The meta police sucks, yes, but the importance of a balanced comp is basically Overwatch’s gamedesign rule #1.

It’s an interesting question. I think they build their customers around socialization rather than pure product value. One shop could have Francis, that guy you really like to share with, which the other doesn’t have :)

Agreed. And let’s be honest here for a minute : there’s nothing more demotivating than a girlfriend/wife who “doesn’t like when you play videogames”. “But why ?” - “Because ... because reasons !”
In this letter I’ve never saw a single mention of how many times a week (“always” is an emotional measure, not a rational…

Mike :’(

This is very, very bad PR, David.

Holy macaroni, I can totally relate to that first letter (except I’m a male), it feels good to read such fairness and moral values being assumed with elegance. Doctor’s advice is perfect too. Both letters are top quality, props.

Exactly my feeling ... I get how from a business POV it’s legit, but we’re talking about a gamer POV here. Most of the big budgets are spent on rehashes with the fewest amount of risks taken, it feels lame. It feels déjà-vu. It feels ... unexciting. Thank god there are still companies like CDPR, Larian, and a few…

Totally agree ith Doctor’s video. The “League” ecosystem is too subjective and narcissic imo to bother with someone who thinks (or acts as) you’re “out of his/her league”. Karma is a good thing tho, as most people who judge by “league” often end up building nothing long term. Goddamn it love is more subtle than just…

I’m really surprised that Blizzard validated this version of player contract, especially Jeff. They have always chosen the path of player friendliness, tolerance, family, inclusion and hapiness when I see Blizzcon speeches, playoverwatch vids, etc.

“It takes a second and you’re in a dungeon. But if you say you’re DPS, it takes like 30 minutes.”

What, Blizzard uses visual node scripting :O

I really liked the way the article didn’t stop at a fracture, but tried to explain the deeper reasons behind, why it could be beneficial, how it’s a role inversion, why this version is suddenly successful, tempered with opinions from both detractors and ones who encourage this interest. No hasted judgement, no call…

“simple” doesn’t mean “perfect”.

Sorry, actually my post was not aiming at those 2 letters, but rather at how simple relationships are so hard to find when I take a look at them around me, internet, etc, and at dating in general.

Sometimes I wish there was a letter that would say : “Hi Doctor, I’d like to build a classical, mutually exclusive relationship, based on time and complicity. No rulesets, just being both best friends and lovers, being simple, give time to write our own story, discovering years together. Maybe at times do some…

It’s a good step in the right direction, maybe one day unfolding to what games really need to refresh themselves : social AIs (cleverbot-style deeper dialogs, social dynamics, think “quest generators”, living environment, AI clans, etc). Tools to easen making dynamic, non-scripted persistent worlds. We’ll get there…

Basically, the centuries-old, neverending... Consumer/Producer fracture. I don’t think it can be solved 100%, permanently. Unfortunately :/

Ah, the baby steps of authority AIs. Interesting :)

Very good advices. The part about not being Call of Duty, and the one about the need to learn different roles, were direly needed.

Nathan is indeed a great philosopher :)