ampersandrew

I would absolutely trust Obsidian to handle the NG+ angle that Bethesda was aiming for, because they would have known that the right way to do it is to not let you do every faction’s quest line in the same playthrough.

Did you play Starfield? It’s definitely got plenty of ideas. It just chickened out of some of them and wrote checks it couldn’t cash for others. (Also, I think you meant astronomy, not astrology.)

I only heard this guy’s name come up in the wake of Starfield, but none of this internet hate mob mentality is surprising. I still get flashbacks to how quickly the internet demonized and harassed Jennifer Hepler of BioWare. Internet bullying is bad regardless, but it’s especially hard to know whose work you’re criticizing in most video games, because they’re made by large teams, and “written by” will often be credited to something like 5-10 people on a game the size of Starfield’s.

I had a ton of things to critique in Starfield, including the writing, for one reason or another, and when I saw credits roll, I was looking for how many quest designers they had, because my criticism was that it felt like they were stretched so thin to make so many quests that hardly any of them could stand to be any good. Sure enough, for the hundreds of quests in that game, they only had a handful of people listed under quest design. I’m still not going to single out any of them as being bad quest designers, because I don’t know who worked on which quest and if this was a product of how much content they were under pressure to design. There is one person I can point to for a different criticism I had, and that’s because he proudly took credit for it specifically in an interview, but rather than bullying someone on the internet for a creative thing that they worked on, just note to yourself mentally that it was a subpar product and don’t buy the next one. It’s the sane response in a situation like this.

Yup. But if Microsoft is smart, they’ll be examining exactly the reasons why Starfield is what it is and how to improve the next BGS game. That will start with throwing their engine away, because any way you slice it, there’s just no saving that thing.

Well, if you feel that that’s what set that game up for failure, let me tell you about another RPG going through the exact same cycle: the next Mass Effect. That game isn’t getting full attention until after Dragon Age. Its first teaser was 3 years ago, and it’s still got at least 3 more years to go, assuming Dragon Age comes out this year.

How do you get 13 years? It’s been 11 years since the pre-rendered teaser trailer, and it was less than that between announcement and release. They also were open about not being full force on development for the game until Witcher 3 finished, and the announcement trailer served as a recruitment tool, something that most studios don’t do anymore.

I’m not sure where you’re getting that there’s a lack of evidence of charity fraud.

The Moon video quite derisively mocks his and OrdinaryGamers’ definition of charity fraud, as coming from the equivalent of “legal Tinder” for matching lawyers and clients, with the distinction being that one is interested in being easy to understand while the other is a definition that determines whether or not someone violated the law. They demonstrably typed in “definition of charity fraud” and went with the top result regardless of its reliability. The Moon video then goes on to point out several ways that the charity could be operating that would make the actions of Open Hand not just legal but ordinary. Jobst has circumstantial evidence for lots of things, and Jirard could be guilty of some of it. Given the scrutiny he’s about to be under, we’ll know for sure inside of a couple of years. The problem with what Jobst did is that we ought to be sure now, and we’re not. If we’re going to destroy someone’s reputation (and the jobs of the people that he employs in the process) for doing something nefarious, we should know for sure that he actually did it.

The first video showed the money hadn’t moved. Correct, we can observe that from his research. The second video alleged more money was missing, alleged embezzlement and fraud, because he guessed that some money from a golf tournament wasn’t accounted for. The problem here is that he has no hard numbers for how much money, no source to say that something malicious happened and was hidden, etc. Please recognize the difference here.

The video was phrased with reasonable doubt, while often juxtaposed against a tweet from someone to show why a reasonable person would think so.

if they’re true

Look, I get you’re a fan of his, but this “if” is the problem, like I’ve been saying. The video I linked you, which you aren’t interested in watching, only outlines why he may legally want to shut up about Jirard. The video author comes to this conclusion tediously because the law is tedious, but at least he’s got some sense of humor. I personally just never want to watch another video of Jobst’s because I think he did a poor job of reaching a burden of proof that an actual reporter would need before coming forward with a story. Even not being a journalist myself, I came to the same conclusion as that link the other user sent you. Good on you if you enjoy Jobst’s videos, but I hope he holds himself to higher standards in the future.

But these two attempts at defending what Jirard did are genuinely ridiculous.

Taking issue with how Jobst constructed his videos to attack Jirard is not the same as defending Jirard.

Counter-sue? Karl is suing Jirard? When did this happen?

You’re right, miswording on my part. I got lost in the legal threats back and forth. I’ll correct it.

I’ll start you off by saying that his “textbook definition of charity fraud” is not from a textbook, and you’ll find that and many other answers in the video I linked you. It’s long, but it’s chapter coded with timestamps, and while I didn’t skip it, the author gives you a sizable chunk on tax law that you can skip if it’s too dry.

Literally nothing in the story I linked had anything to do with anything not in the public record. I was asking about those specific claims to get a sense of what exact statements of Karl’s you’re talking about. Your answer doesn’t give me a ton of confidence that you’re being precise in your allegations about Karl.

As far as I can tell, the only thing he actually proved was that approximately $600k sat in a bank account that most people probably believed was being moved along more judiciously than that. Even that has a reasonable explanation from a legal perspective, and even that answer may not be good enough for the people who donated to Open Hand. As someone who just wanted to know the truth, whatever it was, there was no smoking gun in the next two Jobst videos I watched, and that’s the problem. Legally, the video I linked gets into far more about what they shouldn’t have said and why Jirard’s video was definitely heavily advised and/or drafted by actual lawyers (which even us non-experts suspected, even if we didn’t know why) who may have set up Jobst to fall for a trap allowing Jirard to legitimately sue him.

These two and a half videos from Jobst (I got fed up with his “this response is the worst thing ever” video) are the first I’ve ever watched from him, because it came up in my recommendations, and his reputation around Billy Mitchell and Wata preceded him. What I saw led me to believe that perhaps he just needs to be the guy who exposes people’s scummy secrets, but maybe this one actually ended before it got truly juicy, because life isn’t always as dramatic as what gets written for television, and then he just had to fill time in extra videos. Either way, I was not a fan of what I saw and decided to never watch a certain YouTuber again based on his videos; it just wasn’t Jirard…oh, and ordinary gamers was probably worse than Jobst.

Click the link in my comment. There is room for almost all of what he said to be true, but he didn’t prove it, and that’s a big problem, because there’s also room all of it or nearly all of it to be false. It’s why an actual reporter would get someone on the record to confirm a fact, consult with an expert, and be sure that the things they think are damning are actually damning. Meanwhile, he and OrdinaryGamers may have made some legal faux pas in the process of putting up videos that are sensationalist for clicks. Again, this doesn’t mean that their allegations are false. But it’s so, so important to actually prove it, because if they’re wrong, lies travel faster than the truth, and if they ever make a retraction (I doubt it), fewer people will actually hear it.

He can stop making videos on The Completionist unless you really want to see someone cosplaying as a journalist list things he suspects the guy did but can’t prove (beyond the first video). There’s a reason that an actual journalist would want to get actual numbers behind the golf tournament, for instance, or consult with someone to see if maybe it’s totally ordinary for signatures to be missing from documents because they were e-filed, or perhaps make sure that their legal definitions came from something other than just the first hit that they found with a quick Google, but maybe that timeline doesn’t work for the World of Tanks promo slot he sold for his video. If the “bait” that he fell for in Jirard’s response was as damning as implied, it might be in his best interest to stop making videos about The Completionist.

Definitions will vary from person to person, and plenty of games in each camp will represent some but not all of their defining characteristics, but you’ll see some common themes. Historically, I’ve also preferred western RPGs by a wide margin, so that might color some of my definitions below. Also, both of these branches in RPGs had the same starting reference of D&D, and then a multi-decade game of whisper down the lane led to them diverging more and more.

Western RPGs:

• character creation, choosing from classes that you’ll often see represented by other NPCs
• allocating attribute points, both at character creation and as you level up, that govern other things about your character
• generally flatter power progression (you might do hundreds more damage at the end of the game than you do at the beginning, but not hundreds of thousands more damage)
• in attempts to recreate the tabletop experience, will often times allow for outside-the-box solutions to problems besides combat as well as choices that affect the world state

JRPGs:

• usually a finite cast of characters that level up more or less only in one way, but you might have a secondary system for them to customize with equipment beyond weapons and armor
• combat usually doesn’t involve positioning on something like a tactical map but rather a line of combatants on each side of the screen
• magic and abilities are more often limited by a magic points resource instead of a rest system
• dialogue with NPCs tends to be more limited in choices, telling a more linear narrative

I’ll be honest, trying to differentiate these two with a list of bullet points was harder than I thought it would be to articulate. I’m almost more inclined to just say “I know it when I see it”, haha. But for some points of reference, I’d say Baldur’s Gate 3, Pillars of Eternity, and The Witcher 3 are western RPGs; Final Fantasy VII, Persona 5, and Pokemon are JRPGs; Sea of Stars is a JRPG that isn’t made by a Japanese developer; and while also an action game, Dark Souls is closer to being a western RPG than a JRPG.

It’s an RPG made in the west, but I’ve always heard that it was notable for being a JRPG.

If I’m rattling down a list of my favorite games ever, they’re heavily concentrated in the last decade, with a couple of stragglers from earlier than that. I don’t think that’s recency bias; I think developers have just, in general, gotten better at honing in on what people like, especially in the age of rapid patching. There’s plenty of negative that comes along with this too, but for every game like Diablo IV that patches out builds because they were too much fun and impacted their live service retention rate, there are plenty of games coming out of early access after learning what worked and didn’t work with their players, much more rapidly than the old days of iterating on yearly sequels.

I loved the first level of System Shock, now that it’s been modernized. Then I got to the second level, and resources were no longer scarce, and it didn’t appear to be shaking up the formula from level to level, so now it feels like Doom with an inventory system rather than the games that took inspiration from System Shock.

Half-Life is still pretty great, but as far as organically teaching the player, it’s far behind even its own sequel. There are a lot of cheap deaths that you just have to save scum your way through. My go-to example is that when Half-Life 1 introduces a sniper enemy, you see a hole in the wall that could look like a sniper’s nest if I told you that they existed in the game and if you squint at it a little bit, so you just get shot in the back. In Half-Life 2, you emerge from Ravenholm, and a combine sniper with a laser sight is clearly trained on some escaping zombies, so that you know that snipers in sniper’s nests are now a thing you’ll have to contend with, and you get to observe it safely once before dealing with them in the game. That kind of thing. 90s PC games seemed to be worse at this than their successors and console games at the time.

Do the NWN games offer better combat feedback than the 2e Infinity Engine games? It was a real pain point in Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 (especially 2) that it would just tell me something didn’t work without telling me why it didn’t work, and modern RPGs will show you the full dice rolls so that you can understand why.

Hellblade II is almost certainly coming out this year, perhaps very soon, so I got Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice for a few dollars on the recent Steam sale. It’s certainly a looker, but I would prefer if the mechanics were a bit more sophisticated. Maybe it’ll get there, but I’m a few hours in now, and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the entire loop. The combat and puzzle mechanics are both what I’d call serviceable, but it’s really the presentation in this game that they knocked out of the park, yet I still don’t know if that’s enough for me to give the game a glowing recommendation, even if I am enjoying the game.

I’m still making progress in Pillars of Eternity ahead of Avowed’s release, finally getting into some of the White March content, around level 6. The game remains great, but my biggest criticism thus far is still that the intended player level for a given area or quest should be better communicated. I end up timidly doing the stuff that I’m confident is around my level rather than the content that appears to be most interesting to me at the time.

Some friends and I started up a co-op game of Quake II in the remaster, and holy cow, this is so much better than our time in the first Quake, due in no small part to that compass feature they added. The era of FPS games I’m most into would be the era just beyond Quake II’s initial release, and the biggest difference, I’d say, between those two eras in level design is that the older “boomer shooters” would let you get lost in a maze while their successors would close off access to most of the areas that you don’t need to bother with yet/anymore, alleviating frustration. It also just feels so much better right out of the gate than the previous Quake, and the levels are somewhat trying to approximate a space that would exist in a fiction created for the game rather than just being a vague labyrinth with monsters in it.

In another co-op group, I’m in the early hours of Titan Quest, as a way of dipping my toes into the loot game genre, which I hadn’t really had a taste for in the past. I figured with the sequel on the way, and no desire to touch Diablo with a ten foot pole, this would be a good time to do it. We just had to fight a centaur that I’m not sure whether it counts as a boss or not; hopefully bosses in this game are more interesting than that one was, because with the skills we had access to in the early game (not many), the fight was mostly just running around in circles and taking shots at him when we could without getting pummeled.