• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 23rd, 2023

help-circle


  • GUI is a generic swiss army knife. It’s easy to introduce to someone, and it has a whole array of tools ready for use. However, each of those tools is only half-decent at its job at best, and all of the tools are unwieldy. The manual is included, but it mostly tells you how to do things that are pretty obvious.

    CLI is a toolbox full of quality tools and gadgets. Most people who open the box for the first time don’t even know which tools they’re looking for. In addition, each tool has a set of instructions that must be followed to a T. Those who know how to use the tools can get things done super quickly, but those who don’t know will inevitably cause some problems. Oh, but the high-detail manuals for all the tools are in the side compartment of the toolbox too.


  • To the folks recommending the game, can I ask you a question? Not trying to antagonize, just curious:

    What makes Cyberpunk click for you? I played at launch, wasn’t really enthralled, and refunded. I later grabbed it on sale + Phantom Liberty DLC, played through the main story and half of the DLC, and it still never clicked for me. I wasn’t entirely bored, but there were so many moments where I felt like the game world didn’t really care what I did unless I was playing a main mission.

    What are some things I can try in Cyberpunk to see if it clicks for me?












  • TheOakTree@lemm.eetoGaming@lemmy.worldI am so tired of ranked
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is a fair argument, but what if some people extract fun from improving their mechanical skills, positioning, game sense, macro/micro play, etc. and not from simply playing the game? In that situation, it doesn’t quite fit the typical idea of ‘fun,’ but it’s still reason to be sweaty in the game for ‘fun.’


  • TheOakTree@lemm.eetoGaming@lemmy.worldI am so tired of ranked
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago
    1. Not at all. It’s for people who want to compete. It’s for people who care about what the scoreboard says at the end of a match. It’s for players who care whether they win or lose, more than they care about having a good time.

    I don’t understand why this isn’t the normal understanding. Think of high-tier high school athletes; they aren’t competing just for the fun of the sport. They may love <sport> and find it fun to be a part of <sport>, but when they are competing at a regional or national level, fun is not really the point to many of them. Their goals are the point - to win, to impress college recruiters, to improve their game - and they might have fun aiming for those goals, but the fun becomes secondary to performance.

    Ranked gamemodes simply aren’t the place for fun to be the top priority, despite the game existing for fun. There is a reason why ranked and casual modes exist, and if the casual mode cannot be played casually, then it’s a problem in the implementation of the modes and not a justification for playing casually in ranked.


  • I don’t know about this, but only because Steam has a very unique position in their market. Lots of intense loyalists for Steam means long-term projects yield hype and reputation.

    For example, the Steam Deck was a high cost high impact long-term project, and it wasn’t even in the interest of leading the handheld gaming market. It still brought them a lot of good press, and it also spearheaded the adoption of handheld gaming PCs - whether running SteamOS, Windows, or other linux distros - most of which are using Steam as the primary gaming library.