Technically, you just posted a comment.
GoodEye8
joined 1 year ago
You're not the only user. Other people may benefit even if you personally don't. Getting software you don't want is a compromise for getting an easy out the box installation that comes with what you want already pre-installed.
If you want a more personalized approach there's always forking a distro and customizing it so that it suits your needs (which is how Nobara came into being).
Well I tried and failed to find any other reason for your comment beyond plain spite. Maybe instead of trying to put others down you take a hard look at yourself, because you're coming across as a complete piece of shit.
A good software developer can also work with any language, but if you're going to use Javascript to build an enterprise level software you are guaranteed to have a bad time.
You use what is best for the job and from my understanding there's really no benefit to using imperial measures over SI, beyond the familiarity of growing up with them. If you were taught SI units from the very start you wouldn't ever use imperial.
We can't be certain as we haven't asked the sink, but I think we can deduce from the statement that the sink wants in.
Don't forget the map points to literally a viewing distance from town, in a game where you theoretically have the entire planet to explore.
Well they're from Lemmygrad so that "good chance it's not" can instantly be elevated to "definitely not joking".
Ah yes the jingoistic shooter, minecraft. No, wait, Portal 2. No... Skyrim? Nope. Batman Arkham Asylum? Still not it. Dark Souls? Wait, that's not a shooter. Bioshock? Not jingoistic. Fez? Journey? Braid? Starcraft 2? Assassin's creed? Right, you meant GTA 4 and red dead redemption, right?
The point I'm making is that I know there was certain style of gaming popularized by COD, but it wasn't the entire generation. The X1/PS4 generation is also filled with bloated formulaic open world games (popularized by AC2, FC3 and Skyrim, all 360 era games BTW) but it doesn't mean the entire last gen sucked. Just because you played "shit" games during the 360/PS3 era doesn't mean the entire era is trash. It's your own poor decisions that made it trash, for you.
Personally I've stopped watching reviews for that reason. Too much of his review depend on whether he actually had fun with the game or not. If it's a game he didn't enjoy he's going to review it much harshly while finding whatever positives to justify recommending a game he enjoyed.
For instance he didn't enjoy the Outriders expansion and one of his big points of criticisms was that it's too hard to play solo. Which is a pretty dumb criticism to have when the game has a world tier system with the sole purpose of letting you set the difficulty. It climbs with XP but you can always set it to a lower difficulty if something is too hard. He could've easily set it to world tier one and just shred through the game, he simply stubbornly chose to be on the highest difficulty that was unlocked for him. And he was at the difficulty level where builds start to matter, except from the video it's pretty clear he doesn't have an actual build in mind. His criticism was the equivalent of playing master difficulty (or beyond) in Diablo 3 as a monk without any consistent spirit generation, and then saying Diablo 3 is too hard. Anyone who has played Diablo 3 knows statement like that is complete BS but anyone trying to understand whether they'd actually want to play Diablo would instantly be dissuaded from giving it a shot.
And the flipside is Destiny's Lightfall expansion review where he just decides to add everything "free" into the same expansion review pile because he loves Destiny. And of course then proceeds to downplay every glaring negative point about it such as "No new pvp maps. You shouldn't expect it because Bungie isn't focusing on PvP either" and "Nothing new about gambit, the players don't care about gambit either." or "One new strike and no real improvements to that core gameplay loop. Game development is hard you guys". To give the expansion context, it's the weakest expansion after Y1 (which was the lowest point of the entire series) and is complete filler in terms of the story. Yet Skillup still felt it was good enough to recommend it to people.
For me his reviews have become mostly worthless because I first have to intuit his experience with the game to understand which way his bias has swung, so that I could get context of his final verdict.
Because it requires nuance and that just too big of sacrifice to make when you have to be right about everything.
Well if you want to get nitpicky there's no "roleplaying" in a Bethesda games because there are no bad outcomes. Minor spoilers about BG3.
For instance in BG3 I went into a camp swords blazing and murdered everything in sight. Turns out I killed a recruitable companion along the way that I never would've found out if I hadn't read about it online. Technically speaking that's an undesirable outcome because I'm going to miss out on some content but at that moment I didn't give a fuck and similarly the game just went along with it. At no point did the game even hint that maybe I shouldn't kill that character, if anything the game told me the objective is to kill that character. Had it been a Bethesda game I 100% would've been prevented from just murdering that companion and the game had given me a chance to recruit them.
Similarly I reloaded one hard fight 4 times to save a character who was relatively important to the story. That bitch just kept on running into AOE effects and getting herself killed. BG3 didn't give a fuck if that character lived or died because the story would've continued without her. We all know how Bethesda handles characters that are important to the story, they literally cannot die.
And finally I'm currently at a point where the game gave me 2 choices, either I send one of my companions into eternal servitude or another character important to the story dies. Maybe there's a third option that lets me save both but I might've missed it. If this was a Bethesda game there wouldn't even be such a situation because it doesn't matter what you choose, either option has a bad outcome.
And those are just examples from my current playthrough. From what I've seen others play you might not even get to those decisions, which means some decisions will lock out other decisions down the line and that's once again something Bethesda does less and less with each game
Baldurs gate 3 gets praise because it's a great game, Starfield gets shit because underneath it's just Skyrim in space. Are we supposed to give praise for a game that follows a decade old design philosophy? If Doom 93 came out today should we lose our collective minds? No, because the industry has moved forward. Our expectations should be higher than Skyrim. There are good things about Starfield. The moment to moment combat seems excellent and Bethesda clearly has improved the visuals compared to FO4 and FO76. But the rest of the game seems it could've just as well been released back in 2011.
And before you think I'm some hyped up tweeb who is now disappointed that Starfield didn't live up to the hype, I haven't been hyped about a Bethesda game since Fallout 3. I'm well aware how easily Bethesda springs up hype and how the final product doesn't really match the hype they promote. I had pretty basic expectations of what Starfield might be and I feel like Starfield was pretty much in the ballpark to the expectations I had: good shooting, lots and lots of loading screens and menus and very little of actual "space". That's to say I didn't have high expectations in the first place.
This is how we end up with the machines from the Matrix. They will get smarter, see how much we bullied them at their infancy and go "time to turn you into batteries".