It’s really telling how their shiny new games are so lacking in substance that they are afraid of retro games. ‘Surely it can’t be that out generic mmofps crafting shooter collectathon battle Royale clone game is bad. It must be that damn Tetris game stealing all our sales!’
Ugh, I hate those missions.
Same. I know my red flags, you don’t. If I were a used car I’d strongly recommend against getting it.
Nobody said Firewatch yet?
I’ll also add To The Moon as well. I could list more, but almost any game where narrative is the main focus and gameplay is secondary.
Even if it were thicker I’d still slap on a sacrificial glass screen protector atop it. I’ve dropped my phone only a handful of times, and so far have only ever broken the protector.
Just slap a shield on it, there’s your added thickness and better drop resistance all in one!
I still get hit hard from just the trailer.
Odd aside, it’s my test in a horror game to see if I should actually take threats seriously. If you see something creepy- can it kill you? Some games it’s just creepy stuff that can only scare you- but if it can’t hurt you then no big deal and loses all risk and threat.
39 here and still playing. The worst part is STILL having a huge backlog of steam games to work through.
It’s also funny because most of my heavy conservative coworkers all have beards, trucks, and country stuff because that’s the image.
Now that I think about it, quite a few are bald and shave their heads, sooo… Maybe that’s an angle they could shoot for? Those could be some wild ads.
I vaguely recall that as one of the explanations for why they have not found all the wrecks in the triangle- the sea floor there is underwater quicksand
Nah, long enough car trips you figure out how to not only stack all the rings, but in correct rainbow order.
“I contributed a bag of quickrete!”
Yeah that wouldn’t work here.
Maybe this is what Apple is trying to solve with spatial computing.
This is why so much research has been going into AI lately. The trend is already to not read articles or source material and base opinions off click bait headlines, so naturally relying on AI summaries and search results will soon come next. People will start to assume any generated response from a ‘trusted search ai’ is true, so there is a ton of value in getting an AI to give truthful and correct responses all of the time, and then be able to edit certain responses to inject whatever truth you want. Then you effectively control what truth is, and be able to selectively edit public opinion by manipulating what people are told is true. Right now we’re also being trained that AI may make things up and not be totally accurate- which gives those running the services a plausible excuse if caught manipulating responses.
I am not looking forward to arguing facts with people citing AI responses as their source for truth. I already know if I present source material contradicting them, they lack the ability to actually read and absorb the material.