There’s a huge difference between art and this that makes this much more baffling to me. Because the purpose of a painting is to hang on a wall and look beautiful (or whatever). So when you buy an artwork and put it on your wall, it is doing exactly what it was created to do. You are paying for it to do what it does.

Let me get off that thing then.

“Though the event was ostensibly about games, it was impossible to ignore the recent upheaval surrounding the French publisher.”

Drugs are bad, mmkay.

That experiment has been going on in games for many years now, and so far they don't seem to have found that ceiling yet.

The economics of this stuff has long been fascinating to me. Because, if you can sell a $1 skin to 100 people, or a $100 skin to 1 person, you’ve made the same amount of money. But my intuition would be that the $1 skin would sell far more than 100 times what the $100 skin does. I would think tons of people would be…

Could you explain the joke to me?

I don’t know if I was making an argument so much as I am reacting to reading reviews and reactions for several VR games that mention that, hey, sometimes these non-controler controls kinda suck, and thinking, wait, are we just making the same old Wii and Kinect mistakes all over again?

I mean, while many people liked it, I have seen plenty of people say that they found the reload mechanic in Alyx annoying and wished it was just a button, so it's not like I'm alone in thinking some of this motion control stuff isn't always great.

I’m pretty sure Doom and Wolfenstein and Far Cry and Dark Souls and Control and Final Fantasy and Civilization and probably dozens of other $60 games without MTX are doing juuuuust fine at their current price point. And that’s not counting the many super successful $60 first party games. The studios that are stuffing…

Grocery Store: The Movie

I mean, okay, I've never tried it so I could certainly be totally wrong, but are you really going to tell me that we live in a world where pointing your palms down to make Iron Man fly is a better mechanic than pushing a button to do the same thing? Count me as very, very skeptical.

“The game merely shows me that trans men exist, a fact I already knew.”

So you basically confirmed what I was saying - these designers are willing to sacrifice good controls for the sake of immersion. IMO, that sounds like a really bad trade off.

You could literally say this about any gaming machine.

I don’t own any VR equipment but I find it super interesting. But I’ve been confused for a while how it seems that for many games, VR has become synonymous with motion control which seems very weird to me. Those are two separate things though so I don’t quite get why they keep getting mashed together. Like, I get…

And I think the fact that a game can put you in a position to do things that you wouldn't do, and even actively do not want to do, is one of the most artistically powerful things I can imagine doing with our beloved little medium. I am thrilled to see a AAA game so willing to make it's audience so uncomfortable.

I totally understand not wanting to experience works of media that are grim, bitter, and unhappy, but it kinda bums me out how many people are making the argument that it’s bad because of that. “I don’t want to play something so unhappy” is fine, but “this is bad because it’s so unhappy” is pretty shitty, IMO.

While I totally understand all the arguments about uninspired bandwagon games entering a already crowded market, the fact that Valorant just came out to positive reviews and some seeming success, despite the suuuper generic name and art and style tells me that it’s not necessarily a terrible idea if you get the end…

It feels like once Dreams was released basically nobody was talking about it anymore. (Compare the number of Dreams articles to the 3,000 Animal Crossing articles, for example.) Did this thing possibly end up not selling? Seems like it would be pretty sad if something so unique ended up being a commercial failure.