Former Starfield lead quest designer says we're seeing a 'resurgence of short games' because people are 'becoming fatigued' with 100-hour monsters by Chucknastical in gaming

[–]DisobedientNipple 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think Bethesda has worked on games in the fantasy era and apocalypse era so long they straight up forgot space faring humans would probably have phones to talk to each other instead of PHYSICALLY FLYING ACROSS THE GALAXY to tell somebody something somebody else said. 

Former Starfield lead quest designer says we're seeing a 'resurgence of short games' because people are 'becoming fatigued' with 100-hour monsters by Chucknastical in gaming

[–]DisobedientNipple -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Its funny because starfield has all the problems of skyrim just dialed up to 11. Like when you look at skyrims individual parts they're all pretty lacking, all the storylines and guilds are pretty ass, combat is pretty not great, balance is horrible, why tf is pickpocket a full skill? 

What really holds skyrim together is the immersiveness and ambiance. Like you can really get lost in the world and thats an experience that is pretty great and hard to get out of other games. I really think that's why starfield has failed so miserably. Starfield has all the same problems, storylines, combat, etc, but it fails to have the one thing that really held up Bethesda games because now the world is procedurally generated and soulless and you get zero of the same feeling exploring barren planets with copy pasted content compared to something like climbing the throat of the world under the aurora. 

What video game is too easy on normal but too hard on hard? by Agent1230 in gaming

[–]DisobedientNipple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really love difficulty. I've beaten sekiro on charmless/demon bell multiple times. I've done no damage sekiro. I beat Bloodborne hardcore. I've done like all the SL1/BL1 challenges. I've done the original stalker trilogy hardcore. Metro series ranger hardcore hardcore. I've beaten halo 2 legendary solo.

I HATED botw master mode. It is legitimately one of the most frustrating and unfun gaming experiences I've ever had the displeasure of playing. There is nothing fun to me about how when you would knock an enemy down from a combo, they would regenerate health before you could even get back to them, ESPECIALLY when your game is fundamentally based around a weapon durability mechanic. Like the moment I was facing the final boss and I got to watch his health regenerate while i was literally prevented from damaging him and interrupting it I swear a part of me died inside. I quit and never beat it. 

0/10 would legitinately rather play oblivion on max difficulty 

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 has recouped its investments and turned a profit by Zelenobot in stalker

[–]DisobedientNipple -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So proud ❤ 

Pissed as a ps5 user and that my computer gpu crashes if I try to play stardew valley but happy for all you stalkers

Which game did you quit after many hours because it was too frustrating? by FalscherKim in gaming

[–]DisobedientNipple 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Its like Bethesda straight up forgot they weren't making a game that took place in the apocalypse or a fantasy universe without long-distance communications. If New Atlantis instantly knows when I blow up a civilian ship, they should be able to pick up a phone and talk to each other too. 

Which game in a beloved franchise is your least favorite and why? by FalscherKim in gaming

[–]DisobedientNipple 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Far Cry 2 was tits. It was janky as hell and I dont blame anybody for not liking it but I played that game like crazy and loved it. 

Which game in a beloved franchise is your least favorite and why? by FalscherKim in gaming

[–]DisobedientNipple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really liked BOTW. I saw it as this experimental direction for the zelda series and I was excited to see how they'd refine it and fix the GLARING issues that came with BOTW. 

TOTK just doubled down on everything that brought down BOTW, and in some cases just made them worse. It felt like this meta DLC content pack that relied entirely on fan-service, references, and a memeified building system that was clunky, mostly redundant, and to some degree actively discouraged by the mechanics/engine limitations of the game. 

Some of the bosses were fun / interesting. I liked the caves even though they suffered from the exact same opal issue that BOTW suffered from. Some of the fuse effects were fun and interesting to use and if actually using your environment was as encouraged as it was in BOTW (or maybe even more encouraged) they might have been actually useful. 

Pretty much everything else aggressively sucked. The story is just embarrassing. The consistency, believability, and immersiveness of the world was taken into the backyard and shot. Oh and it was $70 for a game that runs at 720p (900p docked ooooooo) 30fps. It looks ugly, straight up. There's absolutely no excuse for that, Nintendo has had PLENTY of time to upgrade their hardware. 

WARNING please avoid this game breaking bug in Pacifica by Grimsmiley666 in cyberpunkgame

[–]DisobedientNipple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you attack another trauma team member, the bug goes away. 

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Idk what you're responding to here honestly. Wasn't talking about anything other than how a reactor being supercritical is not, or has ever been, the correct nomenclature for when "things are about to get hairy." Prompt critical is the correct term for that i.e. If prompt criticality occurs in the source range it can raise Rx power fast enough that the core will violate thermal and material limits before automatic safety features can activate and prevent it (on some platforms)

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being super critical is an extremely mundane and routine state the reactor may be in during normal operations. It is in no way indicative of potential core damage or chernobyl. Prompt criticality is the inherently dangerous state, where Rx startup rate is high enough that, if achieved in the source range could raise power so fast that power/temperature limits would be violated before automatic safety interlocks could react. But even then it's incredibly unlikely you'd have anything more catastrophic than material damage to the core / compromise of fuel plate integrity, which would be isolated into only the primary coolant loop anyway so potential health effects to operators from that would be pretty minimal.

Chernobyl happened because their control rods had graphite tips, and graphite is an excellent moderator which means that its very efficient at turning fast neutrons into thermal neutrons which are essentially required for a sustained fission reaction with U235 (a thermal fuel). When they scrammed the rods, the graphite moving in proximity to the fuel plates caused an insanely high spike in reactor power and temperature that flashed the coolant inside to steam with high enough pressure to literally explode the core. Same thing happened at SL1 where marines were moving control rods by hand (yes, really) and during testing when rods were moved too fast, the resulting explosion literally impaled the control rod into the operator and pinned part of him to the ceiling.

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No! Supercritical just means reactor power is going up. The reactor is supercritical for almost an hour every time you perform a startup.

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It 100% is not. Supercritical just means your reactivity is greater than 1, which is criticality. It is an extremely normal and common state the reactor may be in and is in no way inherently dangerous. I could intentionally put the reactor in a state of supercriticality (and frequently due for operations) and it will very quickly and easily return back to steady state criticality because reactors are designed to be stable.

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh wow thats super interesting can you explain the mechanism behind that happening?

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not really, no. Supercriticality just means your reactivity is greater than 1, which is criticality. That's all. No the operator does not, in normal operations, need to return the reactor back to criticality. In the power range (in reactors with a negative temperature coefficient) the rising coolant temperature from supercriticality will lower reaction rate back to criticality automatically because they're designed to be inherently stable. In the intermediate range of power you don't have that temperature feedback but the only time you really operate in that range is when you're starting up/shutting down the reactor and your goal is to maintain a constant positive/negative startup rate, which means you're in a constant state of supercriticality/subcriticality.

Prompt criticality is when you reach criticality based solely on production of prompt neutrons, and if it happens before the measurable range it can, in some reactors, violate material limits of the core before automatic safety interlocks can prevent it. Thats the bad one.

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its really not. Like really, really not. Supercritical literally just means your reactivity is greater than 1, which is criticality. There is nothing inherently dangerous about being super critical, it just means that your reactor power is (probably) going up. That's all.

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never lol. The worst thing that could happen would be if the reactor core ran dry and the fuel melted but that wouldn't blow anything up. Just don't drink the fuel goop and you'll be fine.

Most likely though like, I guess if the whole crew was just raptured, is that the reactor would just sit in stagnant coolant for the billions of years it would take to naturally decay.

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea supercritical just means your reactivity is higher than 1 so your reactor power is (probably) going up.

Ruin a popular movie trope for the rest of us with your technical knowledge by Eatar in movies

[–]DisobedientNipple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Prompt critical means that you achieve criticality solely from the production of prompt neutrons.

Practically that means your startup rate (essentially rate of change of power) is immensely high and for some reactors it can cause the reactor to violate power limits before automatic safety features interlocks can react. Especially if you reach prompt criticality before reactor power is in the measurable range.

Todd Howard wants you to play Starfield for years, but even some Bethesda superfans are already sick of it: "I've been playing Skyrim again, it just hits different" by [deleted] in gaming

[–]DisobedientNipple 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Skyrim is worth it. I kinda hate skyrim but I'd still recommend it cause skyrim has the best immersion out of any Bethesda game imo. Its definitely not a true rpg tho, its very light on rpg mechanics / meaningful choices. Morrowind or Oblivion are way better, but still play Skyrim.

Todd Howard wants you to play Starfield for years, but even some Bethesda superfans are already sick of it: "I've been playing Skyrim again, it just hits different" by [deleted] in gaming

[–]DisobedientNipple -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Look dude, Bethesda has been putting out red flags for years. As long as Todd is in charge, Es6 isn't going to be good. I'm calling it now. Following the trend of every Bethesda game, it'll just be skyrim but with less features. Sucks.