They'll send a strongly worded letter
Phanatik
joined 2 years ago
Oh that's easy, just move the red line back and say "if you cross this line, then we'll consider not supporting you".
The aspect that's getting lost in all this is that the curator has basically put up a hit list of games for people to review bomb just for associating with a company. The curator has no evidence on the level of involvement SBI had with the game but they don't recommend the game based on them being involved at all.
They have taken something small and weaponised it so now it's harming game devs. No one has any evidence on how SBI were involved with any of the games they've listed on their website beyond vague mentions of "narrative" or "character development".
The worst part is, I'm not even surprised by this.
You know what's causing me physical pain? The fact the shapes aren't in order of no. of sides. Part of me thinks this post is a cry for help.
Dwarf Fortress (non-Steam version), though not entirely explicit can be occasionally graphic but all explicit content is restricted to descriptions and you'll see blood on the screen. The entire game is I ASCII (you can use graphic packs to make it more user friendly, I recommend Spacefox).
It'll come trickling down, any day now
The man in the fancy suit on television.
I'm talking less about the products and more about Linus's reviewing practices. We saw this in the watercooler debacle. He half-asses reviews and blames the product when he's the one messing up.
Not even that. It's that his review isn't an objective assessment of the product because he stands to financially benefit from Framework doing well. He's worse than a hypocrite, he's a shill.
Wayland isn't trying to be X12 and since X11 has been around, there haven't been plans for there to be an X12 either. You want to discourage people from using Wayland but don't encourage people to contribute to X11. You're so hellbent on taking Wayland down, rather than further convincing people that X11 is superior and it's easier to improve.
Having seen the SyFy miniseries, I refuse to believe that Dune is unadaptable because it was possible in the early 2000s. It might not look visually stunning and the costumes look goofy but the character work is staggering and the writers go out of their way to give minor characters like Irulan something to do so that her character has a chance to shine. It does all this in less time than Dune 1 & 2 combined.
I came away from Dune 1 largely hollow towards the characters because it felt like they weren't all the way there. Oscar Isaac is a good choice for Leto but we so little of him that his character isn't there. Several of Dune's key points were removed and the film suffers because information is lacking further backing.
The importance of water isn't emphasised as much and as a consequence, Liet Kynes is non-existent. Kynes's dream is important because Paul manipulates it to control the Fremen. There's supposed to be a dinner scene where a lot of the power plays going on in the Empire are presented. It's also where Paul begins to play the political game himself. It's where Jessica's character has a stage where you can see what she's capable of. Not having this scene removed context for the politics in Dune's world.
After seeing Dune 2, I enjoyed it a lot more but it confirmed for me that the movies are all spectacle and no substance. I didn't care what was going on, it all just felt like it wasn't Dune, I didn't know these characters. I hated Stilgar, he was incredibly annoying throughout the movie. I have no idea what they're planning to do with Chani. She has a part to play in Messiah which requires certain things and I don't think we're getting them.