shaneoh

I love that picture of Link fighting Clayface

@ReaderRagfihs
I'd imagine it's already done, people are pretty on top of these things

@Heavyarms55
Agreed. Metal Gear game is coming to switch because Snake is in Smash. If it happens people can credit me with having insider knowledge.

@YANDMAN
Balance and improvement to gameplay, not to the stability of the Switch.

@PhilKenSebben
I agree having options is the best end result, but I don't think they're going to sell the last two as additional dlc, they've heard too many complaints. Fortunately the only new gameplay element they introduce is a perk that changes the neck snapping function of human shields into a neck bite which restores your health. So we're not missing out on much.

@N00BiSH
The poor men eat like kings it seems

@Kainbrightside
Yeah I played it first on the XBOX 360 and loved it. Then I bought it on PC with the bloodsucker dlc and realised that having all those money unlocks and xp boosts just wouldn't do. So I spent several hours browsing forums and trying different fixes until I found one that worked (and was actually better than the fixes other people had supplied, which locked out all the bonuses that were part of the vanilla game). After that I didn't touch it for a couple of years XD. Stupid thing is that a REALLY simple patch could have fixed the issues people had with it.

If you want to keep the bloodsucker dlc on and choose which parts to activate you can find the mod here:
https://www.saintsrowmods.com/forum/threads/disable-bloodsucker-dlc.589/page-3

I had to make a mod to disable the Bloodsucker DLC on Steam (before the days when you could choose which DLC to install). It basically removed all challenge to the game, all money and xp perks unlocked, easy health refills by taking a person hostage. Well, I say disable, but I made it so the content could be unlocked through normal playthrough, which would have been a better way of implementing the DLC.

The unlockable pack basically gives you all rewards from completing the story at the start of the game, so no big loss there

@SMW
Well she hasn't done the body test for the two weeks prior to that photo being taken, otherwise there would be a graph going on in the screenshot there.

I don't think she has touched it for days, there should be a graph going on in the background

You wouldn't shoot a policeman, and then steal his helmet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

@Bombdotorg999
Yep, randomised levels or permadeath don't automatically qualify a game as a roguelike.

I think I can wait a year.... maybe.

@BetaWolf
I love the concept, what I've tried just doesn't match the concept and has been unenjoyable. It's not a wish for it to fail, despite what some might think.

@DartBuzzer
"You also said that taste of food isn't even enough; you need to be able to kiss someone."
Wrong, I said taste is more than just eating and listed an example. Get it right.

@DartBuzzer
"without devaluing their opinion of what it is currently like."
HAHAHAHAHA. Good joke. I couldn't pull it off while keeping a straight face. And I'm great at pulling things off.

"You said it yourself."
Betawolf was talking about me expecting a holodeck sort of experience, which I don't.

@DartBuzzer
Ah I see, you possess a special form of telepathy that allows you to read the minds of anyone thinking about VR. Most people have 5 senses, take one away and their reality will be devastated.

@BetaWolf
Don't worry, I don't expect a holodeck experience, I'm not a complete idiot. Ultimately it needs to engage all sense (on however a rudimentary level), in order for it to be virtual reality. Otherwise any device with some form of output could technically be called a virtual reality device. I think that's a fair point to call the tech VR, it's the mid point between what we have now, and (currently) unrealistic scifi expectations.

@DartBuzzer
"They are not gameifying it automatically. They can choose to do so if they want, but I've seen Walmart's training program. They put people in 360 videos, which are clearly not going to be gameified. If you took people on a class trip to Egypt, you can choose to gameify it, or you can put them in that Nefertari app which has no game elements to it at all."

Just because you're not jumping on Goombas, does not make it an interactive experience for the purpose of enjoyment (and in these cases, learning).

"Who cares if they haven't tried it? Their opinion means nothing. Imagine if everyone suddenly said lab-grown meat didn't taste anything like real meat, but they've never tried it. How silly does that make them look? About as silly as you."

You're confusing using the product with the perception of what a product should be and do. Perception of what VR should be is more complicated than strapping a screen to your face. No more than our few trips to the moon mean we are capable of space travel. It doesn't align with perception.

"Who cares if they haven't tried it?"
I never said the ones who haven't tried it, I'm talking about the ones who have tried it and are disagreeing about it being VR.

@DartBuzzer
" It's been proven that VR lets you retain information better, and has a higher chance at invoking empathy."

As I said, because they're gameifying the learning process. People learn better when they're feeling engaged with the learning process.

"Says you."
Wow good comeback. Right up there with "I know you are but what am I?"

"Just about everyone else who's used such products? They agree it's VR."
So everybody, except those who don't, think it's VR, gotcha.

@DartBuzzer
"You're also clueless on how companies are using it."
As you've not given me a spiel on what they're really doing with it, I'd say I've hit the nail square on the head.

"Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. You're having trouble separating the two."
Pot, meet Kettle.

"Labeling products as VR is somehow anti-consumer now? Here we go again, the brain cells keep eroding away."
Sorry, I know how few you have to spare. Calling these products "Virtual Reality devices" is false advertising, which is about as anti-consumerist you can get.

"All I can say is you have no knowledge of VR,"
Hey Pot, did I introduce you to Kettle yet?

"You've been proven wrong time and time again in this thread."
I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, fortunately I'm not wrong here.

"These kind of opinions will be laughed at in the same way people thought the Internet would be a fad, or vehicles wouldn't replace carriages, or that computers would never find use."
Just like they'll be laughing at you for calling what we have now VR.

@BenGrimm
If I trap them in the holodeck they'll forget all about me (and realise what actual VR is compared to what we "have" now).

@BetaWolf
"When VR and AR catch on, people will be doing AR calls with holograms of their friends in their living rooms."

When there is something to catch on to, not just a screen strapped to the face, I'll agree. But until it starts to match public perception of what VR should be it'll be a niche (and misclassified) product. As for how companies and therapies are using it, they're just gameifying a process to engage the user and get the desired result. It's not about immersion in a virtual world, just making a boring procedure slightly less so.

@DartBuzzer
You need to look at human behaviour if you think that those 5 points aren't there for webcam users

" Like I said earlier, people are free to have their own opinions"
Unless we disagree with you, in which case, death.

"Spreading lies is anti-consumer. Siding with people who spread lies makes you no better."

No more anti-consumer than labelling products as VR.

@DartBuzzer
You're saying that Facebook is talking about it, but it doesn't matter what companies think. So yes disregard it. Disregard it anyway because they have a vested interest in its perception.

I'm not writing an essay on how those things can already be experienced with just a webcam. You might just be staring at a screen when talking to someone over skype, but I'm making eye contact.

@DartBuzzer
"Facebook sure are. That's the entire reason they spent billions in the first place."
"It also doesn't really matter what companies think in regards to VR socialization."

So disregard the first line?

"From an objective sense, VR is much much closer to real life socialization than anything else."
It's on par with a video call

@BetaWolf
"Out of curiosity, which VR headsets have you tried?"
I've gone better than just a headset, I've used a Virtusphere. It's a step in the right direction for actual VR, but still not even close.

"I'm going to be beyond frustrated when people finally try VR just because Nintendo makes a headset, and people are like, "Oh, it actually is more than a stupid gimmick!" lol"

Don't worry, I'm not going to change my mind because "Nintendo did it."

@DartBuzzer
Noone is talking about VR communication the way they talked about the telephone. Only the most fanatical are viewing it as serious, world changing technology. It hasn't changed squat.

@DartBuzzer
"You can say that's goalpost moving all you want, but that was my original intent."

Total goalpost moving. It still doesn't align with the overall general consensus of what VR should be.

"Considering how you know, those all changed the world"

There's #3

@DartBuzzer
"It isn't accurate. That's your fairy tale description of VR which doesn't agree with the rest of the world's already established definition that basically everyone agrees with."
"You and a small minority of people think of it as a brain interface, along with the general public that has yet to try it."
You've already established that most people don't agree with your definition.

"How am I aggrandizing it? By counteracting you downplaying it?"
Your following two paragraphs are perfect examples.

@DartBuzzer
"I mean literally, you just said keep saying strapping a screen to your face isn't VR."
And I stand by that statement, it's accurate.

If what I'm doing is "belittling" the tech, then what you're doing is aggrandising it beyond what it really is.

You've got a block function if you find my opinion truly upsetting.

@DartBuzzer
Yes and the consensus amongst flat earthers is that the world is flat. A group of people who mainly/only played games touted as "virtual reality" would think that their system is the best supported. Painfully obvious indeed.

"Would you also agree the following is an apt description of Switch?"
Doesn't correlate with what I said, now if you had said that having a video/audio out function doesn't make the Switch a home console, then I'd agree.

Really don't like people saying negative things about VR do you?

@DartBuzzer
"You do realize that the overwhelming consensus in the VR community is that PSVR was the best supported system in 2018? It had plenty of great titles coming out."
Wouldn't be the first time a small subset of the gaming community had an opinion.

"Strapping a screen to your face is a pretty silly description of VR."
Silly and yet so apt.

Not much, I went to see Ninja Sex Party and it's left me really rooted. Sleep for me.

Strapping a screen to your face doesn't make it virtual reality

@DartBuzzer "Everyone in the tech industry worth their salt would agree that what we have today is indeed VR."

Probably because they want people to buy their products

"You and a small minority of people think of it as a brain interface, along with the general public that has yet to try it."

So a minority plus the majority.

@DartBuzzer
Head mounted displays is to actual virtual reality as slapping a band-aid on a wound is to brain surgery. Not even close.

Not much of a discussion if everyone not agreeing with you is wrong...

Weren't Nintendo supposed to be doing this themselves? Not just talking about the AC ones either.

@DartBuzzer
The portrayal in scifi has always been a simulation indistinguishable from reality (in terms of senses). If you're missing one sense, let alone three, then you don't have that simulation. Intangible objects, no smell, no taste, not a reality.

Also on the shill point, you only seem to be around for the VR articles... Just because you aren't posting links, doesn't mean you aren't trying to sell us something.

@DartBuzzer
So we are in agreement that VR has been around longer that Jaron Lanier. As I said, he may have coined the term, but the perception of what VR is has long since been established.

@DartBuzzer
He may have coined the term, but the concept has been a part of fiction long before the term was around. Try the holodeck as a popular example. Perception of true VR is that of a fully immersive experience, any of the five senses can be engaged at any point in time.

@NEStalgia
Total shill

@BenGrimm
Considering he only comments on VR topics...

@JayJ
Spot on

@DartBuzzer
No, I'm saying that VR can't replicate touch, taste or smell, therefore it isn't true VR. You're just cherry-picking one point.

" First of all, the definition of VR has always been what we have today;"
No the definition of VR has always been a fully simulated experience. If you're cutting out three of the five senses, then it isn't fully simulated. The definition has never been "strapping a screen to your face."

@DartBuzzer
Statement was correct, sunglasses aren't a suit. You also need to kiss someone if you think that the only time taste is used is when you eat. Or are you still at the girl germs stage?

@BenGrimm
Muttering something about Ready Player One.

A pair of sunnies isn't going to convey touch, taste and smell. Until they manage to implement all five senses, then it isn't a virtual reality.

@Draxa
Settle down, it was a jab at achievements

@NotSoCryptic
It also helps that the Steam version has done most of the legwork for exposing people to the game. If it were a brand new game, people would be more hesitant in buying it. They wouldn't have access to many reviews, word of mouth etc.

@link422007
That's it, appoint someone to a position if they're the best suited, not to meet a quota.

@coned
As I said, the same as Nintendo.

The mind numbingly dumb flaw in the "argument" that it's "only $20," is that they think that people have a problem with paying for online because they can't afford it. That's not the problem people have with it, and to think otherwise just indicates mental deficiency. Players are having to pay to access a service, that they themselves are mostly providing. The players are hosting the games, all Nintendo is doing is providing the matchmaking, the cost of which would be negligible, easily recouped through first and third party game sales.

@coned
I'll provide the same as Nintendo, the ability to play games with other people, subscription based games and special deals.*

The first two subscription games are hangman and naughts & crosses. The current special deal is for a snarky email that only costs another $50.

*Requires subscriber to go out and meet people to play games.

@gortsi
Fancy giving me $20 a year? It's only $20

Perform 2 different fatalities as X...

and people think this passes for content XD

He may not reach the lofty goals he sets, but I've still enjoyed Black & White, Dungeon Keeper and Fable so I won't fault him for trying.

That Kabal footage is totally fake: