• 0 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle






  • Who praised them? But I don’t know what measure we’d use to determine the general reception of this particular feature. Particularly given that almost all video game journalism is mere marketing. So that’s probably not a fruitful point to argue over.

    Instead I’ll offer the things that I think earn the competitive multiplayer a poor rating.

    • No skill or even experience based match making. Too many games are blowouts because all of the level 1 players were put on one team.
    • Teams are static once a match lobby has formed. If the teams are poorly balanced they will continue to be forever. Players can’t even switch voluntarily. The only remedy is to bail on the lobby and hop into a different random one.
    • Classes and weapons are poorly balanced. The Bulwark is a key example of a too strong and not fun design. The Assault class, and melee in general is in a pretty poor state (unless you have an infinite defense shield that lets you walk up to people). Many of the weapon options for the classes are almost unusably weak, so class loadouts tend to be very samey. Grenades are spammy and the shock grenade blind duration is not fun.
    • Players are randomly assigned Imperial or Chaos marines. But there is basically no character customization for the Chaos marines, while the Imperial marines have 5 or 6 different sets. Either the enemy team should always appear to be Chaos with their NPC style, or they should have included equivalent Chaos customization.
    • Players have minimal control over which game modes they play. It’s either 100% random or selecting a single mode. A configurable selection is a common multiplayer feature.
    • Map design is bland. This is perhaps a more personal preference, but I find the symmetrical, arcade arenas with no narrative character boring.



  • It would be nice to have some opposition, though. Even if most “conservative” media right now is little more than xenophobia, or cult worship, there do exist sound arguments against the typical internet-left positions. I don’t have a solid enough read on what comes through New in the fediverse to say whether any of that is being submitted and just downvoted off everyone’s feeds, or if all that’s being submitted is the average conservative media junk.

    Still, political spaces without opposition/diversity invariably degenerate into purity contests, and circle jerking.


  • Well not quite that either. I don’t know how to pack this up into a tidy analogy, but the issue is that some of these communication platforms have been designed in such a way that no record of the content can be accessed by a third party.

    So maybe it’s more like, “Please give me a transcript of the keynote speech at your murderer’s convention,” and replying, “Sorry I don’t have a transcript.” And then the government further saying, “Well then you need to let us install bugs in all your rooms,” and you, the host of many different conventions reply, “No. Privacy is part of the service.” I have now belabored this analogy to death. You’re welcome.






  • hypna@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlsigh...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s not my experience, and I’m an elder millennial. The only time tiering up has encouraged me to quit a game was when the higher ranked players were just more toxic. Being challenged can be part of the fun.

    That’s not to say I think matchmaking is simply better than persistent servers. Having a group of regulars and developing a bit of a server culture is good fun. I guess I like both options depending on the mood.



  • “Big” is not a negative adjective. “Truck” is not (mostly) an identity or demographic group. You’d have to make up some term like maybe “murder trucks” to get close to an analogy. Would you not suppose that someone who advocated against “murder trucks” thought trucks were bad?

    “Crowded” - maybe mildly negative. “Places” - not an identity or demographic.

    “Toxic” - Ok. “People” - This hardly seems like an identity or demographic. Maybe if martians start talking about “toxic humans” we’d have an analogy.

    And that whole last paragraph is just a straw man.

    Let’s consider some real analogies.

    “Poisonous Hinduism” “Virulent Femininity” “Malignant Jewishness” “Destructive Liberalism” “Pestilent Blackness” “Dangerous Queerness”

    I literally just looked up synonyms for toxic and picked random identity groups. Could you imagine trying to make any of these phrases academic terms?