Biology, gaming handhelds, meditation and copious amounts of caffeine.

  • 5 Posts
  • 249 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 11th, 2023
  • kadu@lemmy.worldtoGames@sh.itjust.works•The wild successes of Helldivers 2 and Baldur's Gate 3 send a clear message: Let devs cookEnglish
    1627·
    2 months ago

    That’s true for virtually every game. Diablo IV: hated by many, considered a major downgrade, Blizzard bad, gets boring, doesn’t handle live content updates right… yet go watch the videos with the team that designed the dungeons and the assets, they’re extremely passionate, they are proud of their work, they explain how they spent a looooong time just working on little details they thought people would appreciate.

    It’s super unfair to raise Helldivers and Baldur’s Gate to this elevated “worthy passionate developer” status and disregard others while, at the same time, being selectively blind about the issues both of these games had and still have. In fact, Baldur’s Gate straight up required months of Microsoft intervention to finally (partially!) fix CPU affinity issues.

  • kadu@lemmy.worldtoGames@sh.itjust.works•The wild successes of Helldivers 2 and Baldur's Gate 3 send a clear message: Let devs cookEnglish
    5416·
    2 months ago

    Eh, there’s a lot that could be said about Helldivers, at least as a PC port.

    Great game, nice content delivery, very cool. No DLSS, no modern FSR (it straight up uses an horrendous implementation of FSR 1.0), very bad usage of multiple threads, quite a few bugs - the armour ratings literally did not work, as in, a crucial feature of the game that changes the entire balancing of gear and enemies did not apply, meaning you could have a party of a heavy gear tank and light gear medic and both would take the same damage from the same enemies.

    Again, the game itself is very fun. But I’m absolutely not going to praise this port and claim it’s a shining example of developer quality.

  • kadu@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world•YouTube’s ad blocker crackdown now includes third-party appsEnglish
    3·
    3 months ago

    I don’t see how that’s relevant. If you want to engage in the paid YouTube subscription, go for it, it’s an entirely different thing though.

    My computer requests from YouTube’s server a video, the server gives me a stream of data - I didn’t steal it, I didn’t hack it, the server provided me this because it wanted to - and this stream contains an ad and a video. What I do with this stream is only my concern, you can’t force me to watch the ad. That would be like walking in the street and somebody says you’re unethical because you didn’t look at an outdoor advertisement banner, and that you will be forced to either pay a fee or look at the ad.

  • kadu@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world•YouTube’s ad blocker crackdown now includes third-party appsEnglish
    30318·
    3 months ago

    YouTube’s argument is the same as Linus’ from LTT: if you watch a video without ads, you’re failing to comply with your side of the transaction, thus essentially pirating that content and stealing the revenue source.

    Regardless if we agree or not with that statement, I’ll absolutely side with adblockers always for a deeper issue: it’s my screen, so I get the ultimate say on what content gets rendered. Quite literally. It’s my network, my cable, my screen, my graphics card, my web browser running JavaScript on my CPU - you do not, ever, get to overreach and decide what pixels show up or not. If I don’t want your obnoxious ad for an AI girlfriend to show up, there’s no moral argument to be had here.

    EDIT: I think some of you are missing the point of this comment. There’s no reason to reply to me countering the argument in the first paragraph, as it is not my comment, in fact, I specifically mentioned how it’s YouTube (and Linus’) argument.