Sparker
165 posts
Эджлордство - ещё один пример того, что делается для инфантилов, которые очень хотят воображать себя крутыми и брутальными. Харк тьфу на эту эджоту и на людей, из-за которых она в нулевых пожрала половину игр. x.com/sustainuntruth…
лабубы вышли из моды, их теперь используют для иных целей
triste q toda a cena indie de FPS ultimamente é os caras fazendo jogo de tiro pra jogar ouvindo podcast pq eles querem copiar boomer shooter mas n conseguem copiar o level design de Doom e Quake q são o ponto chave desses jogos O gênero é mais q andar pra frente e atirar
This indie developer is making a sick looking FPS where you play as a kitsune and can use both firearms and your beast powers. Ir's called FERRA, any interest?
The Stanley parable Is NOT a game. There is no fail state other than restarting the loop which is just lazy. There are no goals. There are no rewards. It's more like an interactive art exhibit
Mixtape is a lovely coming of age story, it just never convinced me it needed to be a videogame. pcgamer.com/games/adventur… #pcgamer #pcgaming #mixtape
Nobody believes this and that's why there's a hard pivot to this talking point. AAA studios know they've burnt all their credibility and now feel the need to disguise their games as UwU smolbeans. There's no way to guarantee creative independence when big money is involved. Just the mere presence of a benefactor will influence the final product in an emergent way, even if there's no direct creative consulting from the funders. The only way to guarantee creative independence is for corporate money to simply not be involved, hence why people are turned off when they learn an "indie" game was actually paid for by billionaires.
There are two common logical errors people make in censorship discussions: Error 1: trying to find "logic" behind censorship at all. I'm sorry to say, but censorship is almost never logical. 99.9% of it is completely arbitrary, and almost always a last minute decision done at the behest/whims of some offended Karen at the office who doesn't have any consistent standards or principles. This is why you will so commonly see developers, for example, who have games with women who can be dressed up like complete whores, and then those same developers will turn around and add spats under a dress (Pearl Abyss). Error 2: believing the issue is "trivial" or irrelevant because the thing being censored is "small." Censorship is censorship. There's no such thing as censorship that is not, inherently, anti-consumer... because it is *literally* the act of developers removing, covering, or changing a thing that someone designed in the first place *for you*, under the belief you would like it... and it's almost always done for the sake of everyone *but consumers.* It is also a snowball. Every single instance of censorship begets more censorship, it perpetuates and worsens the problem. It is just greedy corporations "fun policing" their products, whether due to pressure from investors or some annoying office retard. This is never okay and it shouldn't be acceptable as an industry practice. By saying "it's no big deal" you're making it acceptable/standard. These billionaire companies can more than afford to lose a small partnership or to find a new employee, they should never take actions that are antithetical to the preferences of their customers. "If it's no big deal," then why the fuck did they change it/censor it/cover it up? Clearly, it's a big deal to someone. Nice job, Pearl Abyss (@CrimsonDesert_), on permanently losing customers. Real fucking smart.
Aaaand just like that, Pearl Abyss is dead to me. Don't censor your games fellas. Some of us have principles and you will instantly lose our money.
Scores are in. 🎧🔥
