Controversy and Change: Ubisoft, Battlefield Maps, and AI’s Future in Gaming

The only good map in Conquest is Firestorm. And that's not

even a new map. That's a map from Battlefield 3, which

goes to show you, they hemorrhaged too much talent that they

don't know how to make maps right now. They need to get away from

the three lane approach of Call of Duty. Because this is

Battlefield. You flank, you outmaneuver. That's how you do it. You can't

outmaneuver and flank when you know the routes. That's the thing. You will

always create a message within a game.

There's no way around it. You are delivering morals.

You are delivering what is right and wrong in a game.

Every game has a message. You can't get around it. And

so Ubisoft, you focus on the wrong message and

you've lost the plot. AI is great

for specific tasks and is not great for other

specific tasks. Use the tool wisely.

I know it is such a

temptation to use it for everything, but

don't do will ruin you.

Mmm, that's good. Hey, welcome back to Digital Coffee

Gaming Brew. Today I'm diving into all the spicy drama from

LGBTQ representation differences in

Dragon Age, Veilguard and Boulders Gate 3, to

Ubisoft's latest Assassin's Creed controversies, Battlefield

6 updates, and why AI might be ruining gaming. So

grab your favorite drink, settle in, let's catch up on what's been

brewing in gaming this week. All right,

I hope you're having a fantastic weekend, but

first off, there was an article basically from

the perspective of former EA designer Alex Hutchinson,

regarding the LGBTQ representation in

two video games, Baldur's Gate 3 and Dragon Age the Veil Guard. Hutchinson

states that both games are very

LGBTQ friendly. He claims that Baldur's Gate 3

handled the representation better than Dragon Age the Veil

Guard. He speculates that the recent acquisition of

BioWare by a group that includes the Saudi Arabia's public

investment fund could negatively impact BioWare's history of

including queer options in the games. He

mentions that the new owners of EA may adopt a sales driven approach

to LGBTQ content, allowing it only to be possible

because it's profitable. Well, first of all,

duh, yeah, businesses only allow it when it's

actually profitable. If it's not profitable, they don't allow it because it

doesn't move the needle. You are there to make

money, you're not there to be an activist.

The problem with activists is is that they don't make money, they cause

controversy and they ruin businesses.

So, yes. Second of all, borders, Gate three

basically Allowed you to do whatever you wanted, even having

sex with a bear, which very weird, but hey,

more power to you that you could do that.

So they allowed for a lot of nuance and

they didn't say, you have to choose this specific

thing in Dragon Age, the veil guard or Fail guard.

They basically made you agree with

pronouns and all that stuff. There was no

disagreement. You could not disagree. You had to be like,

yes, it's wonderful. Yes, it's great. I'm glad you have a

mental illness that you can actually, I don't know, fix yourself.

So that was the problem. The problem was the bad writing and

the political agenda behind it.

Nobody likes political agendas in the game.

Nobody. Well, except for those that actually, like, do

it. Second of all, BioWare was not LGBTQ friendly

until later on. You didn't start seeing it until, like, Mass Effect

2. Anyways. Like, seriously, can we stop with it?

We've always been friend. No, you haven't. I played both Baldur's Gate and

Baldur's Gate 2. It didn't have that much in it. It's

a recent phenomenon and I like how they're like, we've always been

this way. It's like, no, because society

eventually move that way. You weren't that way in the

beginning and then you went a little too far. Now, do I care

if they're whatever, representation friendly? No, I don't really care,

but just don't hit me over the head with it or I just won't buy

your games. Which I did not buy Dragon Age, Vale Guard or Fail Guard. I

did play it for free on PlayStation and it probably got to that point until

the pull of Bravo thing happened and I was like, I really don't want to

play this game anymore. Really wasn't that great. Anyways,

the writing was laughable, the story was abysmal, and it

just kind of felt like a lesser version of Mass Effect,

not Dragon Age, because Dragon Age is more akin

to, funnily enough, boulders gate, because BioWare actually

made boulders gate 1 and 2 little gaming history for

you. They are actually the developers that make Boulders Gate one and two. And then

they moved on to their own stuff. Well, then they moved on to Neverwinter Nights,

and then they went to, I think it was

that Jade Empire, and then they went to

Star wars and then they eventually came back to

Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and then Anthem. So that's where

we're at. So, yes, Mr.

Hutchinson, it did negatively impact. Yes, businesses

should be aware if your political agenda does not make them

money because if it doesn't make them money, there's no point to

do it. That's how businesses run. You run a successful business

by making a profit. If it doesn't make you a profit, you don't do it

anymore. This isn't the government. You don't get to do

programs that are money sucks and you just throw

more money at it. Because more money throwing at it will make it eventually

successful. It won't at all.

So yes, as every company should be, if

you're writing something that is not very successful and not making you

money, you don't do said thing. It's a very simple

thing. All right, moving on to the new update of Assassin's

Creed Mirage. Yes, you know the one before Assassin's Creed Shadows that was

was supposed to be a DLC of Valhalla, but then was it and it became

its own game and it was a really smaller version of it and probably it

was better than Shadows anyways. But now they're doing

a whole a free expansion on November 18th

and this update will be available on all formats. It will actually have an

upgraded Parkour system as well and

it will allow players to replay all Black Box missions and

contracts after they have completed them once.

Each replayable mission will have unique challenges such as avoiding the

use of Eagle Vision and targeting only the main

enemy. Similar to like the previous ones where you kind of had those

types of missions. I think what was it

Assassin's Creed Syndicate had like similar ones

for that one where you had a mission and you had

specific things to get more experience from. I remember

playing some of that was like well you could only kidnap

the one suspect and you couldn't kill

anybody else type of a thing. So it's similar to that.

Completing these missions reward players with exclusive in game content.

Now I like I said, if you already have Assassin's Creed Mirage, you might

as well just play it because it's a free update anyways. And I'm glad that

they actually updated the Parkour system so maybe it'll be actually a little bit better.

But I'm actually quite surprised that Ubisoft is actually doing anything with this game because

it didn't actually do that well. But

it's not a terrible game. I finished. It wasn't incredibly hard to

finish and it was way shorter than I would like.

But it's way better than Assassin's Creed Shadows, which I

still haven't played because I'll just wait for a heavily

discounted sale on that one because no need to

really reinforce their ability to

make terrible games. All right, moving on to Battlefield six

and they are disabling the homing missiles from the

infantry fighting vehicles, the Bradleys, those. Those type of things in Battlefield

6 have been temporarily disabled. The decision was made following

constant complaints from players about difficulty avoiding these missiles

after being fired. The official Battlefield 6 Twitter account

announced the update on October6,

stating they are addressing inconsistencies with the vehicle

countermeasures. The changes is expected to be alive

immediately with further adjustments planned for the following week. The

IV is designed to transport soldiers and is equipped with a

lock on rocket for both offensive and defensive use.

Players have noted that the lock on feature is too quick, has a large

radius of effectiveness and allows for rapid firing with a short

cooldown. Flares are the primary defense for pilots against these missiles, but

they all. They are not always effective. Yes, this is actually

the common complaint from people that fly jets and fly

helicopters is that these missiles

are broken. They basically you flare and they still will go through

your flares. You try to go around mountains and stuff if you can find some

because most of the maps don't have any and you still get shot down.

So the issue is, is that the IFV is actually the real Mobile

AA and the mobile AA that is supp to be the real threat is not

a real threat. It's still a threat, but it's not as big of a threat.

It's actually the. The worst vehicle in the game. Which is funny because

the Mobile AA should be the biggest threat for any air vehicle and it's

not. It's RPGs, it's Stingers and it's

IFV and maybe the tanks too because they. You can do the.

The. The I guess aimable missile as well,

which I don't think they should have as tank. I think tank they should do

another one. But I digress. This is actually a good thing. The.

I call them Mr. Missiles but the Mr. Missiles are an issue

now for those that hate flying and hate the

air vehicles. Look it you have plenty

of ways of dealing with these. You have the mobile AA if you can

upgrade it and make it at least worthwhile. You also

have stationary a turns throughout the map and usually there's at least

one in every map. You also have very

little cover for these air vehicles. Look at the Blackwell

Fields map. That one is so terrible.

In flying like you're out of bounds nine times out of 10 and they

can still lock on you. You're at your base and they still can lock on

you. It's Actually the worst map they probably ever

made. It's a joke. I was gonna be nicer, but they decided

to ban me for seven days. So I'm not gonna be too nice to them

right now. It's a joke. They need to learn actually how to

make good maps and they're not. Funny part is, is that the battle

royale map is the best biggest map. I don't know

how they figured out how to make a really good battle royale map and they

screw up the rest of the maps. The only good map in

Conquest is Firestorm. And that's not even a new map.

That's a map from Battlefield 3, which goes to show you

they hemorrhaged too many, too much talent that they don't know how to make

maps right now. Blackwell is not a good map. It needs to,

it needs a heavy adjustment in where

the points are because it's

basically in the middle, which is basically every

new multiplayer match is there's the

middle two or three points and those are the ones that are

mainly attacked on. And then the rest of the points, yeah,

you back cap or you go around and you cap it,

but you don't really fight on that. Like Firestorm kind of sort of

has it. But they have two different route. They have several different routes to go,

but you have, you have E and D

and then you have that hill, which I think that hill needs to be not

out of bounds as much and they need to readjust that one as well because

then snipers just camp there and it's very annoying to try to deal

with. But you have E and

D, so you have it for the Russian side and it's very flat and very

long sight lines. And then you have D with some buildings and stuff. Then you

have C, B and A. And those are a little bit more cloistered

together and they're still far enough apart where

you still have to run to it. And there's still

some areas, but there's rocks, there's buildings, there's ways for cover.

And so it's a good balance and, and it allows for jets

and helicopters to basically get away from lock ons

like through buildings and stuff. So it's, it's a good, good

balance. Now the rest of the maps, not so good.

Liberation Peak is probably one of the better maps and

I'm saying that as better meaning it's still not good

because of the three lane approach from Call of Duty. You, you can

see that that is like the prevalent map design thing

for them. They need to get away from the

three lane approach of Call of Duty. Because this is Battlefield,

you flank, you outmaneuver. That's how you do it. You can't outmaneuver

and flank when you know the routes. It's really easy.

As I said, Liberation Peak is the quote unquote better map. But it doesn't

mean it's a great map. It just means that it's better because at least

for helicopters, you can go down that ravine and hopefully not

get shot down by RPGs. But there are a lot

of issues and one of the issues is map design.

And it's very prevalent throughout

most of the maps. Map design

is a huge issue now. I'm hoping that they fix this

with newer maps or just remake older maps to probably a

mixture of both to kind of give a balance and really

figure out like what made good maps. Like, heck, I love to see Caspian

Border again because that's still a really good map. I know some of you like

Metro. I hate Metro for what it is,

just a cluster, but you all love it because

you get a lot of XP from it. I don't like Locker because it's the

same thing. Now, Metro in Battlefield 5 was

better than the original Metro in Battlefield 3, that was the

biggest cluster of all. But

some of the older maps are good because of the ways you

can navigate the map. You can't do that as much

in these newer ones. There are some you can do better than others.

Liberation you can't really do as well. There is some

maneuvering you can do way back on the left

or right side, depending on which way you're coming from. But

by point D and point B, there is more room for you to

maneuver around, but you really have to go around to do

that. And you can get picked off by snipers pretty quickly.

C is the biggest cluster because it's

way too enclosed and it's annoying to try

to capture or actually more. It's more annoying to

recapture than capture the first time because usually capture the first time,

but the other team goes and captures everything else. So I have a lot of

issues with it. I'm glad that they've disabled this and they're looking

to adjust this. I do think basically.

So flames need to be readjusted. I don't think you should be able to lock

on once and it stays locked on for a while. I do think it needs

to be a constant lock on because that makes it a

lot harder for you to kill the jets

and specifically the helicopters, because the helicopters are way more

sitting ducks than the jets. Jets you can speed out.

We are after burners, helicopters. You don't really have

that. Maybe it's going to be better with the mini birds or the little birds

whenever they come out. I don't know when they're going to come out, but this

is a good step in the right direction. They do need to fix it. They

do need to address a lot of things, but this is one of them. They

definitely need to address. The other address is

going to be out of bounds markers for helicopters

and for jets. There needs. It needs to be bigger. It needs

to allow for more space to get away from all

the designations. All the lock on missiles,

all the all that fire needs to be way farther away for

them to maneuver around. But anyways, moving on to

Arc Raiders now. Arc Raiders was released last week

to, well, pretty good fanfare. It's one of the highest rated

multiplayer shooters on Open Critic with a score of

93 from 21 reviews, which is pretty good.

This surpass other notable games like Counter Strike and Overwatch

in ratings in the all time ranking. Arc Raiders is the highest rated

multiplayer shooter with no similar game having a higher rating.

Competing games in the shooter category include Half Life,

Alyx, Vampire Survivors, Ode to Castlevania,

and the Last of Us Remastered. The game feature features maps

properly with enemy robots. If you don't know, it's basically enemy robots and

you have other arcs and you're trying to get materials

and complete missions and extract

and if you don't extract you lose everything. So I usually just go

on more of a quote unquote scav run. That's more of a

Tarov terminology, but that type of a thing.

So it's good. Now Arc Raiders has achieved over

350,000 players. The game developers are

former Battlefield devs, which is ironic.

Their previous game, the finals was also RA2. Still great game. The Finals is a

free to play game and Arc Raiders is not. It's a premium game that you

have to pay for, but it's actually not that expensive. And they do have a

they said that they have a 10 year plan for this which is amazing.

Also it's using Unreal Engine 5 and they seem to do a pretty good

job of, well, optimizing it. I hate to say it, but the two most

optimized games right now that I've seen is arc Raiders

and Battlefield 6. I gotta give credit for dice on that one.

I may be mad at them for what they've done to me, but I gotta

give them credit for the optimization of it because for the

most part, it is really well optimized. I have

not run into too many bugs. I've run into some. With the battle royale,

it was just a black screen. I couldn't see anything, so I had to get

out of it. I also lost server connection a couple times, which was

weird. And then during the actual multiplayer, multiplayer, I'll

go black screen, then back to it again, which is weird, but there

are some issues. But a lot of it is not that game breaking.

There are exploits which are annoying, but that's another issue. But

for arc raiders, yeah, I mean, they had server issues

when it hit the 300,000 mark, but they seem to fix that

issue. And all in all, it's a great game. I have not run to any

bugs, really. I run into interesting people through

there and you can talk to them if you want to or don't want to,

whatever. People can shoot you if they think

you have stuff they want. And you could be nice and not

shoot people if you want as well. I've killed a few. I

don't really try to kill. I try to avoid. But sometimes

you can't really avoid those people. So it's just. It's a good

game. You could still. You could play with people. One person you could

do with duo teams. But I heard that's actually really a pain in the

butt because people will actually target you. So

doing it solo might be the best play for now, but we'll see

once everybody starts to do endgame content and then they start to

really, really annoy you. All right, moving on to

Assassin's Creed Shadows. And it's described as one of the most

controversial entries in the Assassin's Creed series.

The game received significant backlash, which affected Ubisoft and the

game's development. Well, yeah, because

you, you made like a samurai

black and you tried to play it off as this historical

thing that it wasn't. And you. I. I think you made

him, or at least one of the characters gay,

trans or what, I don't really know. But you may made weird decisions that you

shouldn't have made. But it's funny because Ubisoft

addressed the controversy during a meeting at Video Game Industry

Insiders at Paris Game Week. And the video was shown

that recap the game's evolution, the backlash it faced. The video concluded that with

Ubisoft decision to shift its focus from the controversy to emphasizing the game

was meant to be a game, not a message. Yeah, but

you made the message front and center. You can't say,

well, it was just. It was Just a game. And then your message

is, look how woke we are. And then people are like, yeah, I really

don't like this. You probably should just made, like,

the samurais, like, Japanese. That

probably wouldn't have been a good idea. Everybody's like, but there

was one black one. And it's like, well, no, not really.

I mean, there was a black guy in Japan, but he wasn't a

samurai. So you're now, like,

making up history at the same time. And it

just. It just did not seem like a good game. And I know

they've updated it and made the parkour system better, but I was like,

I'm good. I don't need to buy this game. I got

Mirage. I can replay Origins. I can replay

Odyssey. I can replay Valhalla.

Valhalla was just a very long game. It became a little too long of a

game where it's like, oh, I got to do this again. But

my. My point is, is that if you just made the game about

samurai specifically, and you made it about Japanese people, instead of,

like, highlighting the one black person in

Japan during that time, probably would have been a very successful game.

But, no, you had to do it. Lo look at us.

We found this one anomaly in Japan at the time, and

we're going to highlight him, and we're going to fudge history just a little bit

with a controversial historian that may or may not have actually

been accurate about it, but we're going to make it controversial

because, well, reasons.

Everybody's like, we don't want that. You might want to

just redo the game, maybe take him out and put a Japanese

character instead. They're like, no, we're good. This game will sell

well. And then when it released, they couldn't

even give you the sales numbers. They were like, 3 million

people played this game. I'm like, that is what.

Yeah, great, because you have your own subscription service. It's

on Xbox Game Pass. So I don't know

how many of those were sales and how many were those? Just part of the

subscription. And to this day, we still don't know the numbers. We

kind of know now that it didn't sell as well as it

should have, as we were all thinking it wouldn't. But Ubisoft

finally was like, yeah, I didn't do as well as we said it did. But

we didn't really want to tell you at the time because we want to make

sure that the game sold well, which it didn't because he had too much

controversy. So that's the thing the message. You will always

create a message within a game. There's no way around it. You are

delivering morals. You are delivering what is right

and wrong in a game. Even if you portray as

a bad person, you're still. You're. You're tooling around with

it. You're kind of skirting that line. But every game has a

message. You can't get around it. And so

Ubisoft, you focus on the wrong message and

you've lost the plot. And now the gamers are like, we

don't like this. Please fix it. Then you're like no,

we're good. And was like, yeah, this isn't gonna do very well.

And it didn't anyways. Moving on to The Outer Worlds 2.

It also did come out the same week of Arc

Raiders and boy did it not do very well, unfortunately.

So it did come out. The game is described as

providing a sense of escapism. Escapism allowing players to explore

new world and shape their own stories. The game is set on a

colony called Arcadia, which features various outpost settlements and

alien landscapes. The outer world 2

seems to feel alive with elements like overheard conversations and missions

contributing to immersive experiences.

The game encourages players to explore and take their time rather than rush through

objectives. But here's the thing. At the time of this

recording, The Outer Worlds 2 is. Has over 7,000

people playing this game on Steam. Steam DB, the

original one that came out I think in 2019

has over 1,000 people playing. It's a much older game

and it has. And it's roughly within

margin. I mean 6,000 different

difference in the players playing the game. That's not a good.

I know this is going to be more off peak hours,

but still, I mean if you look at like Battlefield has thousands of players

playing. If you look at Arc Raider, that has thousands of players playing

and those two are still new games. Arc Raider and

Worlds 2 came out roughly the same time and

Outer Worlds 2 is way, way behind Arc Raiders.

Now there's a lot of controversy with the Obsidian now because the art director hates

white people for some odd reason and that has carried over a little bit too

much. Also valid. Wasn't that great? So that was

another issue with it. And so there are a lot

of issues within the developer that needs to be

addressed. And I'm. And I think our

World's original was actually a pretty good game. The problem is

is that too many controversies for a developer and

most people just will ignore your game. It's why being in the middle is

probably the best spot for businesses in

general. You want to be too far on the right and you want to be

too far on the left. You just want to be in that middle spot where

you're like, you know what, I don't really care about either way. We're

just trying to make a business just like Michael

Jordan. Conservatives buy shoes too. And then

you could say liberals buy shoes too. Everybody buys shoes.

Everybody buys commodities, Everybody buys forms of entertainment.

If you heavily go to one direction or

the other, you will alienate the other one. Unless you're an opinion,

like opinion stuff, fine. You usually

tailor to one side or the other. You kind of are in the middle a

lot of times. But that's, that's the issue right now

is that we're picking sides because we're so divided

because of. It's mainly because our, our

lack of community now. Because online has become our community centers

and those community centers are not healthy at

all. But moving on to my main thing about AI slop and chat.

Moderation is ruining gaming. And I firmly believe that.

Amazon, as we all know, laid off 14,000 people.

They are not making games anymore. New World is basically

done for unless Pal World developer Buy can buy it out, which I really

hope they do. And the Lord of the Rings MMO is

gone. You still have the old Lord of the Rings MMO that's been going, I

think for 10 years, something like that. It's been going for a while. But no,

instead they're going to be focusing on, was it

Luma, their, their cloud based one that's now part of the

prime subscription, which was a smart move because no one was

buying that even when it first launched. I'm like, yeah, I

don't need that. But the other issue is they're going to be focusing on

AI games or as I call it, AI Slop because it's slop. Because

you shouldn't allow AI to just create your game. I'm a firm

believer that AI is a great tool as long as you keep it a

tool. The problem is that looks like AI,

AI and Amazon specifically. Amazon is going to be

heavily using AI to just create games. I

think a Snoop Dogg game, which if you have like the

Fire Cube or the Fire Stick and you use Amazon to watch stuff,

they are heavily promoting it. And I'm like, this game looks awful.

No, hate to the Snoop. He's doing what he's doing. He is in

every partnership he can imagine. But man, does that look,

that game look awful. Like really, really bad. And

so when you don't use it as a tool and you use it for

a means to an end. You're going to get slop if you

use it for a tool like I've said before previously, for

like using it to Q and A test

before you have humans Q and A tested, looking for it to help

you make better designs on maps and making sure

it runs smoothly and well. If you help it with like

making checking over the code and making sure it's well optimized for your game.

Those are great ways of using AI. But do you use it for a creative

asset? No, no, no, no. Because a lot of people will figure it out and

be like, this is slop. And then you ruin your reputation.

Amazon's already ruined its reputation, at least in the gaming

area. They tried to quote unquote, compete with Steam and

everybody's like, what? Because

that was never happening. I mean, they were ambitious, I give them that.

But I was like, yeah, that's not happening at all.

So your ambition got the best of you, unfortunately. But here's the thing.

AI is great for specific tasks.

AI is not great for other specific tasks. Use the

tool wisely. I know it is such

a temptation to use it

for everything, but don't do

will ruin you and people will not trust you.

We're already questioning just about every video

now if it's AI or not, because it's getting really good to not tell if

it's real or not. But a lot of times you can still tell. Use it

as a tool, not for a means to an end. But now let's get to

chat moderation because Blizzard is doing it,

Dice is doing it. Apparently I got banned for seven.

For seven days for a minor offense.

But EA and Dice, you should stick to combating cheaters,

not moderating chats if you're gonna make

a competitive game. The whole point of committed game from a guy's

perspective is that rerazing each in each insulting each other.

A because it's competitive and we're getting frustrated that we're losing. B, because

that's what guys do. And the fact is that you, you're

like, nope, guys can't be guys because

heaven forbid, that's a terrible thing for society to have. Or

boys can be boys or guys can be guys. Nope, can't have

that. That's terrible. That's

toxic for whatever. Because feminism.

Because feminism is not toxic at all. No,

we can't do that because words are harm.

Like what? Look it, if you keep

doing this, nobody's going to talk in a competitive

Game, VR games, Conquest games. Communication

is key, but if you don't allow it, then nobody's going to talk. Because no

one wants to get banned. Because it's a very annoying thing to get banned for.

Second of all, I shouldn't be banned for playing Battlefield 1,

Battlefield 5, Battlefield 4. If I got banned on one of them, I shouldn't be

banned on all of them. That's stupid. That's ridiculous.

That is. Once the government opens again, I'm going to the

ftc. I'm filing a complaint on you guys. Second of

all, you should only care if it's an actual threat

to violence. Like I'm gonna come over your house and kill you should never be

okay calling someone a faggot or retard. Really,

it's a word. It's not going to cause harm. I don't

care about your emotional harm. That's if you're an

adult. Deal with it. If you're not an adult. Well, still

deal with it, but figure out how to be an adult. Look, if you're going

to make adult games, you're going to have to deal with adults being

adults. If you can't do that, then stick to Sims

4. But don't tell me that I can't say things that aren't

even remotely harmful and remotely even

further from the truth of being actually

harmful in a way of violence is not

violent. I'm going to now start to find creative ways of saying

the word without saying the word. I think we're going to start using

frack now from Battlestar Galactica.

Call it instead of faggot, call it frack it. F R A

K K I T. Yeah, I'll get around it somehow.

And if you ban me, I'll be like, I didn't use the word. I use

something else. Also, grow. Grow some thick skin. Like,

seriously, I don't understand why

it's harmful harm. Actually, you have to show

the harm. You can't just be it's harmful.

Okay? Like legally, you have to show harm.

I know, I know. Private business, whatever. Actually, eventually, private business.

Technically it's a publicly traded company, but it still applies

because Overwatch was very ban

hammer happy. And people stop actually

communicating on Overwatch too. It will eventually happen with this game.

I mean, this game. A lot of people talk anyways, but it's

going to be more incentive to never say anything.

Why? Because what's. What's the point?

I could somehow upset somebody that they

banned or they report me and then I get banned

for seven days for a Word, which really is

a ridiculous amount of time for a word. So

the end result apparently for gaming is going to be ruined

by creating AI games with AI and then just

basically using AI to chat. Moderate. Because, well,

why not? Let's keep it friendly.

I guess you could still be friends and still say terrible things to each other.

All people do it to each other. If you're best friends and you are

extremely sarcastic with each other, you say the

most crazy crap and it's still fine.

But no, we have to make sure that we mom our chats.

Now don't say that. That's, that's hurtful. No,

I mean don't make a competitive game if you don't want

colorful language to be said.

Now do I agree that everything should be said? No, but you want. We're

adults. It's words, it's not going to harm you. You go

back and forth, you get frustrated, you say some salty

language, you go back and forth. That's, that's how these types of games

are made are done. But you just can't keep on being the same

way and being like, no, you're not allowed to say that

that's harmful and then aren't really show any

harm. Harm actually, actually has to have

some type of way of showing it.

I'm not talking about emotional harm. That's fictitious and made up and you

can lie about that all you want. Talking about actual physical harm,

which should be a legal thing, I know, not really

legally, but I mean they use lawyers to make their own terms of services anyways

that they don't even follow. So my point is, is that chat

moderation from the developer and the developer making games

with AI will ruin a game, will make sure

that no one plays it and we'll make sure no one talks to each other

because I don't want to get banned again. Why take the risk? Might as well

just be silent and let not say

anything. That's the best way of doing it, apparently. I don't know. What do you

think? Do you think I'm crazy about all this stuff or you think of. Right

on. Let me know in the comments below. But once again, thank you for listening

to Digital Coffee. I really do appreciate it and as always

be subscribed, you know all the places and join me next week

as I talk about what's going on in the gaming industry. All right guys, stay

safe. Get to saying those salty languages that you love to say

and screw the developers that want to mom you.

See you next week. Later.