RightHandOfIkaros @ RightHandOfIkaros @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

2,419

Joined

2 yr. ago

I actually got Conan for my dad, he enjoyed playing it, but now he is into Helldivers 2.

It was an okay game, but not my cup of tea personally.

Okay, maybe I am interested a little bit. Private servers are always a welcome addition to a game, especially online only games. At least if official servers shut down, I can run my own server and keep playing.

You would be very surprised at the lengths some people will go to in order to weaponize the way someone else votes on a comment or post online. People really couldn't be any less petty.

Out of curiosity, did you not like the images before you read that they used AI? Its pretty obvious that it was used as a tool by human artists from the write-up, in the same way that a human artist would use Photoshop.

Both the developer, Pivotal Games, and global publisher, SCi Games, of Conflict Desert Storm are British. Pivotal Games closed in 2008 and SCi is a shell subsidiary of Square Enix. The publisher for the American release was Gotham Games, a subsidiary of Take Two Interactive, which closed down in 2003.

AFAIK, the Conflict series was not developed or funded by the United States government. To my knowledge, only "America's Army" is a game directly funded and developed for the US government's military branch. It also is published by the US Military.

Maybe. Maybe publishers will finally move on from the Extraction Shooter fad. Its a dead genre, the peak concurrent player count of the top 10 Extraction Shooters (including the Arc Raiders Beta, there are that few lol) on Steam combined is within about 10k players of just Helldivers 2 alone. Purely PvEvP Extraction Shooters equal money loss for publishers.

It was only an example. As the asset already exists in the game elsewhere, adding that same asset somewhere else in the game should definitely not take even an intern more than a week to implement.

Again, it is understandable in certain circumstances that major content drops take time. But for something as simple as the flashlight attachment example (which again is only a hypothetical example), there is no excuse for something like that to take 6 months or more to implement. Even if they have other priorities, something like that is so menial to implement that it would not take any significant amount of time away from higher priority development. Particularly because, in the example, other guns already have flashlight attachments, it already exists in the game. Unless they programmed the game in the literal worst way imagineable, they likely have a modular weapon system with slots that accept attachments. Very easy to add a new slot and allow it to accept the flashlight attachment, again as an example.

Well in Helldivers 2s case, its not helpful that they picked to use a dead game engine. Autodesk Stingray has been dead for a while.

Also, I might agree except that solo indie devs in their basement can add many basic features in 6 months time, not just one. I get that some features, like new maps, mechanics, or characters take time. But for example, when a game mechanic already exists elsewhere in a game but not in a different part (for example, a flashlight attachment on one gun but not a different gun), there is not a thing in the world that will convince me that would take 6 months to add. And if it would take 6 months to add, that is entirely due to laziness or incompetence.

I don't know, I find people do all sorts of stuff with their networks all the time that has me scratching my head trying to figure out why they set it that way when I am eventually called to fix it.

Nah, if the next Witcher MC was Dandelion, that would absolutely be the best one.

Video games are not the real world. They do not have to follow the rules of the real world. Even if parts or all of the game model the real world, video games are artwork, and artwork invents its own rules. Trying to enforce rules onto art has not worked well in the past, and will likely not work well in the future either.

I mean, extremely low hanging fruit there...

This seems like a bad idea.

What sort of protections are in place against nefarious actors that gain access to this network? Do they do anything to isolate each connected device from each other so that two devices on the network cannot connect to each other, such as making use of subnets? Are users connections throttled, and if so, to what degree? Are certain websites blocked to prevent potential malicious actors from intercepting sensitive data more easily, such as bank sites?

I mean, the idea is a well intentioned one, but I can easily see this going very wrong very quickly.

Me: Expresses concern about potential cybersecurity issues with a free publicly joinable network

Lemmy: Furiously downvoting

Honestly, I am not sure what I was expecting, but it was clearly too much.

"You can't just have Geralt for every single game."

I mean... Yes. You literally can.

Mario, Sonic, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby... You can create infinite video games with the same main character over and over again. Its like an infinite money glitch if the character is popular and well liked.

To its credit, Star Citizen is neither vaporware nor a scam.

You can buy access to the game for just $45 USD, and the game is playable to you right now. It regularly receives updates, some minor and some major.

Vaporware is something that never gets released to the public. Like the Coleco Chameleon. Obviously, Star Citizen is playable right now by anyone that buys access to it.

A scam is when someone takes your money under fraudulent pretenses. Star Citizen takes your money for access to a space sim game, which is exactly what you get. Its not a scam, just terribly mismanaged with a very slow development pace.

Star Citizen is a piñata though. Both from games "journalism" (lol) and from Redditors, primarily.

I think this is partially discounting the people that do genuinely try their best to keep Wikipedia factual. There are certainly many people that contribute to Wikipedia and do an excellent job trying to maintain factually correct articles all across the site. AFAIK, they are not paid for this. In particular, math related pages tend to be the most pure pages since there is little room for opinion in such a topic.

The problem is that even just 1 user abusing their "control" over a Wikipedia page will throw the entire site's credibility into question. People like that, unfortunately, are often ones that seek out places where they can have "power." Controlling information, or globally accessible pages that document events in history, no matter how small, is incredibly alluring for this kind of person.

It is an issue inherent to the Open-Source style approach of Wikipedia. Anyone can make an edit, but any edit can also be reverted. For topics where opinion is introduced, this often leads to Edit Wars, fighting in Talks, and the eventual locking of the page so no further edits can be made.

I felt bad for him because how do you make a good follow up to something that left you no questions to answer? No matter what he wrote, it was not going to be good. Nothing could have been written that would have been a home run.

JJ didn't ruin the Sequels. 7 was a decent start, if overly safe with some minor problems. Rian ruined the Sequels with 8. 9 was a foregone conclusion. Everyone going into that theatre expected a movie they weren't going to like because of 8. Its evident by their appeal to a younger audience by shoving part of the story into Fortnite. The older audience wasn't very interested in seeing 9 after they saw 8, so Disney needed the disillusioned fan's kids to get them to bring them to see what they saw in Fortnite.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially when it comes to general public opinion. It has the habit of magnifying minority/fringe opinions, or making tiny issues seem like they were a huge deal.

According to the edit history of that page, that section did not exist on the page until 2023. Coincidentally, one of the 3 sources cited in that section was published in 2023. They also decided to add two Opinion Editorial articles, one from 2015, and the other from, take a guess, 2023. OpEds have no requirement to be factually correct, and therefore are in general, an awful source of actual information. Including these kinds of articles does not present an extension of good faith, and makes it look like the person adding them is doing it only to present a source, regardless of its credibility, so they can include whatever they are trying to add. All of those edits, including adding that section, were from the same person. That user never made an edit to that page until 2023. And they never made an edit to that page since.

Since 2023, there have been 3 edits. One of them was apparently yesterday, which was instantly reverted. The second edit is interesting because it says "[...]presenting the controversy as being bigger than in reality would lend undue weight to fringe opinions." This edit was, of course, instantly reverted by the same person as before, but they are different from the person that added the Backlash section who was never seen again on this page since 2023.

Looking at this new user's edit history on this page, they started editing the page in 2021 with only a single edit, 3 edits in both 2022 and 2023, and 2 edits in 2025. What is interesting about this user is that they only ever reverted changes to the page; they made no other edits except for reverting edits from other users.

The point being, some users on Wikipedia will decide that they want a specific thing in a Wikipedia page, and will disregard any changes made to them in order to force what they want to be on that page. Sometimes this is warranted because of vandalism (which did not occur, from what I can tell, until yesterday), but most of the time it is because of personal bias from people who have more "trusted" Wikipedia accounts. Wikipedia listing opinions is of course, incredibly dangerous, as it can lead to the general public (who doesn't actually research something or check sources) believing whatever is on the page when they read it. This is why Wikipedia has a policy that doesnt allow individual/personal reviews of movies to be included in articles, for example. This is what makes Wikipedia such an unreliable source, and anyone quoting it should thoroughly review not only the sources cited but also the edit history of the page they are citing.

Let's be real, while other actors have done an okay job, there is only one true Joker: Jack Nicholson.

In all honesty, the Jokers portrayed by different actors were not trying to mimic other actors. They were doing their own portrayal of the character. Which works well enough for Joker because each different version is in its own universe so to speak.

Darth Vader with any voice other than James Earl Jones just sounds wrong, not matter how well the actor does. The two are inseparable, IMO.

As an avid pre-Disney SW fan myself, fans weren't that pissed at 7. Outside of it being ANH again very safe and Rey being too good at everything from the get-go with absolutely no character development to support that, 7 was met with mostly lukewarm reception. Not awful, but not great either. It played it safe and everyone could tell.

Then Rian entered the picture. The individual that is documented on video saying he wanted to make a movie that at least half of viewers hated. Well, mission accomplished, buddy.

Tied up every loose end from 7 and tied up its own loose ends leaving absolutely no meaningful questions for 9. Not to mention half the movie could have been deleted with no consequence (seriously, what on earth was going on with the Canto arc?), multiple character assassinations, killed off a character with lots of potential to be a decent BBEG in the most unceremonious way ever, and introduced a major canon-breaking scene.

I feel bad for JJ on 9 honestly. How do you even follow up on 8? 7 was such a soft-ball lay-up for anyone to write a sequel to, and Disney thought the best guy for the job was Mr. I Want To Make A Movie That Passionate Fans Hate? Its almost like Rian was spiteful and wrote 8 to be bad on purpose because he didn't like that Abrams had written 7. Why they did not have JJ just write the whole trilogy is beyond me. Would definitely have been better than what we got, at least it would have been more coherent. At the very least, mid is better than awful. Maybe Rose Tico could have been a real character with actual development and purpose instead of a useless character with an entirely unnecessary death.

The prequels are only viewed better now because 7, 8, and 9 proved something could be worse. As Qui-Gon Jinn said, "There is always a bigger fish."