More from Ahmad
More from Game
Now that I have a little more time, I'd like to go into detail as to why this is such horseshit.
-39 Seconds- The implication that the PC release was of the quality standard they intended and that's extremely hard to believe. 1/many
-49 Seconds- Leadership Team is deeply sorry (not at fault), don't blame any specific teams (hold onto this one)
-1m42s- Describes a process of making the game look great on PC and then backsliding to "Old Gen" despite the game being announced before PS4/Xbox hardware was known.
-2m11s- Describes the old gen disk bandwith as "it is what it is" Considering the game got announced before those consoles even shipped, its absurd that the entire game was built so far beyond their possible constraints. Also, those consoles put out stuff like Tsushima late gen.
-2m19s- "-our testing did not show a big part of the issues
you experienced while playing the game" This is probably the worst part. Despite telling you not to blame any specific team, the test / QA team, somehow didn't discover the issues with the game.
You don't need to have worked in Dev or QA to know that the game was flying apart at every level (even on PC). The idea that the bug nightmare that ended up shipping seen for example here https://t.co/bgDkfQMVku went under the radar of a PROFESSIONAL QA TEAM is ridiculous.
-39 Seconds- The implication that the PC release was of the quality standard they intended and that's extremely hard to believe. 1/many
Dear gamers,
— Cyberpunk 2077 (@CyberpunkGame) January 13, 2021
Below, you\u2019ll find CD PROJEKT\u2019s co-founder\u2019s personal explanation of what the days leading up to the launch of Cyberpunk 2077 looked like, sharing the studio\u2019s perspective on what happened with the game on old-generation consoles. pic.twitter.com/XjdCKizewq
-49 Seconds- Leadership Team is deeply sorry (not at fault), don't blame any specific teams (hold onto this one)
-1m42s- Describes a process of making the game look great on PC and then backsliding to "Old Gen" despite the game being announced before PS4/Xbox hardware was known.
-2m11s- Describes the old gen disk bandwith as "it is what it is" Considering the game got announced before those consoles even shipped, its absurd that the entire game was built so far beyond their possible constraints. Also, those consoles put out stuff like Tsushima late gen.
-2m19s- "-our testing did not show a big part of the issues
you experienced while playing the game" This is probably the worst part. Despite telling you not to blame any specific team, the test / QA team, somehow didn't discover the issues with the game.
You don't need to have worked in Dev or QA to know that the game was flying apart at every level (even on PC). The idea that the bug nightmare that ended up shipping seen for example here https://t.co/bgDkfQMVku went under the radar of a PROFESSIONAL QA TEAM is ridiculous.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?