27·
3 days agoIf we go by impact factor (a measure of how often the articles a journal publishes are cited elsewhere), various Nature publications are six of the top ten journals in the world and Nature itself is 15th
Skua
- 0 Posts
- 138 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: March 17th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
6·6 days agoIt’s normal for CG artists to do their best to make their work look like real life and not CG, though. Death Stranding is clearly attempting to look as realistic as they can manage
5·29 days agoPresumably because it’s Amazon doing it. It is quite reasonable to have a general level of distaste and suspicion for tha company
7·1 month agoI haven’t played the remaster so I can’t guarantee this will work, depending on what has changed, but ironically levelling up more might be the solution you need here. If the level scaling is still as completely fucked as it was in the original, the enemies should get stronger pretty quick. If you only level non-combat stuff they should get to a point that you find appropriate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJHXe_9uhxw
Here’s the teaser, since they reformed the team with a new name so it might not be easy to find. I think this is the only thing they’ve released about it so far, which doesn’t really tell us much other than that they’re making something, but honestly I’m just excited to see more from them. It being published by Epic suggests to me that it’ll come to PC, which is a relief for me because I don’t have a console
That’s totally fair! I’m very much of the opinion that while From’s soulslikes are great and much less insurmountable (a word I choose carefully — they are difficult, but they can be learned) than their reputation suggests, that still doesn’t mean that everyone will actually find them fun. If the combat isn’t to your taste then that’s an entirely reasonable position. Elden Ring is particularly demanding in terms of the pace of combat compared to the Souls games as well
Shadow of the Colossus is such an incredible game. I think it was the first game I played that showed me that games could do more than just being fun to play. It wasn’t the first to attempt to do that, certainly, but it was the first to show that to me and it has stuck in my memory ever since. The soundtrack is phenomenal too. Have you seen that the dev team teased a new game late last year?
I beat every boss in base game Elden Ring without parrying once, using melee only, and no ashes or player summons either (I summoned NPCs a few times if it was an NPC I liked or an interesting story, which meant summoning them for Morgott, Fire Giant, and the two gargoyles). I even got Malenia, eventually! I don’t say this as a brag, because I am NOT good at these games. I say it to say that if I can do it, basically anyone can.
I think it’s a matter of mindset. You’ve got to go in psychologically prepared to fail a over and over again, and you’ve got to be analytical enough to figure out why you failed. If you’re really struggling with a boss, maybe don’t even try to attack for a couple of runs, just focus on figuring out when to dodge and when you have windows. Maybe your current weapon isn’t the right one for the job because it’s a bit too slow to hit this boss or it does a damage type that the boss resists. Maybe you just need to go somewhere else for a bit and come back with more vigour and a better weapon. Elden Ring is really good for letting you do that.
Obviously that’s not going to be a process that everyone enjoys, and if someone doesn’t enjoy it that’s totally fair enough. It’s a game, we’re all just here to have fun. But the actual skill floor is one almost everyone can achieve if they want to and approach it ready to experiment and learn
If you’re able to, get the version with the all the DLC. I think I paid £5 for that vs £3 for just the base game. The extra stuff is well worth getting
I’m afraid not. “Rally” is just the generic term for this kind of motorsport
Couldn’t tell you I’m afraid, I also haven’t bought it. I grabbed DR2 because I saw it really cheap on sale and just wanted a rally sim rather than seeking out a specific one
Well count me interested. I could really go for a version of Dirt Rally 2 with more multiplayer versatility
Both products of the same company but they seem like quite different experiences and userbases to me. Anecdotally, facebook is where my dad sends his friends things he found funny and instagram is where my brother posts pictures of his nights out
I’m not normally keen on mentioning people’s spelling and grammar mistakes, but if they’re going to be dickheads about the language everyone is speaking while writing “your a dumbass”, “has major issue”, and “germen” then it’s another matter
There is no way this doesn’t wind up making an ad that’s misleading enough to get Netflix and/or the advertiser in trouble
You’ve got the details a little wrong. The original two were the Whigs and the Tories, as you say. The Whigs became the Liberals who became the modern day Liberal Democrats, who still exist but haven’t been in power outside of being a junior member of a coalition for a century. Tories became the Conservatives, who are still one of the major two and are regularly still called the Tories. There was a faction that broke away from the Whigs called the Liberal Unionists, who merged into the Conservatives, but they’re separate from the Liberals. Labour is not a successor to either of them, though they did make some strategic agreements with the Liberals early on. In the early 1900s, Labour replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties.
It is still consistently a two-party system. One of the historic parties got replaced and there is a stronger presence for minor parties than there is in the states (see especially the SNP in the past decade and the Tory-LibDem coalition in 2010), but still a two-party system
Based on your enjoyment of management and strategy, Paradox’s grand strategy games might be something you enjoy. Same publisher as Cities Skylines. There are four main series of them, each with their own mechanics but enough broad-scale similarities that knowing one helps with the others. They are:
- Crusader Kings, set in medieval Europe, North Africa, and about half of Asia. This one is the most roleplay-heavy, as you play as a succession of characters within a feudal dynasty rather than a country
- Europa Universalis, set from the European Renaissance up to the end of the Napoleonic wars. The whole world is playable, and exploration is a big mechanic
- Victoria, which covers the world through the rise of industrialism. This one is the most simulation-heavy, focusing gameplay around economic development and the diplomatic manoeuvring of great powers
- Hearts of Iron, which is the Second World War game. This is the one to go for if you want to play the military side of things
What distinguishes them from strategy games like Civ and Age of Empires is the greatly-reduced abstraction. There’s no expectation of every starting point or playable country being balanced; if you start as Belgium in Hearts of Iron, you’re going to have to do something clever to not get steamrolled by Germany. There’s also no win condition beyond what you set for yourself. When I start a game of Crusader Kings, I’m not trying to win the game, I’m saying to myself “let’s see if I can unite all of Britain and Ireland under a Gaelic ruler”
All Paradox games have quite a lot of DLC, but the base games are solid (often now including several of the earlier DLCs for free, in the case of older games) and they go on steep sales pretty often. If there’s not a specific time period or mechanic that sways you towards one of the games, I recommend Crusader Kings 3 for the best new player experience
The actual paper the number comes from (Fate of Empires by John Glubb) is complete bullshit, though. Even the cherry-picked examples it uses, which are limited strictly to the surroundings of the Mediterranean, don’t use any kind of consistent criteria for when an empire starts or ends. He tries to count “Alexander (and his successors)” as one coherent entity and then picks an end year in which all of them had either already collapsed long ago or would not do so for many decades to come. He cuts centuries off of the Roman Empire’s lifespan by just saying that the empire was unstable and getting invaded a lot (and ignoring the Eastern Empire entirely). HIs reckoning of the “Arab Empire” includes three separate caliphates, and the end date isn’t even the actual end of any of them
Other than that, no, it does not attempt to find an average in the sense of a mean lifespan. It actually does argue that 250 years for an empire can be compared to a human living 70 years.