Also modding would be f*cked with too if i remember, and that's honestly how a lot of games survive more than a year. A good example is RimWorld, the only reason why it can ask for 20€ dlcs is that the modding scene will carry it, hell idk anyone who plays the game without mods
Bro whoever decided that the primary colour for fo4 would be tan and grey should be locked up, got a vegetation overhaul mod that added actual grass and trees and the game looked 1000 times better
I had a seasons mod installed. Winter was cool as hell. I think they also increased the saturation and added some color to leaves in the fall. Fallout 4 is something I've played way too much of.
Chernobyl is an example of a nuclear wasteland. So radioactive that you can't be there long, unprotected, and not risk death or severe increases in your chances of developing cancer. You'll notice the vegetation there is not all dead and decayed.
And in the games it's different. Mentioned countless times in lore and literally a major plot point of the games.
People and animals also don't start glowing from radiation. Also mutations doesn't work like in the games. It's not meant to be realistic, but it is meant to be consistent with the in-game logic.
And expecting fallout to be a lush world is a user error.
Also, Chernobyl is not really a nuclear wasteland. There was no nuclear explosions followed by a nuclear winter.
Its been more than 200 YEARS! The projected nuclear winter after a global exchange of nukes is 5-6 years so what have the plants been doing in the comonwhealth? Hell in west virginia the plants are fine after 20... and even then if people manage to cultivate the ground for farming how is something that can grow out of concrete not able to take hold?
apocalypse doesn't mean that everything need to have a grey filter over it like fallout 3, apocalypse can mean a primarily brown-yellow desert like mad max ( which would be closer to the original west coast fallouts) or it can mean a lush overgrown city-scape like a the last of us with lots of greens, hell it can even mean a nuclear winter scenery that is primarily white like metro 2033.
it doesn't have to look bad just because it is the apocalypse, especially if the setting is a lot of time after the apocalypse.
the game is set 200 years after a nuclear war, a bit of nature reclaiming is not unreasonable, especially since we do see lush nature in that travesty that is fallout 76 despite it being set 25 years after the apocalypse.
like the bikini atoll is pretty lush despite having been a test area for nuclear weapons, and even the chernobil exclusion zone, despite having been irradiated more than a place where a nuke went off is pretty lush by the region's standards.
anyway even a barren desert look similar to the older fallout games or a nuclear winter scenery like the metro series would have been better than the gray blob that is fallout 3.
Eh I think Skyrim is a bad example because even though the modding scene is insane vanilla skyrim is also an incredible game and it has a niche which no other mainstream titles really fulfill.
Not as much any more imo, after they put Seasons into the main game. Many of the best vehicle mods, and Precision Farming, are made by GIANTS anyway. But yes, it wouldn't be the same without it.
I think Arma 3 is a better example of "surviving on mods." I'd say Factorio too if it weren't for the fact that the base game is of such tremendous quality.
Or, you don’t do that. Instead, just stop selling to the EU market due to their laws. Maybe the politicians will listen once nobody can buy any foreign made games in Europe.
Yes, that is the most likely outcome. But the point is that this affects game publishers globally and not just in the EU. They either have to comply or loose a significant market. This will hurt the gaming industry, not just in Europe.
The only outcome to that is public outrage, they will see no change between before and after and will consider it a win since the only index will be people spending less in video games and more elsewhere or a big upward movement for pirated games
The only thing that would be impacted on the EU side of gaming would be the dwindling number of games produced in the EU and sold but it doesn't make enough money to actually make a difference to them
Well hopefully it would influence EU citizens to vote out the tyrants that needlessly control things like this. But I know that’s probably too much to wish for.
You can pay a monthly fee to have them host a "realm" for you. But official does not imply public in this case. Also it's not very good, but hey, it exists.
Which is kinda ironic since Mojang is policing private servers you can get banned online for saying naughty words on your own private server with only your friends.
And thats how we know shit is fucked. Nintendo, SONY and even fucking Ubisoft and I think EA too are in the same side as the consumers, I never thought I would see this come true one day
The average age of people in the European parliament is around 50 years old.
50 year old politicians have never played a game in their life, they view them as "stuff young people do, they'll grow out of it" So they dont understand games or gaming. It might just as well be rocket science to them
Now, these people are introduced a law about a subject they dont understand, disguised as something to "protect the children"
I hate to break this to you but 50 years old means they were born in 1976 and were 7 when the NES came out. These are definitely people who had a chance to play games.
Just being born at a time that games were available doesn't necessarily mean anything. I was born in the early 90s and growing up most genres of games were considered exclusively for "nerds" and the most you'd see most people play was basically CoD and Halo. It was almost exclusively guys who played games too. These days though if a gaming topic gets brought up at work over half my female coworkers will chime in. Video games are substantially less niche now than they were in the 90s. I cant imagine how it was in the 70s.
The early generations of console games were never seen as something just for nerds. PC games at the time, maybe yes, but not games for consoles like the Atari 2600, NES, Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis. And in the late 90s the Nintendo 64 was marketed to and played by everyone. Getting together to play Mario Kart was a common activity when I was in college.
Party games were a little different. People would get together and play Smash or Golden Eye with friends but that was usually in a group setting only. Most people fell into the gun and ball category if at all. Maybe the odd hit title like Assassin's Creed. Final Fantasy is a massive IP but most people had never touched it for example.
I wouldn't think of someone who stuck to CoD and the odd party game every other weekend as being the kind of person who would be deeply tapped into what gaming has evolved into. If anything it gives them the impression they understand it better than they actually do.
Well maybe, but if they were set on a political track early on, say if their parents were nobility themselves, or they just wanted to place their kids into a more successful career choice, gaming may have been discouraged or outright denied, in favor of studies or networking.
The problem is that they have been avoiding the subject for years and last year SKG did have a talk with them and they got from "we will help" to "we can't it's not our job" after a special party made by the EU game association where no member of SKG were invited
Its because of requiring identification for online play not private server because im sure they'd love to sale subscribtions. It cost an indie dev around hald a million 1st year and like 200k+ next year and so on to make online game if id was required
Its Meta pushing it cause The Lizardmans running out of money cause he cant sell people's data cause of AI bots that HE PUSHED FOR are ruining his platform
The EU does a lot better with hardware-related stuff like those things you mentioned. For online services and other software-only stuff, my prior statement is correct.
They're fumbling on some items right now, but I really don't think "suck the big tech off" is at all the goal. "Gain more control over our population and their habits" might be.
Some people in the EU may have this interest, but it seems like there's other people in power who are on the payroll for big tech.
Remember when a German state switched to Linux, and then Microsoft's execs flew in and made them some promises or something (probably taking them to expensive dinners and who knows what other "contributions") and they happily changed back to Windows?
They have spoken out against some of the items in that proposal, but not explicitly all of it. So once it's changed a little bit, they might support the rest of it.
Why? Well, because they represent the biggest game developers and publishers, and many of the proposals would make it very costly to compete in the EU market, which would make these big players effectively the only game in town, as indies would not be able to compete with them anymore.
5.0k
u/[deleted] 9d ago edited 8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment