|
WampaLord posted:It wouldn't be the first time Mass Effect linked sex and death: I'd forgotten just how terrible male shepard's voice was How hasn't Shep been assassinated yet anyway? Imagine how easy it would be, just be like "Hey Captain, I got this super cool drink that is supposed to be the best liquor in the universe. The flavor is so intense, the last 3 guys that tried it died. I'm sure you'll be fine, though" "Bitchin'" Augus fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jan 16, 2018 |
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Shepard drank Krogan Ryncol and lived. I doubt you could poison him/her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
This deserves quoting because it's a great list of channels I wouldn't have heard of otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Are there any games at all that have a healthy, non cringe inducing romance system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
It's equally as porny, but the romance in Witcher 3 at least feels like something that might actually happen between people, and almost all the romance options occur mid-plot with further reaching plot-hooks. Also you are generally not sleeping with employees and subordinates so it feels less creepy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
I think it's both the really stilted writing as well as the "reward" nature of biowares romances that really bugs me. It makes a third of their games seem like you are mining for awkwardly animated boobs with characters placed there only for sex.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:41
|
|
New Butt Order posted:I thought the Kaidan/Ashley romances were done decent well in the first one. Well enough for video game writing, anyway. They rightly point out that sleeping with their superior officer is pretty sketchy in its own right and a huge violation of regulations regardless of their feelings, and only rethink their position when you go rogue, burn all your bridges, and head out for almost-certain death in Geth space on the basis of "well, we can't get in more trouble." It fit well with the whole pulp sci-fi/space opera thing they were going for. I found it surprisingly hard to be an rear end in a top hat in The Walking Dead games just because having to explain why I shot someone in the face or stole something and having Clementine just be so dang disappointed in my choices worked better than anything Bioware or Bethesda had managed to do.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:I found it surprisingly hard to be an rear end in a top hat in The Walking Dead games just because having to explain why I shot someone in the face or stole something and having Clementine just be so dang disappointed in my choices worked better than anything Bioware or Bethesda had managed to do. I feel that was why Walking Dead season 1 was so effective; you're the everyman and you have a small child as your morality compass. Clem is executed so well as a character that you don't want to disappoint her or at least want to justify your actions to her. Meanwhile most Bioware games just have a 'this person likes you more/less' thing which guides your actions which just does not function well at all. It's why I laugh when some people say that KOTOR2 is poo poo, can you imagine Bioware trying to write a character with the nuance of Kreia?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 23:58
|
|
Testekill posted:I feel that was why Walking Dead season 1 was so effective; you're the everyman and you have a small child as your morality compass. Clem is executed so well as a character that you don't want to disappoint her or at least want to justify your actions to her. Kreia is another really good one. I never wanted to impress her or anything, but the way she always judged you for everything. More than once I did stupid things just to spite her and she would call me a fool. With Bioware writing, it's like they really just don't want people to not like you. Whether it's because you can just give them a gift to get your affection points up, or because the entire game hinges on everyone loving your character no matter how much of a crazy rear end in a top hat you are.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
New Butt Order posted:I thought the Kaidan/Ashley romances were done decent well in the first one. Well enough for video game writing, anyway. They rightly point out that sleeping with their superior officer is pretty sketchy in its own right and a huge violation of regulations regardless of their feelings, and only rethink their position when you go rogue, burn all your bridges, and head out for almost-certain death in Geth space on the basis of "well, we can't get in more trouble." It fit well with the whole pulp sci-fi/space opera thing they were going for. I liked that the Council's general disbelief of the Reapers came down to them flatly telling Shepard "your job is to find evidence on poo poo like this if you believe it actually exists. Put on your big-boy pants, stop bitching, and get to it".
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:I liked that the Council's general disbelief of the Reapers came down to them flatly telling Shepard "your job is to find evidence on poo poo like this if you believe it actually exists. Put on your big-boy pants, stop bitching, and get to it". yea I liked that the Council as 'antagonists' was mainly them saying 'Shepard do your loving JOB then and give us proof beyond you shouting 'IT'S HAPPENING' at us'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
Mr.Radar posted:Leon Thomas posted his feature-length Renegade Cut about the Left Behind movies: This is absurdly good and as much as I love both Mass Effect AND ranting about Mass Effect I don't want this to go unnoticed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
Youtube is loving people again. If you don't have 1000 subs AND 4000 hours watched per year, no more partnership and thus monetization for you ! That sure solves the problem of people showing dead bodies and/or being racist shitbags !
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:08
|
|
|
Yeah, I got that email today. It's a bit dumb and solves nothing, but honestly is anyone below those thresholds making anything off their channel anyway? I guess channels with few subs that suddenly have a viral hit would have the first brunt of their revenue blunted?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:11
|
|
|
Good thing I never cared about that. Also now I have free reign to film as many corpses as I want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:12
|
|
|
is youtube seriously attributing this to curtailing stuff like logan paul filming dead bodies? I'm a bit lost here like it's pretty clearly a cost cutting measure? youtube is massive and probably pays out small amounts of money to tons and tons of channels smaller than 1000 subs, and it probably adds up to a fair bit of money, and as far as I know youtube continues to operate at a loss so you know, kinda obvious what's going on here
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
cat doter posted:is youtube seriously attributing this to curtailing stuff like logan paul filming dead bodies? I'm a bit lost here Yeah, that's what I expected, paying out 100 bucks to tiny channels every year compounds quickly. That said, the press release explicitly says: quote:As Susan mentioned in December, we’re making changes to address the issues that affected our community in 2017 so we can prevent bad actors from harming the inspiring and original creators around the world who make their living on YouTube. A big part of that effort will be strengthening our requirements for monetization so spammers, impersonators, and other bad actors can’t hurt our ecosystem or take advantage of you, while continuing to reward those who make our platform great. (https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/01/additional-changes-to-youtube-partner.html) Which is... vague, and sends the message that this is somehow about scrub mirror channels or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
cat doter posted:is youtube seriously attributing this to curtailing stuff like logan paul filming dead bodies? I'm a bit lost here But that money doesn't come out of Google's pocket. Advertizers pay google, google gives Youtubers a cut of that. If anything, doing this is costing them money since no ads will appear on demonitized channels, thus no ad revenue for google.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:49
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:yea I liked that the Council as 'antagonists' was mainly them saying 'Shepard do your loving JOB then and give us proof beyond you shouting 'IT'S HAPPENING' at us'. It worked well in ME 1, yeah. But as soon as Sovereign shows up through a nonexistent until then relay, fucks the entire fleet strength of the entire citadel roster right up their rear end solo, and speaks to them, the original council pretty much lost any right to be that skeptical. Right to propagandize it as a geth for security purposes, not to be what they were in ME2. It would have been a nice rp point to make it so keeping the original council actually helped you because of this, and a new one would be still in genuine disbelief, instead we got 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:52
|
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:But that money doesn't come out of Google's pocket. Advertizers pay google, google gives Youtubers a cut of that. If anything, doing this is costing them money since no ads will appear on demonitized channels, thus no ad revenue for google. well then it makes even less sense it could be more PR moves to placate advertisers and maybe bringing more back to the platform, a way to ease their minds and stop the adpocalypse, since that's the only other reason that makes sense to me
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:59
|
|
|
Honestly, a great twist for an alternate universe Mass Effect would've been that like the 3 or 4 pieces of actual evidence that existed for the reapers before the end of 1 were just plants to red herring Shepard off Saren's actual plan/power and the council was right to blow off your weird mind melding prothean beacon prophecy bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 12:00
|
|
|
The YouTube thing is a weird thing to put through now being that it's clearly unrelated to Logan Paul but obviously everyone's going to think that it's related, and yeah...probably not a good look lol. Bots are a big problem on YT and I guess the previous measures to try and sort them out (requiring 10,000 views channel-wide) didn't go far enough, hence the new 1,000 subs + 4,000 watch hours requirements. With bots you essentially have a whole load of reuploaded videos chock full of ads, which will then be automatically clicked thus giving the bot the full revenue from a click as opposed to just a view and naturally this is all going to add up to a lot more than $100 per channel. There's a lot of this poo poo going on under the surface. Bots obviously make the advertisers unhappy because it's all fake - they're giving out money for nothing, it's not actually helping them any, and so their reaction is to decrease advertising. It does suck for small YouTubers though, of course - but it's not unexpected, alas. It's kinda bringing YouTube back to the early years in some ways, when you had to meet a lot of requirements and be properly approved in order to enter the Partner Program...the days of "Hey, everyone can be a partner!" are over, and we've known that since Maker started their drastic cut down. I doubt that they're purposefully going at small YT'ers here - the amount of ad revenue they pull in is, as mentioned, kinda immaterial to the profits of the machine as a whole - but they're an unfortunate casualty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 12:07
|
|
|
Has anyone good (similar to HBomb or Shaun or whatever) bothered with taking down Zeitgeist? I didn't think this was even necessary in TYOOL Two Thousand Eighteen, but my friend just asked me about it and I don't think I have the energy to go through that whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
This whole YT thing is just another part in the grand scheme of YT to muscle out the smaller YT content creators. Very soon, unless you are getting hundreds of thousands of viewers each video, you ain't making money on YT. It will not be long before YT will change like vegas in the end of Casino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN32RTMJaJI
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 12:25
|
|
wins.
|
Isn't the Youtube change just to lower the risk of the dreaded scenarios that first triggered the Youpocalypse, i.e. ads on terrible videos about Holocaust denial or supporting genocide or whatever? The idea being that the bigger the channel, the less likely it is to make a video with horrific content of that sort, so the safer it is to put ads on (if only because it means the channel almost certainly has been around for a little while so Youtube has a slightly better chance to catch it before monetization goes into effect). The cutoff on views/subs seems somewhat arbitrary and honestly too low to actually work very well, but hey. On one hand it's an unfortunate change for smaller creators that I certainly won't defend. On the other I gotta wonder, how many channels with less than 1k subs actually get enough views to even bother monetizing their stuff? E: although the watchtime requirement DOES mean yet another Youtube incentive for creators to post longer videos, aka the worst thing that happened to youtube as a viewer rather than a creator. The number of videos on the site with 1 - 3 minutes of content stretched into 10+ for such reasons is already unfortunately fairly sizeable. Insurrectionist fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
So does this mean if you're a small channel and thus aren't enabled for monetization (how is DEmonetization a word but not monetization firefox?) you are simply not allowed to put up a patreon link in the description?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
Dan Olson said it removes the ad dollars for the procedural viral video channels. Those get billions of viewer hours but rely on automatic referalls instead of subscriptions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
Leal posted:So does this mean if you're a small channel and thus aren't enabled for monetization (how is DEmonetization a word but not monetization firefox?) you are simply not allowed to put up a patreon link in the description? No, you can put whatever you want in the description beneath a video, you just can't put a hotlink in the video itself. You know, those clickable pictures at the end of some videos (check out the last 10 seconds of any Linkara video if you're not sure what I mean).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:check out... any Linkara video. I will not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:No, you can put whatever you want in the description beneath a video, you just can't put a hotlink in the video itself. You know, those clickable pictures at the end of some videos (check out the last 10 seconds of any Linkara video if you're not sure what I mean).  Then what is that supposed to accomplish? Just say "Hey guys, if you like check out my patreon in the link below!".
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
Of course the Gootube 4000 hour means it fucks over small creators in all sorts of ways, and not only in the wallet. https://twitter.com/BenLubar/status/953503160290725888 quote:I don't even care about the two dollars and seventy cents my channel has supposedly earned in the last two years. I don't want to lose access to the partner program because that means I won't be able to schedule videos, and there's no way I can publish all my videos manually. =( (In that case, a whole bunch of videos are long-form LPs generated by an AI he wrote to play Dwarf Fortress)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Leal posted:
I believe it's because the in video hotlinks show up on some of the mobile apps (while pushing out ads temporarily)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
lornekates posted:(In that case, a whole bunch of videos are long-form LPs generated by an AI he wrote to play Dwarf Fortress) ok yeah thats hosed up
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:Dan Olson said it removes the ad dollars for the procedural viral video channels. Those get billions of viewer hours but rely on automatic referalls instead of subscriptions. Sadly He clarified (read the whole thread it's good) https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/953453088118992897
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
That's a shame. I really hate those videos as my nephews keep stumbling onto them and some of them are definitely not kid appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
Jim Stirlen: YouTube To Demonetize Channels It Deems Too Small https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/953646269586698240
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
I have 400 subs and over a million watch hours. What does that mean
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I have 400 subs and over a million watch hours. You posted one video that's 2500 hours long.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
lornekates posted:You posted one video that's 2500 hours long. Getting Over It playthroughs are really starting to get out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Getting Over It playthroughs are really starting to get out of hand. Probably a bunch of padding by getting fake angry and throwing furniture around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:21
|
|