Outriders Review

Yes, there are connectivity issues with Outriders. Aside from that, it’s a decent game. Overall, it gets a 6.5/10 for me.

Overview

I won’t be covering what Outriders is about or some of what Square Enix detailed about the game before it was launched. This review assumes you know about the overall story and concept.

Yes, there are connectivity issues with Outriders. Aside from that, it’s a decent game. Overall, it gets a 6.5/10 for me.

If you’re new here and want to know how I handle reviews but don’t want to read the full explanation, just know that everything here is my opinion, and you can take it or leave it—though I think that you’ll agree with the overall score. I am playing on an Xbox One.

As of this writing, crossplay between PC and Console versions of the game has been disabled due to stability issues with the servers. Developer People Can Fly is aware of the situation and asks that you judge the game based on its own merits and not server issues that they don’t control. I tend to agree with them and won’t be including server issues in my review—though if I did, it would be a 3/10 and would lower the overall score to 6/10.

Initial Thoughts

There are a lot of loading screens in Outriders—more than in any other game that I’ve played in several years. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that; it’s just that it’s noticeable given the lack of loading screens in other games. This is likely less of an issue on current-gen consoles, but if you have grown to hate loading screens, you may not appreciate their use in Outriders.

The Unreal engine aesthetic is getting old. Everything feels the same—as if it’s all based on Fortnite. However, the engine itself is as solid as ever. The voice acting is polished and pleasing. The story concept is decent, but the writing is “meh.” There were a couple of scenes where there was an attempt at humor, but the groundwork wasn’t done to make it feel natural, so it felt forced. Sound design is good—it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that People Can Fly recorded sounds specifically for the game. There’s nothing obtrusive about it like I experienced in Cyberpunk.

Outriders is clearly made by the studio that made Gears of War. That’s obvious, but I mention it because you’ll have opinions on design choices based on how you feel about Gears. I really like the RPG elements of the game. I find myself really looking forward to climbing the skill tree and seeing what kind of character build I end up with.

Combat – 8/10

The combat is solid. It’s fast-paced, balanced, and fun. The different class abilities make for an interesting game. That being said, you’re probably going to want to handle the arenas with some friends.

Combat difficulty in Outriders scales with your “world-tier” or experience as well as your party size. Enemies will increase in level with you and provide a consistent challenge—irrespective of where you go or how many team members you have.

I’ve been playing as a Pyromancer—the “medium-range” build—and I’ve run across situations where I would have wanted support. The enemies you encounter will be at varying ranges, which means you’re going to have issues if you’re playing alone—regardless of the build you choose.

An Outrider stares down the mouth of one of planet Enoch's giant mutant creatures.

Some enemies will literally run at you, forcing you to fight up-close and personal. Some will stay back and shoot at you from a distance. Others will sit at the mid-range and lob grenades or other splash damage items at you. I consider myself somewhat of an accomplished shooter, but I still found myself having some difficulty working alone.

Outriders was meant to be played as a team. It’s obvious when you really dig in and fight through different arenas. It’s also spelled out for you, as the game explains that the loot tables are better when you play together. Just make sure you have a balanced team, and you’ll be good.

World Building – 8/10

The world building in Outriders is very well done. The developers obviously took the time to ensure that you get a rich and deep understanding of the world that you are playing in. There are even little lore tidbits on the many loading screens that give you some background.

Additionally, there are little journal entries that can be found along the way that give you more information about certain areas, people, or circumstances that help fill-out the world. The artwork and environments also help out in this regard.

You really get a sense of what’s at stake and the emotional tone of the story just by looking at the artwork and people around you. It’s something that few games take advantage of, and I found it to be notable.

The dialogue of the NPCs changes based on your exploits, which I found to help enrich the experience. As you walk around base camp, you’ll overhear conversations about current events. Take out a gang, and the NPCs will start talking about getting their stuff back. These little details make you feel like you’re progressing and help give you a reason to do side quests.

Controls and Mechanics – 5.5/10

I have to admit that I’m not a huge fan of Gears of War or third-person shooters. I try not to let that taint my opinion of them, but you should know that information up front. That being said, there are pluses and minuses to the way that Outriders works.

The default controls are a little too sensitive for my liking. Obviously, that can easily be adjusted and it didn’t factor into the score, but you may want to know that before you play. The cover system is handy. Your character will automatically run from cover to cover to ensure that you have a fighting chance to take down your enemies.

Two Outriders firing at their enemies from behind the cover of sandbags—one of the many types of cover you'll find.

However, I find that this system tends to fight against me. This isn’t specific to Outriders, but I don’t like the “stickiness” of the automatic cover system. I have a hard time getting out of it and end up jumping over something that I don’t want to jump over or getting into cover when the enemy is off to the side of me, turning me into hamburger meat.

That being said, it works well enough most of the time and the mechanics make sense. I can’t think of a different way to handle combat in Outriders.

Using special abilities is largely intuitive and even when you select the wrong one, you’re still going to be doing damage. Still, if you’re hoping for a splash ability and hit a targeted one, you’re going to kick yourself.

I wish I could use grenades.

Inventory – 4.5/10

The inventory system isn’t intuitive. Like, at all. Unlike other games, you won’t find an obvious list of items that you have. Instead, you’ll need to select an inventory slot—like your chest armor, for example—which will then give you a list of the items in your inventory. I happened to stumble upon this after buying some armor and trying to figure out where it went.

At first, I felt ripped off because I spent all of my money, and I couldn’t find this damn cloak. Then, I figured I’d look at the inventory slot where it should be. Don’t ask me why I did this because no items were showing up on my character, and there was no reason to think that clicking the chest piece would do anything. Still, I did it and found my cloak.

I hate it. I want to see all of the items that I have, broken down by the usual categories—firearms, armor, special, etc. While I haven’t counted, I think that you end up having more room in your inventory with the way that Outriders works. The interface is awful, though.

Graphics – 7.5/10

The graphics are good. There is a lot of detail in Outriders. Tons of little items are lying around and there seems to be an endless amount of detail to the smallest of objects. It all works to give you a sense of the emotions of the scene.

The only draw-back is that it feels derivative. It both looks like and doesn’t look like Fortnite. This is largely a personal preference, and didn’t really affect the score, but I hope this isn’t a trend for games that use Unreal Engine.

I didn’t run across many graphical issues—at least not during gameplay. There were a few minor problems during cutscenes, but it was nothing like what we saw with Marvel’s Avengers or Cyberpunk, for example. As much as I don’t appreciate the obvious aesthetic, Unreal Engine is as solid as ever.

I will say this—given the state of games that we’ve seen recently, I might be biased toward a game that actually works. You might feel the same.

An Outrider walks in front of their trophy laden truck, showing off the lighting and artwork you can expect in the game.

Economy – 7.5/10

The in-game economy feels good. Items and weapons are expensive, but when you think about the situation, everything feels fair.

You aren’t going to have an easy time getting the “resources” (as far as I can tell, the in-game currency is called “resources”) that you need to buy things. That seems to be by design. Given the context, it makes sense that getting money would be hard. Of course, it is a lot easier to gather “resources” if you’re playing on a team—once again reinforcing the idea that you should be playing Outriders with friends.

The vendors have weapons and armor that will benefit you, which means you’ll be spending a lot of time trading and customizing your loadout. As far as I can tell, everything is designed to be in balance, regardless of your level.

That is to say, you’ll always have gear that’s good enough to take down your enemies and keep you protected, but not so good that you can just walk your way to the objective. You’ll be locked out of gear depending on your world-tier, for example, and you’ll have a reason to keep playing for the same reason.

Gameplay 4.5/10

Things will continue to get better, but there are some coding issues. The first side-quest that I did allowed me to re-do it, even though the quest giver was dead.

I also wish that there were a way to pause the game. There isn’t. If you’re going to play Outriders, you better make sure that you have dedicated your time to playing. This issue is compounded by the fact that it encourages you to play with others. All of you need to be sure you have the time to complete any given arena.

Even when you’re playing alone, there is no way to pause the game. It’s a choice that I think hurts playability because you have to schedule everything around it. Luckily, the arenas aren’t particularly long or difficult, so you can take the game in small chunks of roughly 20 minutes. You just can’t quit once you’re in.

Conclusion

I’d recommend playing Outriders. It’s a solid game with a lot of potential to get better over time. If you’re playing on Xbox Network, it’s also free, so how much are you really losing by trying it out? Once the connectivity issues are fixed, and people can play together, I think Outriders will develop a dedicated fan base.

I believe that—like Destiny before it—Outriders will have legs and we’ll continue to see the franchise expand and grow. It really could benefit from giving you the ability to pause the game, but I understand that there are reasons not to allow that mechanic or the difficulty involved in adding it. Still, if it can be done, it should be done.

Review Guidelines

I’m aiming to give you a useful review of the games that you might buy. I think this is the best system to accomplish that goal, and I’ve found that I tend to agree with the overall score when I’m done with the game.

The Wolf’s Idea Of Reviews

Let’s be honest—game reviews on other sites are largely meaningless. Why? Because you rarely see an unflattering review. Unflattering doesn’t drive game sales—and therefore, ad revenue. On the other hand, I won’t accept ad revenue or kickbacks from game developers so that I can remain a neutral party. 

Therefore, each review will have different categories for scoring based on what I think are the most salient points. For example, each game has some sort form waypoint finder, but if there is a game where the waypoint finder either helps or hinders the rest of the game, it will be scored. 

Keep in mind that all reviews are subjective, and you may have a different opinion. However, I think that you’ll probably agree with my overall scores. 

The Scoring System

I rate games on a scale of 1-10, where one represents an element that is completely broken, and 10 is absolute perfection. 

A five, therefore, is an average (or neutral) score. There was nothing remarkably good or bad about the element. It follows, then, that an overall score of 5 means that the game is average. You may either like it, hate it, or find it completely forgettable, depending on what kind of games you play.

I also award half points as a way to indicate that the score could be a judgment call. For example, you may find the in-game economy to be too expensive or restrictive and would prefer it be changed. Others may find it a good balance and feel that tweaking it may take away from the experience. 

In such cases, a half-point would be awarded that can either slide up or down the scale—but won’t significantly change the overall score as a full point would. 

Rounding

Because of the half-points, there are situations where the overall score turns out to be something like 6.3/10. That’s not very useful. In cases like that, I’ll be rounding up, not down. I round up because games tend to get better over time, especially in the era of live-service games where development and tweaks never really stop.

I’ll also give you the raw mathematical score so that you can determine for yourself what the score should have been.

The Categories

As I’ve stated before, all reviews are subjective, which means that the things that I look at will change, depending on what I think is important. I make little to no effort to treat every game the same, even if they fit easily into one genre or another. 

Not all games are the same. Sequels aren’t even the same. Oftentimes different studios take over production, artists and writers leave and join projects at random, and development cycles can take years.

I treat each game as a standalone project, then—each with its own merits and problems. In general, if an element did its job and nothing more—like a waypoint system—then assume that it scored a five and writing about it wasn’t worth the effort. 

The Benefits Of Averages

I score games this way so that I end up with an average score. I believe that, even if I’m biased with one part of the game or another, the average is going to come out to be something that most people would agree with. 

You may think that I’m crazy to award the combat system a 4/10 and the story an 9/10. But we’ll probably agree that overall the game was a 6 or 7 out of 10 (my score would have been 6.5). 

Conclusion

I’m aiming to give you a useful review of the games that you might buy. I think this is the best system to accomplish that goal, and I’ve found that I tend to agree with the overall score when I’m done with the game. I hope that you agree, and if you don’t, well, I’m unlikely to change my system unless I’m consistently wrong.   

The Very Late Cyberpunk 2077 1.1 Patch Review

The bottom line: The game isn’t bad, particularly for $35. But you’ll need to be a fan of RPGs, lower your expectations to somewhere around Skyrim quality, and you’ll need to recognize that Cyberpunk was never meant to be played on console.

TL;DR

Perhaps I should have said this review was delayed. I picked up Cyberpunk 2077 roughly a month ago for the low, low price of $35 from Walmart. It is still listed at that price as of this writing.

Because of that price, I decided to give the game a try and see what was going on. I also decided to do one review for the 1.1 patch and another for the 1.2 patch—the final major patch before CDPR starts working on regular patches and updates.

All reviews are inherently subjective; therefore, I’ve made minimal effort to make my reviews scientific in any way. That being said, I do have some criteria. The scale is 1-10. A rating of 1 means it’s completely broken; a rating of 5 means I think it’ll be dependent on your personal preference, but it’s not particularly remarkable one way or the other. A rating of 10 means it’s complete perfection. I’m playing on an Xbox One.

CategoryRating
Controls2/10
Graphics2/10
Story8/10
Combat5.5/10
Economy5/10
World Building5/10
Score4.5/10

The bottom line: The game isn’t bad, particularly for $35. But you’ll need to be a fan of RPGs, lower your expectations to somewhere around Skyrim quality, and you’ll need to recognize that Cyberpunk was never meant to be played on console.

Controls – 2/10

Aside from the graphic quality, which is bad, the first thing you’ll notice is the controls. The default controls are truly awful. I can’t think of many games where I need to make adjustments to the controls. The default controls are usually good enough for me. If I do end up changing them, it’s for the purposes of fine-tuning. However, with Cyberpunk, adjusting the controls is a necessity. The default settings made everything feel both clunky and spongy. It was the strangest feeling that I’ve ever experienced with a game, one that’s difficult to describe, except to say that it was unpleasant. As it turns out, all of the controls were delayed by 3/10 of a second, as well as having a “ramp-up” effect that was set so high that you turned uncomfortably fast.

The end result is that the controls initially feel unresponsive, then your screen is moving so fast that you almost get motion sick. Throw in the low-quality graphics, and it makes for probably the worst introduction that I’ve ever had with a video game. To be honest, I wasn’t sure that I would be able to stomach playing it. That is until I dug into the settings. This is what I recommend:

  • Control Settings: Turn off motion blur
  • Response Curve: Sensitive
  • Turning Delay: 0.10
  • Turning bonus: 0.60 (it’s a little slow, but an improvement)
  • Turning ramp-up: 0.10
  • Horizontal Sensitivity: 10
  • Depth-Of-Field: Off
  • Lense Flare: Off

Adjusting all of those settings has made the game playable. Without those adjustments, however, I’m not sure that I would have made it past the prologue.

Similarly, you’re probably going to want to turn your ADS (Aim Down Sights) settings down as well—like, almost all the way down. It was at this point, as I was adjusting my ADS settings that I first realized that this game was never meant to be played on console. I’m not even sure that they considered console players when they made it. The controls are so sensitive that there is absolutely no way that a joystick can reach the level of control that you need to deal with the default settings.

I’ve experienced several instances where picking up an item was impossible because I couldn’t properly target its hitbox. It was as if the hitbox wasn’t where the object was, or it was too small, or non-existent. I’m not entirely sure what the issue is, but it happens enough that it’s noticeable. Luckily, I’ve only run across one situation where the object was particularly valuable—but that’s kind of the problem right? It feels like dumb luck that it only happened once.

It’s a moot point now, but driving cars felt more like piloting a boat. Once again, the controls were both overly sensitive and spongy. A normal movement in a regular game is a huge overcorrection in Cyberpunk. At the same time, it feels like your vehicle takes a half-a-beat to respond to you, so you’re tempted to put more into it but if you do, you’ll end up hitting something. The camera placement could use some adjustment in the third-person view as well, but that might be a personal preference. It’s too flat. I can’t see my front bumper, so I end up forcing the camera to pan upward to where I want it to be.

It is painfully obvious—to me, at least—that these controls were meant to respond to the most minute movements of a mouse, probably to reduce fatigue. Suffice it to say, it doesn’t translate to a joystick in the slightest. The adjustments that I made improved immensely, but there is still one glaring issue with the controls that I haven’t been able to address: combat.

We’ll get to that in a minute, but for now, just know that Cyberpunk 2077’s lack of aim assist is further evidence that this is a PC game that somehow ended up on console.

Graphics – 2/10

I remain unimpressed with the graphics. There are a lot of glitches and rendering issues, sure, but I have an issue with the art style itself. For whatever reason, it seems that CDPR decided that a “grainy” aesthetic was the most appropriate for the game. I can’t tell you how much it takes away from the visuals—and you can’t make it go away. There is a setting to, allegedly, turn off the grain effect, but doing so doesn’t seem to do anything.

An image of a market square in Cyberpunk 2077, demonstrating the graining quality of the game.

When I picked up Cyberpunk, I was looking for something that would be polished and that would “wow” me in the way that Ghost of Tsushima did. I got the opposite. It was more of a, “why does this game look so bad?” It’s not that the art itself is lacking. It’s actually really unique and interesting. The problem is this weird grain finish that was applied to everything. You expect things to be reflective, but they aren’t. You expect to be able to see clearly across the city. It doesn’t feel like you can.

It feels like you’re playing in the middle of a sandstorm or something. Your eyes just don’t have anything to focus on. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why CDPR thought this was a good design choice. Perhaps it looks better on a 4k screen running at 120fps. I wouldn’t know, though, because it just looks like garbage on my equipment.

Story – 8/10

The story is fascinating, and it’s what’s kept me playing. I won’t give everything away, but the story presents a lot of deep philosophical questions that I wasn’t expecting to encounter. What does it mean to be you? Would you still be you if you were digitized? What kind of person would you want to be if you knew your time was limited?

Aside from that, though, there is content galore to be found in Cyberpunk 2077. Back when I contributed to The Gamer, I wrote a story about how the side quests are so in-depth that you can complete the game without following the main campaign. Similarly, it was reported that a developer had played more than 170 hours and still hadn’t completed it. That seemed extreme to me until I got my hands on it. There is so much damn content here that it’s worth buying just for the sake of the sheer amount of game that you get.

I’ll let you know if I ever get around to beating the campaign without actually playing the main storyline. The story is what shines with Cyberpunk, and it’s worth dealing with some of the issues just to see it.

I saw an article that claimed Cyberpunk would make a good movie. I have to agree with that assessment. In some ways, I think it would make a better movie than a video game.

For one thing, if Cyberpunk were a movie, you wouldn’t have to deal with hundreds of random calls from random characters—or overlapping dialogue and poor sound design.

Combat – 5.5/10

The combat in Cyberpunk is…okay. I like to think of myself as an experienced, nay, accomplished FPS player. I play every shooter on the hardest difficulty and can complete it—with the notable exception of Doom (I don’t understand that one). As such, I’m playing Cyberpunk on “Very Hard” difficulty. I expected that the combat aspect of it would be second nature and that my 20 years of training on various virtual battlefields would assist me here as they had everywhere else.

I was wrong. I’ve found it nearly impossible to play the way that I normally do. The aiming just requires more accuracy than my controller (I’m blaming the controller) will give me. I joke, but Cyberpunk really does demand a higher degree of accuracy than any other game I’ve played, and it does nothing to help you. There is an auto-lean mechanic that is nice for shooting from cover, but there is also more recoil “creep” than you’re probably used to as well. It’s like playing Mass Effect 1, but the aiming never gets better. As I’ve said before, this wouldn’t be an issue if I were using a mouse, but I’m not. Between the standard swaying of the crosshairs, flinching when getting shot, and the lack of granular control in my joystick, I’ve pretty much stopped trying to play Cyberpunk as a shooter.

The nice thing about Cyberpunk, though, is that you have about a million ways to kill enemies and get to your objective. I’ve adopted an assassin style of gameplay consisting of a lot of sneaking around, frying electronics, and using tech to my advantage. It also requires a lot of patience. Perhaps more than you are willing to deal with.

It is disappointing that the combat in Cyberpunk is so vastly different from other games like it, but I’ve found that, because I can’t play it as a shooter, there are a ton of ways to reach your objective. In other words, the variety makes up for it being a terrible shooter.

That being said, if the much-rumored multiplayer ever comes, this is going to be a much bigger problem than it is now.

Economy – 5/10

This will be quick and to the point. The economy in Cyberpunk is worthless. “Selling anything feels like a trip to GameStop. It’s just not worth it unless you aren’t in it for the money.” That’s the note that I wrote after trying to trade and sell dozens of guns.

It literally feels like GameStop. You’ll dump 6 decent guns and get maybe 2,000 Euro Dollars (the in-game currency) for them. Sounds alright, right? Then you try to buy a gun, and you find out it costs 2,500 Euro Dollars to buy the worst of the guns you just sold.

The good thing is, you’ll consistently find hundreds of Euro Dollars just kind of laying around.

Perhaps the developers are trying to make some commentary on the capitalist economic system or something. I’m not sure. What I do know is that whatever they were going for doesn’t make a lick of sense. Your typical method of making money—through trading gear and upgrading to better stuff—is an exercise in futility. It’s weirdly balanced out, though, because huge amounts of money are lying around—literally, in some cases.

World Building – 5/10

There is potential here. I don’t think that I’ve ever played a game that really makes me feel like I could get totally lost just trying to go from point A to point B—in a good way. Walking around Night City, you really feel like you’re in this vast metropolis that never ends. There are tons of alleyways, sidewalks, pedestrian bridges, ladders, doors, and quest givers to interact with. It’s almost overwhelming, and it shows where games can go.

An image of the sprawling, highly detailed cityscape of Night City in Cyberpunk. However, the streets and sidewalks are empty.

However, as it exists now, the streets are empty. The city feels like a ghost town. On the one hand, you have the aesthetic of this mega-city full of millions of people. On the other hand, you’ll see fewer than a dozen cars driving on the streets, and perhaps a baker’s dozen pedestrians walking around. It’s a clash that causes some degree of cognitive-dissonance throughout the gameplay.

Increasing either the number of NPCs or the number and variety of vehicles could help out here. Now that I think about it, I have yet to really run into traffic that’s bad enough that I need to go slower than 80 mph.

The story really helps prop everything up, but the fact that the streets are empty can’t be escaped. It breaks the immersion.

Conclusion

Overall, I’m enjoying myself. I think that the game is going to continuously get better as time goes on. Because of the sheer amount of content present in Cyberpunk, I’m not worried about getting bored any time soon.

If I think of Cyberpunk as a game that came out in 2011, I’m reasonably happy with it. This isn’t at all what we were expecting before it was released. This was supposed to be the game that ushered next-gen graphics, content, and gameplay experience. It’s just not.

It is, however, completely worth spending $35 to experience. As I said, I fully expect it to get better as time goes on. If it were still selling for $60—or even $45—I would say it’s not worth it, but for the current price, I’d recommend it if you’re a fan of RPGs. You’ll just need to go into it knowing what you’re dealing with.

The Next Call Of Duty Will Be Set In World War II

On March 8th, we heard from Call of Duty Zombies expert Eric Maynard about the franchise’s future. During that conversation, he mentioned that the next Call of Duty might be set in WWII. On March 22, the popular Call of Duty community—ModernWarzone—also stated that it would be set in WWII.

Since then, many other news outlets have reported on this rumor. Therefore, it would be safe to consider the leaks to be legitimate at this point. According to ModernWarzone, the game’s working title is Vanguard, though it is unknown what the final title will be. Additionally, the game may be set in an alternate timeline where WWII never ended. The report states that a source familiar with the project has said that the game’s cutscenes are set in the 1950s—at least five years after the historical end of WWII.

Skip to minute marker -11:30 for the first mention of the rumor (but you should listen to all of it)

However, it is important to remember that the idea is simply a working theory. Of course, that theory does fit in with the ideas that Eric Maynard presented to us during his interview. The entirety of the franchise, it seems, is utilizing a plot element that comes from Call of Duty Zombies. That is to say, in Zombies, there is something called the Dark Aether—which has the ability to transport us to alternate universes. As Mr. Maynard explained it, it is because of the Dark Aether that zombies are now invading Verdansk in Call of Duty: Warzone. It could also be the Dark Aether that takes us to a universe where WWII didn’t end.

To further bolster this theory, the Dark Aether appears to be the catalyst for the nuking of Verdansk. Thanks to the now-deleted leaked audio of the end of Season 2 of Cold War, we know that Verdansk is going to suffer a nuclear explosion that will wipe out the map—taking us to a new place to fight. Of course, this wouldn’t have happened if it hadn’t been for the zombies that appeared because of the Dark Aether. If what Mr. Maynard says holds true—and there is no reason to think that it won’t—the entire franchise will be subject to what happens with the Dark Aether and the Zombies storyline.

Apparently, that could mean entering an alternate universe where WWII never ended. With this plot device in place, the Call of Duty franchise could theoretically go wherever it wants to. Activision typically teases each year’s Call of Duty around April or May, so we may not need to wait long to see what the company has to say about all of this.

Opinion

There have been many questions about Call of Duty games and whether they should be depicting real-life conflicts in a video game. Those questions have only been amplified thanks to the upcoming release of Six Days in Fallujah—which uses one of the most controversial battles in the Iraq war as its backdrop. Assuming that these rumors are true, it appears that Call of Duty is finally leaving the realm of reality once and for all. With the addition of the Dark Aether, we have now entered a purely fictional world—except for real-world weapons in the game, and even those are starting to be phased out.

This change in Call of Duty’s tone marks the end of an era when games were based—at least in part—on real-world conflicts. Now, it seems, we have entered a phase where they have more of a comic-book feel to them. I’m not sure what that means for the franchise, but as a long-time fan (I’ve been playing since Big Red One), I’m interested to see where this all takes us.

Sources: ModernWarzoneGameRant | Call of Duty Fandom

Congress Threatens To Censor The Internet Again

From representatives to senators to presidents, various governmental agents have made varying promises to bring about the end of Section 230—a piece of legislation that has been dubbed “The 26 words that made the Internet.” On Thursday, a five-hour hearing marked the third time in less than five months that Congress members ostensibly threatened social media and tech CEOs with increased regulation if their demands were not met.

Journalist Gleen Greenwald has been diligently covering Congress’ efforts to push social media and tech companies to further censor their platforms. Democrats want to know why tech companies haven’t done more to prevent the discussion of election fraud, anti-vaccine sentiment, and the spread of extremist ideology. Republicans, on the other hand, feel that tech companies have overstepped the protections provided in Section 230 and are calling for the removal of those protections. Section 230 itself reads,

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

At the risk of oversimplifying the legislation, Section 230 allows people to say almost anything they want on the internet without the platform being responsible for what was said. To put it another way, Section 230 allows you to say what you want on Facebook without Facebook being responsible for what you say. Of course, Section 230 extends well beyond the confines of Facebook. For example, section 230 allows this site to accept readers’ comments without making us legally responsible for what might be said. It allows Twitch streamers to have live chats with their followers. It allows consumers to give you their reviews of games that you find on Steam.

At one point, Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX) wondered if Congress shouldn’t create a list of “domestic terrorist” organizations, much in the same way they have done with ISIS and Al Qaeda. She then asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai whether such as list would help police their respective platforms. All three of the CEOs stated something to the effect of “we need to look at that idea before we can answer.”

We’ve been discussing tech censorship and the future of the internet since January 7 on the Gameboard podcast, following Facebook’s second arbitrary ban of the administrators of a Fallout 76 roleplaying group. After repeated requests for information, Facebook ceased contact and refused to say why the administrators had been banned. Those accounts were subsequently reinstated, though members said they would be leaving the platform forever.

Opinion

I’ve discussed this subject several times on the Gameboard podcast. The removal of protections that are provided by Section 230 would change the nature of the internet forever. It is my belief that both Twitch and Twitter are moving toward a subscriber or verified account platform. Through these methods, the companies can have a reasonable assumption that their users won’t sue them if Section 230 is either repealed or amended.

While there are legitimate concerns about tech monopolies and their power over public discourse, it is much more concerning that Congress is interested in changing the rules. Section 230 provides all of us with the ability to make our minds heard in the public sphere. Without the protections that Section 230 provides, the average person won’t be able to contribute to any discussion on the internet. If that happens, we all lose.

Source: CNBC | Glenn Greenwald

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started