Jump to content

daisekihan

Member
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. This was such an outstanding game, but even more than that, it seems like it was almost designed for Ross. It’s an incredibly immersive world with the feel of a graphic adventure game with all the bullshit cut out, and the subtle menace of inscrutable supernatural forces hidden just beyond the veil of prosaic reality. I would even consider gifting it to him on Steam if I knew he would play it. Ross, if you read this, add this game to your list. Hell, I will buy it for you just to get your take.
  2. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying on the whole, but when you add hyperbole like the 2+2=5 it hurts your overall argument. The examples you give in this particular instance are a lot closer to that. But the definition of a “service game” or “games as a service” is a lot vaguer, at least in terms of how different people use it. Anyway, I don’t want to push back on this too much sense like I said I ultimately do agree with you.
  3. Also, if I were you, I would focus on the human stories of the creators of games who have had their work destroyed. When you put a face and a story onto a narrative, It becomes real to people in a way that abstract argumentation won’t. You seem to have at least some contacts within the gaming industry from the interviews you’ve been able to do on Moon Gaming, And you seem more than willing to go the extra mile to make contact with creators and others who work on games as part of Game Dungeon. Why not use your platform to tell their stories, since they’re the victims of this more than anyone else.
  4. Ross, the problem is, you opened this can of worms about language and the meaning of words. I am not saying that your definition of games as a service is wrong. I am saying that it is one of many definitions. Definitions of words are not attempting to give us an absolute philosophical truth. Do you think dictionaries get their definitions based on absolute philosophical propositions? They don’t. They base their definitions on the way people use words. The tweet in question is using a definition of “service game” that people do use. So saying it is equivalent to 2+2=5 is just not a very serious argument. If you were attempting to use this as propaganda for your cause—and I think it’s a good cause as far as things go—I don’t think it’s especially convincing. And I don’t think you can call this getting bogged down in semantics—you were the one who made definitions of words the start of your argument. And personally, I like your definition of games as a service; but it is by no means the only definition that exists. I wasn’t the person you needed to convince however, since I already was convinced of it. But I don’t think anyone who wasn’t convinced of your argument is going to be persuaded by this.
  5. I don’t want to defend the company, but making it out that the definition of “service game” is as clear as 2+2=4 is just wrong. Neologisms like this tend to be very malleable. You seem to think that the exclusive definition for a live service game being that it connects to a server. But even the Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service), a source that is written by the general public and as such should obviously reflect the most common definition in use, says games as a service are defined by their revenue stream, not by being connected to a server. I think very often, you assume that your own definition of a word it’s so obvious that everyone should understand it the exact same way as you and that anyone who disagrees is not only wrong by trying to drive you insane. This game marketing guy is being sleazy by using the definition of a game as a service that best fits his needs at the moment, but that doesn’t mean he is trying to gaslight you.
  6. Ross, I think your problem is that you’re approaching this as someone who spends a lot time on his PC and uses it for a lot of relatively complex functions. You have to realize that you aren’t most people. To tell the truth, even though I just bought a new gaming laptop, I barely use it. My go-to for everything I need is my phone. And your idea that ease of use is only if interest to old people shows me you don’t quite understand the nature of the questions you’re asking. I used to use my laptop all the time, but I’ve mostly transitionEd to the phone because of ease of use. Likewise, if Microsoft did what you wanted and had “the public” test it’s GUI’s, it wouldn’t be the public doing the testing it would be the sort of person who would opt into that in the first place. I have no interest in becoming a GUI wizard, I’d rather spend my time reading a book about the Civil War or doing some other things that interests me. You make it out “learning something new” is no big deal, but for the average user it is. I think the main flaw of your argument is, “There are lots of things that are ideal for the majority of users”. I think you are really underestimating people’s subjectivity and how many different things people use their computers for. Like, ironically, AVGN just came out with a video that basically considers what you believe to be the ideal, the GUI getting out of the way, to be bullshit. Not I think your desire to find the ideal interface for yourself is something that you shouldn’t be pursuing, but I think you’re incredulity about why your ideal system doesn’t already exist is misplaced. I think that you are like a car guy who doesn’t understand that for the average person a car is just something they used to go from point A to point B and as long as they get where they need to go they’re generally not going to be too stressed out about it.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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!”
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • 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.