Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Chicken76, 13 Mar 2013.
Uh my Youtube inbox just exploded. Never seen so many new vids all in one day. Some are repeats for various languages. I'll link a couple or 3. And yes, there are more.
Gameplay trailer so **SPOILERS**
Can't wait. Not been excited for a game since HL and HL2.
All the reviews seem to contradict one another. One says combat is fallout style, another says it is more free and call of duty like. Just more sporadic.
Something tells me the only consistent thing is going to be bugs.
I saw one melon saying the main story is 15 hours (I didn't check, but I'd wager that melon would also describe Witcher 3 as too long), and being fairly clear that instead of playing it like an RPG - You know, doing side activities and playing a role - They'd just powered through the main story.
Like.. If you're gonna play it like a generic FPS game of course it's not going to be that long - although with most FPS games being between four and eight hours IME, it's still longer than those anyway.
I hear there is a whacking great 50 gig day one patch. Be interesting to see what its like come final release and if reviewers have been using an old build.
Aye, I've also seen mention of a large early patch. The melon I mentioned also stated they had played without the patch, but then the twitter thread got weird and I could swear they claimed to have played with it instead.
I guess wait and see is the order of the day.
If it's a 50GB day one patch, then that is basically redownloading the whole game. I did a preload last night, and it was ~56GB with an install size of 59GB currently.
tbh, anyone that didn't expect bugs and not being able to meet the hype clearly doesn't pay attention to how these things always end up working. None of the early reviews, twitter rants or such will stop me from making up my own mind
The Game Collection have shipped it tracked but 48 hours so hopefully on time, but what's one more delay?
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Now, a video game which by its very nature puts changing lights up on a big flashing screen is always going to be at risk for triggering photosensitive epilepsy - hell, we knew that back in the 16-bit days, as anyone who saw a warning in the front of a Mega Drive manual will attest.
However, this goes a little further than that...
Yup: the game uses a pattern of lights emulating those used by doctors to deliberately trigger an epileptic fit as a means of diagnosis. Only difference is, instead of having your fit in a special chair with a doctor stood next to you... you're having it sat in front of your PC or console on your own. Yeah, that's... that's not been thought through, has it?
Did CDPR have the usual photosensitive epilepsy warning at the start of the game, though? Amazingly, no. It was present... in Section 3.2 of the EULA nobody ever reads before clicking the "just let me play, dammit" button - but the game did not have the usual full-screen boot-up warning message. (I've been playing Control of late, which does have the boilerplate epilepsy warning... though it disappears off the screen before you have a chance to read the whole thing. At least it's there, mind.)
Good news is that CDPR is aware:
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Bad news is that a bunch of shitheels have been sending emails to the journo who wrote the piece highlighting the issue, after having a grand mal seizure during the review, pretending to offer support and actually containing videos designed to trigger another fit. And, frankly, I'd love to see 'em arrested for assault.
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah, so many of the comments of social media about this are at best ableist. Its the 'gitgood' attitude but for a neurological disorder! Its so horrible! The worst part is, what if you have undiagnosed epilepsy?!? These patterns are designed to trigger it, so that'd be a terrible time to find out! Plus I don't know why it needs to be a real thing. there's a lot of artistic licence for the science and tech in other areass (power and mechanics for the cybernetics for a start) so why not just do this as an artistic representation? No one would have questioned it at all!
I don't know what CDPR were thinking, putting the warning in the EULA. The EULA that is universally unread and in some places considered unenforceable.
I do, however, wonder what the thought process of people who have been affected by the game is.
In that this game is quite clearly featuring a lot of flashy neon stuff. I'm not epileptic, but that would make me extremely cautious about playing this game if I were. Hell, 90% of the Cyberpunk subgenre is flickering neon lights IME. I can't think of much cyberpunk related stuff that isn't heavily laden with almost strobe lights in neon.
Should CDPR have put a more prominent warning? Absolutely.
It's quite thinkheaded that they didn't - They knew the content was there, obviously, as they put a warning in already. The blame here is definitely gift wrapped and on their doorstep.
I know it sounds very victim blame-y, but.. I do wonder at what point personal responsibility plays a part. If you're allergic to bees and you stick your face into anything that looks like it might be a bee hive, at what point is it on you and not the steward of the hive for not having a warning about bees?
I disagree, for the reason that the worst of the effects appears to be modelled on a real-world device for triggering epilepsy. That's not something you'd reasonably expect - akin to playing with a toy beehive only to find the creators fitted actual stingers with real venom in them...
No, no, I agree that in this instance the blame is completely on CDPR for their lacklustre warning - It just brought a question I've often had to the forefront of my mind.
Perhaps the bee analogy was a poorly chosen one.
I've seen a lot of epilepsy warnings in my life, which suggests to me that it can be triggered by things that aren't imitations of real world tests (Which, I concur, was a very poor artistic decision.. I don't think VR headsets need to give you an epilepsy test to work, after all..) - Which, were I of the unfortunate group that suffer with this disorder, would make me perhaps overly cautious of anything in the cyberpunk genre that isn't a printed book. The genre itself engenders busted junk flickering, and intentionally flashy crap designed to attract attention in a dystopian horrorscape.
Whether a game, a film, a TV series, I don't quite understand the thought process of someone who could be, potentially, so negatively affected by flashing lights going into it without, seemingly, considering that perhaps someone is a massive jackass and hadn't put the appropriate warning on the front of it.
I'm a bit surprised it was allowed to be released like that, would have thought sony/ms would have a "no seizure inducing visuals" clause to get on their platforms.
Mistakes are made though, a recent star war had issues for the photosensitive too.
What is perhaps worse is the reaction of The Gamers to a critique of the company making a game they love so much having not played it yet; the irony in their aggressive defence of a corporation staring at a billion dollars of revenue in the next week due to a game called Cyberpunk is presumably lost on them.
To be fair, the standard boilerplate warnings are equally ignored (and CDPR adding it won't do squat to fix the issue).
If they want to mess around with effects like that then the only solution is having the option to disable it up front and centre (like the brightness adjustment almost every game has on first launch).
If the warning was front and center - Like many warnings are for that sort of thing - And someone ignored it and then complained that they had a negative reaction that's entirely on them, though, not the people putting out the content. The reason I say it's CDPR's fault here, is because there was no warning at all, unless you read a EULA and who reads those thoroughly?
Except as has already been explained by Gareth, CDPR went above and beyond what normally occurs in games that do have the front and center and warning.
So adding the usual front and center warning really doesn't seem adequate.
If you put in a warning that there may be wasps you expect a wasp or two, not having your head stuck in a box with an angry Tarantula Hawk.
but.. There was no warning, effectively. There was a warning in a EULA - Which are so universally unread that they are a joke.
So, yes, CDPR have made some very poor artistic decisions (Emulating real world tests, apparently), and then failed to put a warning on it in a way that anyone is going to see it.
It's one hundred percent their fault. I don't recall saying it wasn't?
I'm not disputing that.
I'm disputing that adding the standard in game warning will be a sufficient solution (as they appear to believe going by their tweet).
Separate names with a comma.