bjornk
-
Posts
1,171 -
Joined
-
Days Won
103
Content Type
Profiles
Articles
Events
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Everything posted by bjornk
-
You know what, perhaps turning the game into a gayfest has been their intention all along. Remember that thing called "Joyboy" or something which looked like anything but a boy? I personally assumed that it was a bug, but it probably wasn't. I've seen the usual fanboys on YT defending this, claiming that "it fits the lore". Well, then perhaps your lore is fucked up and stupid, huh? What would be the point of choosing a male or a female looking body, if gender has no longer have any purpose in human reproduction and humans reproduce in lab environments. Human bodies have evolved to support gender-based reproduction, which is the reason why we have big boobs, big asses and big dicks, unlike other primates. Why would you even need any of those "unnecessary" body parts in this "dangerous" world? For novelty purposes? Does that even make any sense? Being an "attack helicopter" would make a lot more sense, as someone joked about in YT comments.
-
I don't think they'll be able to spoil Geralt in any way, the author would probably sue their asses if they did.
-
I don't know which is worse, their obnoxious fanbase full of retarded fanboys or the retarded SJWs they are pandering to, or the asslicker CDPR/GOG moderators. Guess I'm not buying GOG games from now on either, fuck them.
-
Just like choosing different races and classes, to be able to choose the gender of the player character adds variety to game play, if the game is made to react to it (e.g. gives you different options/solutions to problems etc.) thus increase replayability. Which is also one of the type (B) interactions by the way, as you may recall from the other thread. If CP2077 has never had this option or if it can be removed this easily, then it's quite likely that the game wasn't really made to react different genders and that the gender option in character creation was only cosmetic anyway, an option to choose a different skin basically. Either way, this is a sign of well, perhaps not a shitty game, but definitely a shitty role-playing experience. Trying to defend what they did by suggesting that the role of gender in the world of CP is different or not that important etc. is extremely retarded. If you have streets full of humans then it either means that they still reproduce normally (i.e. people still assume the role of male and female) or they reproduce by some other means, which puts the humanity of this society in question even before you add things like cyberpsychosis. I also can't imagine how anyone can reduce sex/gender to basically "choosing a body type", I thought even little kids would know that a male and a female had different set of chromosomes BEFORE they even have a body. Anyway, I'm glad that they keep giving me more and more reasons not to be interested in their game, let alone buying it.
-
Unfortunately making games today involves multiple disciplines of art and technology. A really smart and talented person with a lot of perseverance and spare time CAN build simple prototypes of games with innovative ideas, but nothing more, or he can make simple indie games just to make money and that's it. The types of innovative games that can be made by a single guy or two, have already been made. I've seen some of the ideas I've had for years getting slowly adopted in games, such as planet sized open-world maps, but I have so many more that I will never see implemented in a game. Dialogue engines for NPCs powered by AI using personality filters and dynamic knowledge sets, semi-autonomous player characters that can take care of themselves to the extend of their skills and abilities, NPCs that are powered with intelligent agents with goals, dynamic game worlds that can build themselves etc. etc. I can even precisely visualize all of these ideas if I need to, not to mention holding a CS degree I know what can or cannot be done. Sadly, I'm taking all of them to the grave with me. I've always tried to share them as best as I could, hoping that they might inspire someone else, but people were usually not even interested in discussing.
-
People: 3rd Person option, please? CDPR: NOPE! SJWs: Gender fluid PC? CDPR: But of course! BTW, this is exactly what you would expect from a company following Bioware's footsteps. ----- CDPR: "We've removed gender, you now just choose a body type." You know what this reminds me of? - What more can a man ask for (in Cyberpunk 2077)? - Well, certainly NOT THAT! I truly hope that this game will NEVER have a MP option. Even the thought just terrifies me.
- 509 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- discussion
- rant
- (and 8 more)
-
BBC Hardtalk (get it?) talks to a former (allegedly) porn actress: "I made a total of $12,000 in the industry"... Some fun tweets here and then "I made as much as her in one month!"
-
Just made myself some popcorn with chili pepper, cause that's a thing right? Well, that was VERY cringe worthy, as it turned into popcorn with "charred" chili pepper, adding the chili later would've been a better idea apparently, but that's the limit of my "experimental cooking". Ate them all naturally, as I love me some cancer every now and then. Absolutely NOT recommended!
-
Keep in mind that in an age of intelligent AI assistants like Siri, Cortana, Google Duplex etc. "Yes/No(Yes)/(Sarcastic)Yes" was the best that certain game developers could come up with. What's worse is that there were many people (gamers) who were defending them, if you recall the FO4 announcement thread on LL, for instance. Despite the fact that it was a blatant copy of the "dialogue wheel" which was created by Bioware for their "voiced" player characters and have been plaguing RPGs ever since. Any game developer who follow the footsteps of Bioware will eventually face the same fate that Bioware now suffers from. Yeah, I'm looking at you Bethesda and CDPR. Exactly. Their dumb audience has no interest in role-playing, they just want action, kill/shoot things. They can't be bothered with lengthy dialogues, tough choices that require thinking etc.
-
Here's what happens to stupid kids who try to make a living on somebody else's platform using other people's work... https://www.youtube.com/user/MMOxReview/videos?disable_polymer=1
-
IIRC Angelina had started that, right? Another nutjob.
-
I've always suspected that this woman was a nutjob and there's your proof... https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/charlize-theron-children-transgender-jackson-age-girl-boy-a8878686.html Certain people just aren't suitable for parenting.
-
Followed by "Enemies are everywhere!", "Go! go! go!". Yes, that was bloody annoying. Enemies attacking the player is the most common (B) type interaction in games, the problem is, it is almost always the ONLY type (B) interaction. What we need more of in RPGs is "friendly" or at least "neutral" types of (B) interactions. Surprisingly enough, or maybe not, Skyrim was a game with quite a few type (B) interactions: - NPCs react to use of magic, shouts (Woah, woah woah watch the magic!) - NPCs react to skills (Favor the bow, eh?, Sneaky thief! Honeyed words etc.) - NPCs react to not wearing clothes - NPCs react to PC race (though not gender?) - NPCs react to what PC's doing (shooting/swinging weapons, playing with corpses, kicking/pushing things etc.) - NPCs react to PC's condition (being sick etc.) - NPCs sometimes say things to the PC or force greet the PC. - Bandits and some of the wildlife warn the PC not to get closer. - Friendly NPCs that aren't a follower helping the player in fights if they had the proper courage level. ... The problem with Skyrim, however, was that most of these type (B) interactions were all superficial and had no impact on the game at all. Still, most of RPGs, no matter how superficial they were, don't even have any of these. We want the type (B) interactions to be a part of the actual game, such being offered help or alliances in strategy games. If I'm not mistaken they removed the "attractiveness" attribute of CP2020 from the game in CP2077. That might give you an idea of what to expect in 2077. Which game (not necessarily an RPG) do you guys think had the most type (B) interactions? In retrospect, Skyrim actually looks like a pretty good candidate. Perhaps that's the reason why people still play it after 8 years.
-
NPCs: PLEASE, YOU HAVE TO SAVE US! YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SAVE US!!! PC: Okay, okay, I'll give it a shot... *** You now have to save the world, the universe, the princess, or whatever... Yet, no salary provided, you're not even fed properly...*** NPCs: Hey I can give you a DISCOUNT! PC: Well, thanks! NPCs: But ONLY if you fetch/kill etc. something for me! ... *** You save the world, the universe, the princess or whatever the fuck needed to be saved, paying for the entire war effort out of your pocket. *** NPCs: Thanks, you've been a great help... now, fuck off... This is the typical errand boy/girl scenario common in most RPGs, since well, forever. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Skyrim are basically this. Of course, "saving the world" is sometimes replaced with finding a relative etc. there are variations of it naturally.
-
Weird title, I know, but I don't know how to describe it, let alone properly naming it. This is not meant to be an academic discussion or anything, and I haven't done a research on it either, but I just wanted to talk about it and perhaps raise a little bit of awareness to it. In most games, you observe basically two types of interaction: (A) Player interacts with the game world (PC -> GW) (Examples: PC attacks enemies, PC initiates dialogue, PC does quests, etc.) (B) Gameworld interacts with the player. (PC <- GW) (Examples: Enemies attack PC, AI or NPCs initiate dialogue, NPCs react to what you do or wear etc.) In most games, the majority of the interactions are type (A) and besides the situations in which the game tries to harm the player, type (B) almost never occurs. Most of the (B) type interactions occur in strategy games, in which you usually have a dynamic world with AI opponents, who usually attack you, but sometimes offer help, alliances etc. However, in role-playing games where the (B) type interactions are actually very important and useful to make the player feel immersed in the game world, they are almost never used. By the way, as a side note, interactions with the environment (e.g. PC getting affected by the weather or harsh climate) may also be considered as a (B) type interaction, but as it almost always exclusively targets the PC, it introduces other problems in terms of immersion. I believe one of the reasons for the lack of (B) type interactions is the fact that game worlds in RPGs are usually completely static. In other words, nothing actually happens in them unless the player interacts with them. This is naturally not the case for strategy games, but then "feeling immersed in the game world" isn't really a priority of or even necessary in a strategy game, as it is in an RPG. Unfortunately, games which try to combine role-playing and strategy genres (e.g. Mount & Blade series) the lack of (B) type interactions is still an issue. So, wouldn't role-playing games be a lot more interesting if there were NPCs who do quests FOR you, or give you gifts in order to increase their relationship with you, or if there were NPCs or parties of NPCs who had heard about your good/bad deeds and wanted to join you, if the NPCs in the game actually acknowledge your presence by coming to you and ask if you needed help etc. for a change? Wouldn't it be exciting when your super attractive PC could actually attract some attention? Well, my answer is obvious. This is actually one of my main criteria when evaluating a new RPG in terms of innovation and immersion. Is the developer truly trying to make an innovative RPG, or is it the same old same old... So, what do you guys think? Are you also going to be looking for plenty of type (B) interactions in future RPGs, such as CP2077? Or is it still okay for you to role-play the errand boys and girls in RPGs? "Do you need help or anything? Please do, I need the XP!"
-
Just have a look at this tweet: "Making open world a thing"... whoever posted this tweet is obviously talking about Shenmue, a 1999 SEGA game, and referring to it as the "first" open world game. If this isn't an undeniable proof that CDPR lets clueless millennials do its PR work, I don't know what is. What happened to Wasteland, Fallout 1, 2, TES Daggerfall, GTA etc. and many other games that were also open-world and were released long before '99. Also comments under this tweet is just cancer, bet their asslicking fanboys can easily rival Bethesda's. This Suzuki guy, by the way, is the one who pulled the obnoxious Epic exclusivity stunt on his backers recently. They also announced a 15 min gameplay stream today... FOR THE NEXT WEEK! As if it's too big of a deal to stream an 15 min of gameplay at Gamescom. Bet it's pretty much what the press was shown back at E3, and fans of the game have been waiting to see that since then. How disrespectful. But I bet the idiot fanboys wouldn't mind that. It's a mystery why they even bothered to show up at Gamescom this year. https://www.cyberpunk.net/en/news/29533/gameplay-stream-announcement
-
Yeah, but he doesn't seem interested in making games. What I meant was basically "a capable guy with a dream".
- 509 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- discussion
- rant
- (and 8 more)
-
I doubt their fancy anti-static mats are actually properly grounded. You don't really need anti-static mats unless you're assembling tens of computers each day. Any nonconductive (wooden, stone etc.) surface would do the job, as long as it's solid, or especially if you don't want to scratch the surface, just place a thick newspaper underneath the motherboard and that's it.
-
I see a lot of young people praising the music of the 80's on YT, unaware of the fact that there were many songs back then which were cover version of the songs from the 60's and the 70's, maybe even older. Before the Internet, people could have the excuse for not knowing whether or not a song was a cover of a older song especially when it was before their time, now they can't have that luxury. I'm sure people nowadays often think "meh, I'll google it when I need learn about it" and yet, they never bother to do it... which results in infuriatingly stupid and ignorant comments on YT and the social media. It's rather appalling to think that while the original song gets insignificant amount of views, a newer "song" made out of a "sampled" piece of the original gets millions of views. Disgraceful, really. There's another reason why the millennials and younger generations are fairly ignorant about the past. Back in the 70's and in the early 80's, TV and radio broadcasting was still fairly centralized. There were much fewer tv channels and radio stations. You would sit and listen to radio or watch tv for hours and as you had no control over the content being played or shown, while you would sometimes get extremely bored, you would still get exposed to things you would not normally watch or listen to, if it was up to you. Which was actually a fairly good way of opening one's eyes and broadening their vision. In today's world, radio is dead, tv is about to die, and almost everything has become "on demand" with almost unlimited options. No one wants to listen to or watch things that they aren't already interested in. Which is a fairly bad situation in my opinion. I suppose you can count this as one of the adverse effects of the Internet (and technology).
-
They will, it's inevitable. Whatever happened in movie and music industries, will happen in games industry as well. If people keep buying inferior products and don't ask for or expect quality, the industry will offer them the cheapest, lowest quality products possible, with the highest possible profit margin for themselves. In other words, the poor quality music, movies and games of today are a direct result of the stupidity of consumers. For the same reason, we won't see any significant innovation in video games in the near future, unless a guy like Elon Musk comes along and starts making video games.
- 509 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- discussion
- rant
- (and 8 more)
-
Speaking of Barry White, I've found the girls dancing in the unrelated Hi-gloss video. Pans People dancing to Love's Theme...back in 1974... on BBC1! Can you imagine the reaction to this if it was done today? Phew, talk about regression in human society... Also, this was an instrumental pop song back in the day... what a staggering difference in quality when compared to, well, anything made today... Edit: Longer version of the video, sadly B&W.
-
I cringe hard when people from so-called tech channels on YT try to insert RAM sticks into the motherboard on top of a motherboard's cardboard box, while severely bending the motherboard. Idiots. Which kinda proves that they are people who don't really think for themselves but rather do what they were told to do...
-
This is an archetypal early 80's song for me... I would turn off the lights and listen to this and many other similar songs on the radio until I fall asleep... Good times... aaand this is the regurgitated version for the Millennials who have no clue or whatsoever...
-
It was both, plus they were all new and original work, not something from the past regurgitated and then turned into abominations.
-
Here's another example of the decline in music... Spacer, the original 1979 song by Sheila & Black Devotion with 2.5M views... and the 2000 ripoff, Crying At The Discoteque by Alcazar with 19M views... How come a ripoff, which basically identical to the original song except the lyrics can get this many views? Well, need I mention the ignorance of the Millennials once again?
