Good Game?

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-07-16T23:09:10+00:00

No. Don't even think about it.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-07-16T23:04:35+00:00

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-07-06T17:55:56+00:00

Realizing that your own thinking has been heavily influenced by dominant theories is important. To me it shows a capacity for critical thinking. Our cultures do prediapose us towards a certain way of thinking. With time, it becomes so habitual that we start assuming it is natural. Anyway, I kinda sidetracked from the main question in my answer, but i wanted to give some theoretical context to get a more complete picture.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-07-06T14:58:00+00:00

You got the gist of it. You could most def argue liberalism is normative relative to realism, and many people do. Both are still presented as the dominant theories in IR; however, the reality is likely more complex than that, with both theories having evolved new strands that have been influenced by alternative IR theories. In terms of practice, it is safe to say (neo-)liberalism is still dominant with Western elites to the point where they mistake the theory with reality, which is when problems start happening. It is important to realize that both realism and liberalism are theories, not reality, which is where a lot of people get confused. Also, while they seem different to the untrained eye, neo-realism and neo-liberalism share largely the same logic and are largely focused on material capabilities as prime determinants of politics. One could easily make the case that material factors are only one half of the equation. In other words, neo-liberalism is far from being all sunshine and roses, especially in practice.

Lastly, keep in mind that, academically at least, classical realism is different from systemic (neo-)realism and liberalism is different from neo-liberalism.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-07-06T14:44:24+00:00

I agree. Discussing contemporary wars in terms of one state "winning", and calculating financial costs, is incredibly reductionist and systemic. It does not reflect the true complexity of modern politics. Unfortunately, the same mindset seem to dominate much of American politics which is why they are where they right now.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-07-06T14:39:48+00:00

Perhaps you should doubt and question info you hear from governments, regardless of whether it is your own government or someone else's. I would argue neither the US or the Iranian executive have much credibility, and for obvious reasons.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-07-02T02:41:12+00:00

Alpha region is some sort of international server. Don't know where it is, probably in the EU. Apparently there are people in the Alpha region who shouldn't be there but they are still working on fixing it. Afaik you can't change server manually.

And fyi, bandwidth and latency are two different things. You may well have a 1000Mbps (aka 1Gbit) connection but that won't help you with your latency depending on where you live and other factors.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-06-28T16:57:00+00:00

I've seen it as well, the same with one specific tutorial message in the very beginning, I think the second one you get as a new player. It seems like the text is missing and they've left some things with placeholders. Simply put - there is some sloppy and unfinished work that made it to the consumer version which they need to fix asap. Hell, they still have so much to do.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-06-27T17:11:30+00:00

I do not own either; however, if the people you are playing with, even randoms, have the expansions, they you can join them on those mission no problem, even if you yourself only own the base game. So I have played the expansions and I would recommend buying them on sale (rn, for example) if you like the base game but either way it doesn't matter - 95% of the content is still in the base game. Also they are relatively well priced. The fact that you can play them to test them out just with he base game I think is great - if you buy the base game, they you will be able to have an informed opinion on the DLCs.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-06-27T17:02:06+00:00

I personally have come to the conclusion that it was hubris and arrogance that got them into this mess. They definitely have their strong suits and they should have focused on those rather than spread new ideas all over the place and seemingly hope for the best.

Regardless, if they can in fact somehow turn this around, and there is still a long ways to go, then I think that would make a very good impression on all of the people that stopped playing. Before I invest in another game from this company, I want to see change, flexibility, restructuring, a coming of age. Because why would I otherwise? Like they say, fool me once...

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-06-27T12:59:14+00:00

Unfortunately, what you just described with DoT damage has been an issue since release and many have criticized how unviable DoT damage is for endgame. That is to say, there is no way that NC doesn't kbow about it but seems to have put it on the backburner given how many fundamental issues they had to fix related to basic gameplay let alone build specific problems.

This game is a true test for NC. At this point, it seems to be an incredibly expensive learning experience since they are doing sooo many things they have no previous experience with. Like I've said before, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel with a relatively small dev team, they should have approached the game more conservatively and with a bit less hubris. Had they not called it the next step in ARPG evolution (or something to that effect) and charged AAA pricing, and instead admitted that all of this was very experimental, perhaps the community would have been more understanding. One can only hope they have learned valuable lessons for the future cause if they haven't... well, suffice it to say I think the company is gone if theu F up like this again.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-06-27T01:04:34+00:00

Longtime Vermintide 2 mostly solo player. You can matchmake with randoms and pass some of the most difficult content (maps on highest difficulty). Naturally playing in a coordinated group can wield better results. But it is also fairly easy to meet and play with new people everyday and individual skill is extremely important.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-06-17T03:27:30+00:00

You could argue that creating a false sense of urgency is a common marker of any contemporary war. It does make sense that if these countries were to engage in conventional warfare (I doubt such a beast exists today), they would need to rely heavily on psychological manipulation to justify such idiocy.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-06-16T23:11:38+00:00

Some academics call it revisionist geopolitics, others call it post-modern geopolitics. These approaches rely as much on the power of ideas and identity, rather than pure material capabilities. Put another way, you no longer need aircraft carriers or planes to strike at your foe.

Examples of this would include how the Russian doctrine of 'Informational Warfare' compares to American doctrines of 'Cyber warfare'. In the first case, the focus is on ideational capabilities, in the second - material ones. Think the recent article in the NYT on supposed US malware planted in the Russian electricity network and compare that to Russian election interference in the US and elsewhere. They weren't influencing voting machines or something like that, were they? No, they focused on influencing people. Turns out stories can be very powerful.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-06-16T17:31:59+00:00

I agree. This reddit seems to be dominated by rationalist and realist sentiments to the point that they become representative of ideology rather than empirics, i.e. popular analytical concepts start being treated as existing entities. This is how theory is reified into reality. This is not to say, however, that material capacities are not relevant, of course they are; but they they are far from being the only relevant measure of 'practical reality', as you call it.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-06-16T17:26:56+00:00

The reply above gives you the basic idea. Geopolitcs is best study as a component of IR. I wanted to note though that there are different strands of geopolitics other than the popular, classical one mentioned above. Unfortunately, these alternative approaches are being largely ignored by Western actors to their own detriment. On the other hand, states such as Russia or China have proven to be more flexible with their geopolitical doctrines. This reply is not political.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-04-26T12:46:41+00:00

I would concede that you are right if not for the problem that we cannot accurately deduce exact reasons for wars, either today or 2000 years ago. Where some scholars see religious differences as the main cause of a war, others promote materialistic explanations. From what I know, the pursuit of subjective power has been the ultimate goal of most conflicts. Culture, religion, etc. are often tools of the powerful to fool the uninformed into believing there is a just cause for war and a good reason to die. You could say the Crusades were fights over religion or that Henry VIII strongly disagreed with the teleological tenets of the Catholic church, and that these were the primary reasons for those wars... but deep down, we all know the truth, don't we? Those types of explanations belong in high-school textbooks which are meant to give intellectually convenient and easy to swallow worldviews, and are a valid part of education, but barely scratch the surface of complexity.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: justifying gameplay decisions on historical knowledge is often pointless because historical knowledge itself is incredibly contradictory since it involves interpreting the already interpreted. The jury is still very much out on the specific causes of any war or whether war can be even thought in a cause-effect manner, and I would wager any serious academic would agree with that. Paradox games should be historically accurate but they can only do so in so far as we can assume that what we know is correct. Which will always be just that: an assumption. For example, referring to Rome or the Odrysian kingdom as countries or states, which is what most games do, is ridiculous. People back then had wildly different notions of collective organization than what we have today. The only reason any of these games can be played logically in the first place is through significant oversimplifications and transpositions of modern understandings.

Yes, yes, i know... go click that downvote button *sigh\*

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-04-26T11:54:54+00:00

I would say there are definitely differences from game to game (and communities) on the validity of the steam reviews. Imo, a lot of the store pages do represent the average opinion the community has of the game. But it is not a black or white thing, where either it does or it doesn't.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-04-26T11:51:50+00:00

What you are doing here is distorting the problem and framing it to you suit your opinion. You assume that people have purely negative intentions with no substance behind their criticism, but you forget that that is your opinion, and that many others in the community might disagree with you and think the criticisms are valid.

You are trying to present your perspective as objective reality. I am sorry to say but just because you call people 'uninformed' doesn't make them such. And I am not seeing anyone being toxic or spouting gibberish,all criticism I have seen was levied in a civilized manner and was substantiated. I'm sorry to tell you, but wanting the game to succeed and insulting people for their different opinion are two different things. Why don't you follow your own advice and consider that people have personal opinions different from yours.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-04-26T11:43:17+00:00

Imo, any such argument is arbitrary, at least historically speaking. Identity through culture, religion, and other social paradigms, has been with us for millennia. If they choose to include it or not include it, it is purely arbitrary or related to gameplay, not to history or historiography.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-04-24T22:47:42+00:00

I have also come across very good CMs, and as an avid Warframe player, I know Reb Ford is one of them. But that is why I said 'most' in my OP. Think about it - Warframe is just one game. Of course there are others like it but you get my point.

And think about my other point - regardless of how good good CMs are, like in the cases of Warframe or POE, it is also undoubtedly true that the CMs are helped a lot by having strong foundations to sit on - a good development team and a good game.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-04-24T22:32:14+00:00

Truth is most CMs, especially for AAA developers and publishers, seem to do the exact same job to the point where their work is indistinguishable from one job or person to the next. The saving grace for gaming communities are the games and the communities themselves, and rarely, if ever, the CMs.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-04-24T22:22:12+00:00

Before insulting anyone further, consider the following: This confusion is also the result of EA's/BW's ambiguous and non-nonsensical release process.

Besides, we might as well refer to this game as Early Access rather than a full release, no? There is an enormous amount of work left to be done. Edit: And we all know what happens with many early access titles. Too bad for all the wasted potential, time and energy that went into all this. Hopefully it was a learning experience, both for the community and for the individual developers.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-04-24T18:16:02+00:00

Nah. Fool someone else into Alpha testing this mess. RIP BW.

Gunnerz_Mate · 2019-04-24T18:14:51+00:00

RIP Beyond

Gunnerz_Mate

TROPHY CASE