Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Laterigrade]

Do you think the hype is deserved, None?

[None]

Spose so? It's another Fromsoft Souls game, they've always made a splash. I guess I could say no in the sense that much of the hype was just borne from hype as a self-serving feedback loop, but that's a criticism of human fallibility, not Elden Ring.

It's no bait-and-switch and it's not woefully incomplete. I don't think anyone buying in will feel they've been cheated.

[Magmacube_tr]

Twitter sucks.

[Iduno]

Twitter sucks.

The new changes to make it harder to view without signing in made it somehow even worse.

Edit: definitely the wrong thread, though.

[Rolan7]

Twitter is diabolical.  I'm constantly getting linked to it for clever posts or images, and that's all well and good, but occasionally I make the mistake of clicking through to any of the "serious" discourse it's known for.  It's fascinating.  Political commentators who I strongly disagree with are somehow transformed, as if by a funhouse mirror, into drooling morons who are bopping me on the nose until I lash out.  I feel an absurd desire to make an account and explain exactly how toxic and wrong they're being.

It takes people who I'd normally roll my eyes at, encourages them to literally troll for replies, and it *works*.  I remain very glad that my account got hacked by a spambot and banned before I could really engage.  I could link my Google account, but I'm juuuust self-aware enough to realize that I'm better off not getting pulled in.  I absolutely *love* getting in slap-fights online but Twitter feels like the crack cocaine version of that.  It's impressive engineering and very frightening.

Occasionally I load Facebook to see something from my mom, and it's pretty similar.  I know serious documentaries have been made on this topic, but it's still wild. 

tldr; The largest social media platforms have become very good at raising engagement by helping people get angry at each other (which is literally addictive).  Actual discourse is a casualty.

[None]

Oh, it's awful- the engagement engine on, say, Facebook, is designed to promote content with angry reactions many times more than for more mundane reactions, like thumbsups or whatever they use. Not only does anger raise engagement, it's designed to promote anger.

It's wild, wild brain poison.

[Laterigrade]

Twitter sucks.

I think that’s actually a pretty popular opinion, nowadays.
Return to the forum, to the disconnected community-centred bubble!

[martinuzz]

It is time we started to seriously consider a global ban on algorithm-driven social media.

Literary aside, I have read 'The Every' (by Dave Eggers) recently. Recommended read on this topic.

[lemon10]

Do you think the hype is deserved, None?

I think the hype about an open world Dark Souls is deserved.
I do not think that listening to the hype as someone that has never played Dark Souls is wise though, any more then hyping up the official DF release on steam as a normal human is.

In my opinion as a Dark Souls fanatic I think the game is great and 10/10 and love it. If you like the Dark Souls style at all (and your comp/console can play the game*) then I wholeheartedly recommend it. If you don't like the Dark Souls style or don't like sadistically hard games in general then maybe give it a pass.

Despite that the game has noticeable and obvious issues.
The fact that its easy to miss core mechanics and key stuff even 20 hours into the game, or how the world feels empty of people aside from enemies**, or even how its just "Dark Souls; but open world and using different words for everything".


* Which is its own problem due to the poor optimization and how computers that should be able to run it just fine might not be able to.
**I know its the world being empty and dead and hostile of human life is a key DS theme, but it still feels funky how all the factions unilaterally go to murder you the instant they see you even if they seem to be able to do shit without killing everyone in sight just fine.

[Rolan7]

(Sorry, completely unrelated - I have no opinions on Elden Ring aside from skimming the thread.  Looks cool I guess.  I am not hardcore enough for Dark Souls, though the chat seems to suggest this game is more accessible.)
I guess I have a responsibility to put this somewhere after sharing my presumably controversial take:

There is nothing wrong with selling DLC.

Overcharging for products is obviously... bad?  I'm not even sure if even that is inherently malicious.  Fooling people into overpaying is what's bad.  So if a DLC model tricks people into overpaying for something, that is definitely bad!  Likewise, "lootbox" gambling is predatory and bad.

However:  Developing and releasing a DLC for a finished and fun game is not predatory.  It's theoretically laudable, something we should encourage.  Frankly a sequel often means an engine "update" which has higher requirements and edges people out.  I like when a game I enjoy gets new content, and sometimes I'm willing to pay for that.

My perspective may partially come from running a 2015-ish video card in a frankenstein desktop for over a long time.  Or the time I really wanted to play Thief 3 at any framerate but was unable due to "pixel shading".  It also comes from enjoying cosmetic DLC in games I truly enjoy!  Killing Floor 1 offers golden versions of various weapons, and I purchased a golden katana as a tip for all the good times.  I haven't truly played KF1 in a while but I don't regret supporting the devs, because they kept adding stuff long after I bought the game.

I think that selling cosmetic DLC allowed them to do that.  You know, under capitalism.

[Egan_BW]

If the cosmetics are good then I won't complain. If they're bad or boring then I reserve the right to complain, less for ethical reasons than that I'm annoyed at having boring and useless things advertised to me.

Like I enjoy HuntShowDown and can appreciate that they need to sell things to people who already have the game to continue development and don't want to have any pay to win stuff in there so it's all cosmetics, but... all of their DLCs are that you can play as some guy who looks like a default character who has a special version of an existing gun which has maybe engravings or something? I think it's because of the game's art style, it's all very dark and grounded.

And of course there are "DLCs" which actually add stuff to do or expand a bunch of gameplay or are just littler games in their own right. Something like a mini campaign where you play as a different character from the main game or something is very welcome.

Now that's all assuming that I'm an adult who knows how to spend my money. Selling cosmetics or energy packs or whatever to kids is really scummy.

And obviously the ideal scenario for gaming is that capitalism mysteriously trips and falls into a gorge while on a hike and thus forth everybody gets to be supported while they make whatever kind of art they like. We would never see another assassin's creed game again!

[hector13]

I would suggest that cosmetic DLC is a cancer, but if the devs are still maintaining a game and adding content outside of DLCs, it’s one way to pay the bills for the least amount of effort.

You are correct that DLC on its own is alright though. I’ve bought plenty of DLC because I’ve enjoyed a game and want more, and opted out of DLC because my experience of the base game was plenty.

Some things are a bit cheeky though, like on-disc DLC, or incremental additions that don’t necessarily add up to “content” as it were.

[Rolan7]

Yeah, on-disk DLC is an old beef for me.  In that I don't see any rational reason that the location of the DLC matters.  It seems like an emotional response - "It's on this disk, therefore the lack of it is more offensive than if it never existed!"

Emotions are real, though.  And I really appreciate that the core of my point isn't as controversial as I thought.  Predatory microtransactions are still a huge problem, particularly as they target children.
Hell, I wasn't even thinking about mobile devices.

But DLC has a proud legacy.  Even Descent 1 had an expansion pack, as they used to be called before downloading was so easy.  That call-and-response between developer and player, releasing more content for a well-received game, has a special place in my heart.  I argue it still exists today, but caveat emptor. 

[Egan_BW]

Well for on-disk DLC it's sorta a DRM issue, isn't it? I physically own this piece of data, a machine which I own and control has access to it, the only reason I can't use it is because of some invasive BS.

But on the other hand on-disk DLC tends to be in the most useless and pointless category of palate-swap cosmetics, so I don't really care about them that much. And most game don't come on a disk these days either! ;p

[Horizon]

Everybody be praising Elden Ring, nobody be talking about how the online play is basically non-functional.