|
So the thing about theme park employees LARPing- and I speak this as a former cast member- it's that in some cases, it's really fun. For example, a lot of the times I was called to stay in front of Expedition Everest and tell people it was closed. To adults, I'd just be like 'yeah, sorry, hopefully we'll be back up later'. But for kids- some of whom are not frequent visitors and who really like the whole 'wonder' aspect of the parks- I would beef it up and go 'so we sent a train up into the mountain, and it came back with claw marks and the people in it were talking about a monster... we sent a climber up there to see what was wrong, hopefully he'll be back-- I MEAN the ride will be back soon.' It always brought a smile to their faces and it lightened up my day. I don't know how it's gonna be in Galaxy's Edge, but I don't think 'cast members are being forced to LARP' will last. When Wizarding World opened, everyone was talking about how team members were referring to credit cards as 'muggle plastic'. Nowadays, whenever I visit, that rarely happens... and you know what, it's OK. Because when it happens, it's a team member who really wants to make your experience special (like when I had this very long conversation with an employee about Felix Felicis at Honeyduke's and immediately went to give her a compliment at Guest Relations). But take this with a grain of salt, my position was very very low-stakes compared to Galaxy's Edge. P.S.: is there a thread in here for discussing theme parks (Disney, Universal, general)? I'd love to have a place to talk about that regularly. stratofarius fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Jun 3, 2019 |
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
I'm surprised the one thing that every reviewer seems to agree they botched at launch are the Blue Bantha/Green Teat Milks. Like Wizarding World word of mouth was pretty much built on a "You at least gotta try the Butterbeer" foundation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Viewtiful Jew posted:I'm surprised the one thing that every reviewer seems to agree they botched at launch are the Blue Bantha/Green Teat Milks. Like Wizarding World word of mouth was pretty much built on a "You at least gotta try the Butterbeer" foundation. Disney's been chasing that Butterbeer money since LeFou's Brew.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
stratofarius posted:P.S.: is there a thread in here for discussing theme parks (Disney, Universal, general)? I'd love to have a place to talk about that regularly. Theres a Disney one here https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3544789
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Fuckin' what? I understand wanting to keep the primary brand pristine, but we're talking about the dude who is hoovering up something like 5% of a multibillion-dollar revenue stream off the back of his star power. If he's offering to do a guest spot—presumably for scale—on your rinky-dink tie-in show, why would you ever turn him down? It's worth noting that almost form the beginning Kevin Feige was in a tug-of-war with Ike Perlmutter, who was Chairman and CEO of Marvel at the time over the direction of the movies. Perlmutter was the one who demanded they downplay the mysticism in the Thor movies, was apparently the main sticking point for there not being female-led films (he apparently forced them to change the villain of Iron Man 3 from Maya to Killian because 'girls don't sell toys'). It got to the point where Feige went over his head to Alan Horn and got Marvel Studios out from under Perlmutter's thumb and answering directly to Disney instead. But Perlmutter still had control of the TV side of things and is apparently legendarily petty, so that's why there's barely any crossover between the two. I think some of the newer TV shows are being made on the Feige side of things - I know the upcoming ones are. I'm not sure that very many of the TV shows actually referred to one another all that much (the Netflix ones as the obvious exception, but I think the way those contracts work means those characters are off the table till they expire). I think Cloak & Dagger's the only one to refer at all directly to the Netflix shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG-vIHt_E8M I think this is most you'll ever see the Netflix shows referenced by anything else (at least till the contracts expire and Marvel can use them again). Yvonmukluk fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Thank you Kim Justice for teaching me about the skinhead cereal mascots and their multi-platform Space Invaders clone (that C64 version looks dreadful).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:It's worth noting that almost form the beginning Kevin Feige was in a tug-of-war with Ike Perlmutter, who was Chairman and CEO of Marvel at the time over the direction of the movies. Perlmutter was the one who demanded they downplay the mysticism in the Thor movies, was apparently the main sticking point for there not being female-led films (he apparently forced them to change the villain of Iron Man 3 from Maya to Killian because 'girls don't sell toys'). It got to the point where Feige went over his head to Alan Horn and got Marvel Studios out from under Perlmutter's thumb and answering directly to Disney instead. But Perlmutter still had control of the TV side of things and is apparently legendarily petty, so that's why there's barely any crossover between the two. was this guy the reason capcom couldn't show any of the marvel characters getting beaten in the promotional material for MvC:I ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:was this guy the reason capcom couldn't show any of the marvel characters getting beaten in the promotional material for MvC:I ? I would not be surprised. It's worth noting that X-Men & Fantastic Four merchandise kind of vanished for a while (including from some of the videogames), which I'm sure had absolutely nothing to do withthe fact Fox owned the movie rights. The Inhumans also got a push in the comics, right down to becoming a minority living among humanity that is hated and feared, which was I'm sure is entirely unrelated to the fact that Marvel did own their rights. I think they were even going to get their own movie at one point, but then the series happened and basically poisoned the brand. I dunno, maybe Perlmutter took the Inhumans back after he lost control over the movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:im glad they’re banned because the idea of “jedi robes” was so dumb. look I can and probably have written a huge effortpost on how one of the worst examples of 'everything should be like the movies' is goddamn jedi robes and it's as old as post-original trilogy star wars media itself but they DO look neat and the ones they sell are good and let the dang nerds wear their dumb robes!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
sell me a rancor keeper outfit and we can talk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
jedi robes are the official volcel uniform
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:look I can and probably have written a huge effortpost on how one of the worst examples of 'everything should be like the movies' is goddamn jedi robes and it's as old as post-original trilogy star wars media itself but they DO look neat and the ones they sell are good and let the dang nerds wear their dumb robes! nah i am just buying some space fascist uniforms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:He responded to that on twitter For how many articles I've seen coming out of the woodwork trying to spin the regulation as bad, the ESA must be making GBS threads their pants. Also LOL @ how many of them try to make the ramifications sound scary by saying "oh no, the bill is so broad/vague/whatever to the point where there will be no more pre-order bonuses! or randomized card packs!" to which I say: good.  (And double LOL how mysteriously so many of these pro-loot box articles defer back to the ESA's claim that this will destroy the industry or whatever bullshit they're piling on.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
I dunno, there are still some problems with the bill. It's so laser focused on lootboxes and pay-to-win mobile games that there are some other much less predatory DLC practices that might get caught in the crossfire. For example, fighting game characters could be banned under this law, since they could be seen as an "advantage". As good as that might sound, it's worth considering that 1) if a fighting game can't have DLC, they won't add that character to the base game for free, they just won't have that character, and 2) in the case of most Japanese fighting games, the arcade version of the game is still going to be updated regardless. While many games have been transitioning to a "free balance updates, new characters have to be paid for" model, with this bill, it seems like developers might be pushed into making every arcade update a new console release, especially since that might be the only way they can add new characters - back to the days of "Super EX Reloaded Turbo XX +R Arcade Edition". For non-Japanese games, this probably won't be as much of an issue, but we probably wouldn't be getting characters like all the fancy horror movie guest starts in recent Mortal Kombat games. I haven't heard anyone talk about this, so maybe I'm misintrepeting it, but it also seems like bans MMO expansions? Raising the level cap and drastically increasing gear quality makes getting achievements and rewards in earlier expansions much easier, and gives the player an advantage over others who may not have the expansion. I could be misreading the law, but it doesn't sound like there's an allowance for that (the "additional game content" exclusion seems to apply only to things that don't give any advantage), unless the developer made it so that players could only use items and powers from the new expansion in the new expansion's zone. Would dlc areas and questlines in games like Fallout and Elder Scrolls count, since you can acquire new weapons, items, and abilities? Just so we're clear, I don't agree with that Polygon article or the ESA, whose arguments basically come down to "but what about the money!?!?!?". I absolutely agree that lootboxes and predatory microtransactions should be banned, or at the very least MUCH more regulated than they are now - I just think the wording should be more specific. Part of the reason I'm concerned is because I want this bill to do well! It looks like there's still time for things to get ironed out, so hopefully it'll be improved. Ideally it'll at least come close enough to passing that it will at least scare devs away from that kind of monetization for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
MMOs would be safe so long as there is area gating to the expansions and/or level gating to PvP and strategy games just all have to adopt the paradox model of "if the host has the dlc everyone gets the dlc for the session" Also if this bill somehow killed the "pay money to skip grinding" products dead it would be worth any other stiffling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Also killing off individual character dlc for fighting games is frankly a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:For how many articles I've seen coming out of the woodwork trying to spin the regulation as bad, the ESA must be making GBS threads their pants. i think lootboxes are on their way out in favor fortnight/ubisoft style store page where you buy "money" to buy specific poo poo. still dumb and gross but not as awful probably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:For how many articles I've seen coming out of the woodwork trying to spin the regulation as bad, the ESA must be making GBS threads their pants. I haven't seen the actual wording of the bill, but how would this legislation impact TCGs? Are they exempt, or would those also have to be sold on a card-by-card basis? I'm all for getting rid of lootboxes, but legislation is probably the worst way to go about it because there's going to likely be a bunch of collateral damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Zinkraptor posted:1) if a fighting game can't have DLC, they won't add that character to the base game for free, they just won't have that character, Just setting aside the fact that Smash Ultimate came out and had a million characters in the base game, the only reason fighting game DLC is so ubiquitous (to the point that you seem to believe it's a necessity) is that the game companies realized it was an easy con. Getting rid of the ability to continue with that con, while perhaps stunting fighting games in the immediate future (some companies might try to continue to get by doing as little work as possible), consumer backlash would likely pressure them into putting out a complete game. What a thought! And it's not just obvious add-on stuff like additional characters that fall into the "should be in the base game, but publishers are assholes" category. But that's a tangential discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
Zinkraptor posted:I dunno, there are still some problems with the bill. It's so laser focused on lootboxes and pay-to-win mobile games that there are some other much less predatory DLC practices that might get caught in the crossfire. For example, fighting game characters could be banned under this law, since they could be seen as an "advantage". Fighting game characters are an advantage, but significantly they are not a purchase that the reasonable user would perceive as easing their progress through content otherwise available in the game. It's very well that they might do, but they are primarily an additional way of playing the game. Similarly, while MMO expansions definitely do make the rest of the game easier, they themselves are additional content, and that is the perspective of the user - being a higher level so you can solo old raiding achievements is not the perspective of a reasonable user buying the latest WoW expansion - they're buying it for the additional content added for which reaching level one hundred whatever is a reward for playing through. Inco posted:I haven't seen the actual wording of the bill, but how would this legislation impact TCGs? Are they exempt, or would those also have to be sold on a card-by-card basis? I'm all for getting rid of lootboxes, but legislation is probably the worst way to go about it because there's going to likely be a bunch of collateral damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
TheMaestroso posted:Just setting aside the fact that Smash Ultimate came out and had a million characters in the base game, the only reason fighting game DLC is so ubiquitous (to the point that you seem to believe it's a necessity) is that the game companies realized it was an easy con. Getting rid of the ability to continue with that con, while perhaps stunting fighting games in the immediate future (some companies might try to continue to get by doing as little work as possible), consumer backlash would likely pressure them into putting out a complete game. What a thought! this seems extremely optimistic in the face of street fighter 4's release strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:It will absolutely impact TCGs, because they are basically the proto-lootbox product. Though it's worth keeping in mind that the legislation specifically only applies to games played by minors, so all of the conditions it contains can be completely circumvented by releasing your game as R18. Lol, no, that's seen as a kiss of death on anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
I think it would be a net positive if fighting games at least had to allow you access to DLC fighters both as PC and AI in training mode
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
you guys know we had fighting games before FIGHTERPASS (tm) became a thing right
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
'if we can't sell Guest Fighter Arthur From Red Dead for five bucks six months after launch you might as well just loving put a bullet in the head of every fighting game.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
I'm fine with fighter DLC for fighting games because I want Smash to get new fighters until the next Nintendo system comes out
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
Coming from a Republican the bill is assuredly not actually good, but it's funny to see bootlickers make the worst possible argument against it (like bringing up recent sports games, which don't actually get content for their monetization troubles, you just get a shittier career mode than prior).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:you guys know we had fighting games before FIGHTERPASS (tm) became a thing right Guilty Gear XX had six versions. Street Fighter II had like... four, I think? Three on SNES? Arcade fighters are always going to have updates. I guess this just affects how they make it to consoles - whether through the classic "just release the game again" technique, the Rev 2 "upgrade", or just splitting additional characters and balance entirely. The first two are still an option with my (admittedly pessimistic and not necessarily accurate) reading of the bill, but the last one (which is arguably the most "consumer friendly") wouldn't be. Character dlc in fighting games can be done badly (hello BBCTB), but it can be done decently, too. NRS has some bad ones, but they also have use it to add more interesting licensed characters they probably wouldn't have gotten otherwise. It's an often questionable business practice, and it could be handled a lot better by a lot of companies, but it probably shouldn't be outlawed. Edit: Okay wait I don't actually want to turn this into a debate on fighting game character dlc specifically - my core point is that, while character DLC and similar things often have a lot of probelms, banning them outright is probably not necessary. Lootboxes and pay to win stuff are basically gambling and are intentionally designed to get people to spend money over and over without necessarily getting much value in return - basically by preying on addiction. Character DLC and similar things are a one-time payment that, at worst, is just overpriced and not worth the money. While not great, it's probably not something that the law needs to step in for. For the record, while I've seen a few articles mention the possible effect on character dlc (in more than just fighting games), I didn't see anything about MMO expansions so don't look too deeply into that one. Zinkraptor fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Jun 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
Zinkraptor posted:Guilty Gear XX had six versions. Street Fighter II had like... four, I think? Three on SNES? Copying and pasting from the Street Fighter wiki, there was: Street Fighter II: The World Warrior - (1991) Street Fighter II': Champion Edition - (1992) Street Fighter II' Turbo: Hyper Fighting - (1992) Super Street Fighter II - The New Challengers - (1993) Super Street Fighter II Turbo - (1994) Hyper Street Fighter II - The Anniversary Edition - (2003) Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix - (2008) Ultra Street Fighter II: The Final Challengers - (2017) I remember reading there was one or two versions that were only on Genesis or SNES, though. EDIT: I think it was Championship Edition, which only got ported to Genesis, and not SNES. Max Wilco fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jun 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
Special Champion Edition on MD is more of a port still. You can play as the boss characters on SNES World Warrior with a cheat code which essentially makes it Champion Edition (in 2 player at least). Between so many different versions of the game (SFII was thought of as taking the piss even back then) and other strategies, I had more time for Tekken's approach in the arcades. Lots of secret characters that would be unlocked over time. Kim Justice fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jun 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Kim Justice posted:Special Champion Edition on MD is more of a port still. You can play as the boss characters on SNES World Warrior with a cheat code which essentially makes it Champion Edition (in 2 player at least). You got to remember that all those editions weren't just characters, but also came with balancing changes. Honestly I'd rather have the current dripfeed DLC system than having to pay/wait for entire new editions of the same base game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
Clean your rooms. Please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
FoldableHuman posted:Clean your rooms. No you shut the gently caress up dad
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
FoldableHuman posted:Clean your rooms. You have to get off the floor before I can clean it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 09:57
|
|
|
FoldableHuman posted:Clean your rooms. Otherwise the lobster menace will kill us all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
but if my soldering iron isn’t on my windowsill how will I find it?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 10:45
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:His SWAT 4 videos were some of the funniest stuff he's ever done and it's a shame that they're largely lost to history. It was just a dude being playfully frustrated by a lovely game that he clearly loved anyway. Man that brings me back. His AI partners just absolutely ruining his day with flashbangs was hilarious.Maybe one day he’ll be back after having beaten his demons and do similar work again if he can handle it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 10:57
|
|
|
I like that the SWAT series is stuck in a weird hell. SWAT 3 is probably the better game with a lot of nice features and map design that got left out of 4, but it has a ton of jank, including, unless it was fixed recently, the AI using as much CPU power as it can to handle aiming so that shooters and your squadmates all have twitch reflexes from halfway across the map. SWAT 4 looks and handles better and has the neat squad control system, but you get to flip a coin to see whether you get the good AI or the bad AI for each room clear. I know there's supposed to be a spiritual successor coming out but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 11:26
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:I like that the SWAT series is stuck in a weird hell. yeah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIJPeEt-0jk its called ready or not. looks interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
Todd Howard is a bullshitter!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 17:58
|
|
