shinjiikarus

I can understand your sentiment in general, but the “grey color palette”, isn’t accurate. There are so many biomes in this game that you probably just caught one specific which heavily leaned towards grey. But I have played in lush forests and some of the currently trending viking-elf-aesthetics, which have definitely not been grey.

The game is really boring and grindy, though. I bought it on a whim, expecting Dark Souls with guns, like the marketing suggested. But it’s more like Gears of War meets Diablo or Destiny. This is a really bland third person shooter, with some interesting enemies and bosses but so much loot-based grind and so many resources to trade with different vendors. While the story is really one dimensional and tired.

I wouldn’t recommend this game if you are looking for a souls like as the marketing suggests, but only if Destiny-but-Gears-instead-of-Halo is your thing and you have a complete party of friends ready to join. Then this game has its moments.

To be honest: keeping the chain alive would be great!

If you are a permanent employee and get a good salary I can follow your argument, you are a cog in a machine and get reimbursed regularly. But if you are hired project by project and get paid some lump sum (and probably not a good one), then exposure in credits and on IMDb is really valuable.

I hope the tickets are really expensive! And why wait until 2050?

I bought it on a whim and am totally surprised by what it is: The marketing looked very soulslike-centric and I expected something like The Surge, but I’d describe it more like a Gears of War/Destiny-mix. Yes, it is sometimes challenging, but Gears of War was as well back in the day, didn’t make it a soulslike. And the semi persistent checkpoints are just that: checkpoints. The skills and “RPG”-lite elements are very reminiscent of Destiny 2 to me. If you like both these games it’s kinda okay, but otherwise it’s nothing to get excited about. Without buddies the coop is really weird, especially if you play story missions, because randos can progress dialogue you might want to hear - but the story isn’t great and really convoluted, so the harm done is minimal. Buy it, if you want to play a challenging Gears of War with your buddies and tolerate Destiny‘s tediousness with resources and upgrades and RPG-lite elements.

They definitely made two balancings: one for reviewers and early adopters who raved in their assessment of the game and one for squeezing the pennies.

They wouldn’t have slammed into it, if they’d kept their safe distance as @XTornado@lemmy.ml wrote. I’m in no way defending Tesla‘s „Autopilot“, it should be banned until they pass a very difficult test proving true self driving capabilities and multiple layers auf fail safes (which they can’t right now). But examples where an autopilot Tesla did something stupid and other people making human errors are disingenuous: if somebody drops their cigarette and breaks unexpectedly and the cars behind don’t keep their distance and slam into it, the reason they have an accident is not the cigarette but their dangerous safety distance.

He didn’t have the liquid capital to buy Twitter, either, that’s his problem.

They will fail so hard! On hand I am totally here to see that, on the other hand, I’m sad we won’t get a good new Splinter Cell.

Total tangent, but we kid ourselves if we think the fediverse is somehow censorship-immune in comparison to Reddit or Twitter.

There are more moderators and administrators across all instances which can federate/defederate at will and can delete posts and propagate this deletion through the network. At the same time governments don’t need to negotiate with a large company, but only need to hint they could destroy one person’s livelihood to remove undesirable content from the network. And to avoid the Streisand effect instead of requesting to delete one specific piece of subversive content (which could backfire), just insinuate some illegal material (CSAM being the most obvious, but anything goes, really) has been found to force shut down or takeover of the whole instance.

The same goes for big companies instead of governments: if a large corporation has launched their own Mastodon clone, the first thing they’d reasonably fund are smearpieces by “journalists” and/or “scientists” hinting at harm to befall server owners by continuing to host Mastodon instances.

I personally hate, what crypto has become (if I wanted to destroy crypto, I’d have invented crypto bros as a psy op), but the fediverse isn’t really federated enough to be resistant to influence by corporations and governments and something blockchain adjacent could have been the solution. For example: if the server admin and their hoster is totally unable to decrypt whatever is stored on their own server and the network as a whole is distributing all the content probabilistically across every federated server, the network would only get stronger and more censorship resistant with each new instance. If the government is forcing you for any reason to take down your server your content is not gone but stored with all the other nodes. If you are able to retrieve your key, you could even move to a new instance and authenticate as your old instance (don’t forget: you are not “sending” BTC from one wallet to another, you are only telling as much nodes as sensible that BTC on the chain belongs to a new key now; the same would go for content. Take down one node with a “wallet” doesn’t change which wallet the BTC on the chain belongs to. I propose the same, just with content). If federation between instances would work in a comparable way as it is now, this would additionally increase the probability to root out bad faith actors trying to flood the whole network with illegal content, since their content would be stored on much less nodes in a pseudo-predictable way: as soon as each major instance would defederate, their content would not be stored on their nodes and unfederated third-party-nodes.

I remember them from Chrome, which was kind of a thing in Europe back in the day.

Are you actually downloading all the stuff from GoG locally? I hear this argument often and it is a good one in principle. Until you try to backup a large library. Before I got my Steamdeck I bought a lot from GoG as well and set up a script to backup to my NAS a few times a year. My GoG library is considerably smaller than my Steam library (~60 games vs. ~1.000 games) and it is still taking up multiple TBs on my NAS, even though I’m only backing up windows .exes. If GoG would go under suddenly, I don’t think a lot of people will have their library backed up, nor can back up their library fast and sufficiently enough to make a difference. The true utility of Steam and other online platforms may be their storage capacity.