you're just trolling. Either way, this isn't how you conduct an honest conversation, so I'm not going further with it. I'll never convince you the sky is blue if you see it as green and are claiming I said it's red. I originally tried to address some of points you talked about on HR, but I realize this is just an endless spiral. You’re right about The Crew, that was my bad, What I should’ve said was “the demographic that most driving games are aimed at.” I suppose I was wrong about the extent of the demographic for this sort of driving game. I am not trolling and I was trying to have a discussion in good faith, but now you’ve accused me of deliberately trying to drive you insane. I don’t come here to be insulted, so I’m done with this conversation.
  13. 2016? man talk about a grudge i honestly barely remember what he even said in that episode to be honest, but I think a big point was, how HR to him felt less like a Deus Ex game, and more like an entirely different game, and how he would've been fine, as long as it had a different name, or something like that? i really don't remember, sorry i don't know, i feel like even though i disagree about some of the stuff he said , it feels like arguing about it won't lead to much, the whole show is pretty subjective, so i can't really say that ross is wrong, i mean, it is his opinion at the end of the day, that's just how he feels like about the game, but i'm the type to just kinda shrugh it off, and i just move on usually, i'm not sure how to explain myself even though i disagree with ross sometimes, i don't feel like it's that big of a deal, you can still like human revolutions for your own reasons in my mind i get that it might not seem fair, but you can't control someone's thoughts, and i wouldn't get too obsessed over trying to change them, it generally doesn't work from i've seen, at the end of the day ross is some stranger on the internet, not a family member who you sit down and talk to about, anything, i think just giving out your opinion once is good enough, people either accept it over time, and do consider it, or just never bother considering it at all, from my own experience at least, i'm pretty open to new ideas though, even if i look contrarian or reluctant, i always open up people on the internet just take to people not liking things they do like themselves, a bit too personally for my tastes, i think people need to chill out, at the end of the day, what matters the most is that we all enjoy ourselves, and i feel like people could be less mean overall, i wish people could just focus on the having fun part, instead of always focusing on the negative i just wish we could all get along, you know? i don't think it's a healty habit, to hold a grudge over a simple game for so long, it's a bit too much even for me but i don't know, this is just an internet forum about games, there's no need to be that pendatic all the time, i think you should just replay human revolutions, have a good time with it, and just move on I’m not holding (much of) a grudge; likewise, I agree that there isn’t much point arguing about endlessly when you have a difference in opinion on something subjective like a video game’s quality. But I’m not taking it personally—I just gave Ross money (not a lot but some) so obliviously I’m more satisfied with him than not. I actually enjoyed the video for the most part. In my experience with YouTubers that are worth a damn, they quite frequently build up a following that is completely uncritical, which I think does nothing for the quality of their content. Ross gets plenty of positive reinforcement here and elsewhere, so sometimes I take it upon myself to give him a little ribbing.
  14. The original Deus Ex was all about conspiracy theories about the corporate elite controlling society from the shadows being true—i.e it flattered your politics. Human Revolution was about discrimination, and that was not to your taste, so you weren’t interested; you picked apart the idea of augmentation as a basis for discrimination, but you felt little need to pick apart the conspiracy theories in the original. So using the idea of augmented people being discriminated against as a signpost for discrimination in our society is no good because it’s not realistic; but using conspiracy theories as a signpost for the problematic concentration of power around the wealthy in our society is A-OK, even if those conspiracy theories are unrealistic. But I’ve already said everything I wanted to say about HR in that thread. We will never see eye to eye. 1. I was pointing out that you said you were shocked that the game received almost no coverage or hype— I simply explained why you really shouldn’t be surprised. 2. I never said there wasn’t a niche for this sort of game, just that you shouldn’t really be surprised it’s small. Euro Truck Simulator sold 300k; Need for Speed: Most Wanted sold 16 million. 3. I didn’t say that that wasn’t the target demographic, just that you really shouldn’t be surprised it isn’t very big.
  15. So Ross, I just thought I’d put this out there. When you were trashing Human Revolution, I pointed out that most if not all of your criticism was based on extremely subjective criteria, like “I don’t like exaggerated clothing styles, so it’s bad” or “This reminds me of anime which I don’t like, so it’s bad” or “This game’s politics don’t sufficiently align with mine, so it’s bad.” And here, I think you’ve indulged in an even more subjective view. Surely, you must realize that almost no one plays driving games to aimlessly drive through the environments, no matter how nice they are. The environment in a racing game is like the condiments on food—if the only thing a restaurant has going for it is a huge selection of good condiments, but the food is just mediocre, of course the restaurant is only going to be perceived as a mediocre, because people go to restaurants for food not condiments. So you can’t really be surprised that this game was dismissed as mediocre—the only reason you have any interest in it it’s because of your extremely niche taste for going on Sunday drives in video game worlds. For most people (at least the ones this game was aimed at) if they wanted to go on a road trip they would just go on one.
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.