استریم

برچسب: are

  • Marvel Rivals’ gooner ahh ads are giving “desperate”

    Marvel Rivals’ gooner ahh ads are giving “desperate”


    psylocke bathing suit

    Image Credit: NetEase

    Image of Olivia Richman

    |

    Published: Aug 7, 2025 03:46 pm

    I’m sometimes embarrassed to admit it, but I scroll TikTok when I’m bored. TikTok is definitely full of cringe challenges, scripted couple content, annoying culture-stealing dances… But I can often tolerate most of it — most of it. There is one thing I can’t stand: Marvel Rivals’ gooner ads.

    Every so often I’ll be mindlessly scrolling past performative men telling women to stop dating, people “surprising” waiters by speaking a different language… All the horrors of quasi-influencers. But then I’ll get a random animated ad featuring a Marvel superhero in a revealing swimsuit, her butt right in my face, and I’ll see it’s from the official Marvel Rivals account.

    Welp, it’s time to stop scrolling.

    Marvel Rivals Has Turned Into a Gooner Game

    I think Marvel Rivals is getting desperate.

    When Marvel Rivals came out last year, everyone immediately retracted their Overwatch 2 comparisons and decided it was the only hero shooter they were gonna play. For a while, it’s all my friends talked about and I even tried the game out myself so I could try to relive the glory days of the original Overwatch.

    But I quickly got bored. The game felt sorta stale and repetitive, with many of the heroes not feeling very impactful and many overlapping abilities. It’s still a pretty good shooter game, don’t get me wrong, but there’s a reason that the player base has started to decline (though not by much).

    Perhaps trying to get ahead of that inevitable drop in players, NetEase Games released revealing skins (for both sexes at least). At first, it was just a few. Just some cheeky one pieces. But as NetEase saw the response from its most thirsty players, it decided to lean into its characters’ assets and raise the skill ceiling for its gooner skins.

    At this point, it’s gone from showing some buns beneath a cape if you stare at a certain angle to full-on bathing suit skins. The Psylocke bathing suit that basically gives her a wedgie in the front and back and the Loki banana hammock that shows all eight of his abs and his bulge… Diabolical.

    But what really makes this worse is NetEase’s treatment of the skins. The ads with Psylocke’s butt right in my face are just crazy work. But it’s not only TikTok that gets this treatment from developers. On Reddit, there’s an image of Invisible Woman’s booty in the Malice skin with the caption: “When your teamwork is so tight, even Invisible Woman shows up.” Really NetEase?

    I’m not offended that the characters are being sexualized really, although that’s clearly never really that great from a predominantly male community. We have Loki so Marvel Rivals really said, “Let’s just equally sexualize all Marvel heroes.” Rocket Raccoon next? But no, the real issue is how desperate NetEase is pushing it.

    It’s just sad to see a game market itself more for its revealing skins rather than its gameplay. If you want to say “the world kept spinning” and “there are bigger problems” I’m not gonna argue. But some of us can care about multiple things just because they’re cringe and show a game’s desperation to be relevant.

    I’m rooting for you, Marvel Rivals, but maybe focus more on your repetitive gameplay issue instead of getting sex-deprived teens to pay money to see animated butt cheeks.

    The Escapist is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – How does a card’s “Impending” ability work while there are still time counters on it?

    magic the gathering – How does a card’s “Impending” ability work while there are still time counters on it?


    A creature cast with the impending cost with time counters on it is just a regular enchantment permanent.

    A spell cannot be on the stack for multiple turns

    In Magic: the Gathering, each turn is divided into a sequence of steps, and each step can only end if the stack is empty. This means that any spell must leave the stack, either by resolving or by being countered, in the same step in which it is cast. So, no spell can ever be on the stack in a turn after the one in which it was cast, and you cannot ever counter a spell that was cast in a previous turn.

    “Not a creature” does not mean “not a permanent”

    The impending ability says that if you pay the impending cost, the object is “not a creature” as long as it has a time counter on it. “Creature” is just a card type, like “artifact” or “enchantment”. If an effect says that something is “not a creature”, that just means that it doesn’t have the creature type, or any associated subtypes, or power and toughness. Nothing else about it changes; if it would otherwise be a permanent, it’s still a permanent, just one that isn’t a creature.

    Impending

    The ability is defined in rule 702.126a:

    702.176a. Impending is a keyword that represents four abilities. The first and second are static abilities that function while the spell with impending is on the stack. The third is a static ability that functions on the battlefield. The fourth is a triggered ability that functions on the battlefield. “Impending N–[cost]” means “You may choose to pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost,” “If you chose to pay this spell’s impending cost, it enters with N time counters on it,” “As long as this permanent’s impending cost was paid and it has a time counter on it, it’s not a creature,” and “At the beginning of your end step, if this permanent’s impending cost was paid and it has a time counter on it, remove a time counter from it.” Casting a spell for its impending cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f-h.

    All of the existing cards with the Impending ability are Enchantment Creature cards, so if one of them is cast by paying its impending cost, it resolves just like any other permanent spell, except that as long as it has a time counter on it, it is just an Enchantment. It can be interacted with just like any other Enchantment. A counterspell targets spells on the stack, and this is a permanent on the battlefield, so they do not interact. Terror targets creatures, and this is not a creature, so they do not interact. Naturalize, for example, targets enchantments, so it could interact with one of these permanents.



    Source link

  • Microtransactions are good for you and don’t you forget it, as publisher tells us they are “fun”

    Microtransactions are good for you and don’t you forget it, as publisher tells us they are “fun”


    How to Find & Recruit All Allies in Assassin's Creed Shadows

    Image Source: Ubisoft via The Escapist

    Image of Paul McNally

    |

    Published: Jul 21, 2025 08:08 am

    Oh Ubisoft, I have been dining out for over a year on quoting that throwaway comment from one of their execs that we need to get used to the idea of not owning our games anymore. Of course, we should merely enjoy them as a contract between equal partners that can be whipped away from one side (us, obviously) at any time (for backstory, check out the Stop Killing Games Movement).

    I was concerned, though, that it might be getting stale, and I was worried I wouldn’t get any new meme-worthy material anytime soon.

    Step forward the most unlikely of sources – the Ubisoft financial report. A PDF destined to be a dry read that nobody cares about, really. That is, until the MP1st website spotted a gem hiding away in all the numbers.

    “Our monetization offer within premium games makes the player experience more fun by allowing them to personalize their avatars or progress more quickly, however, this is always optional.”

    Oh, so it’s for us? Stupid. Of course. I shouldn’t expect an $80 purchase to be fun enough; I should expect to open my wallet further to make it more “fun”. Maybe I can keep the fun going by constantly paying more?

    Do you want to Add Fun to basket?

    Oh, come on. It’s fun to pay to change the clothes on my character. Everybody thinks that.

    I think we would all have more respect for companies and their microtransaction tactics if they just came out and said, “Look, guys, we need to make more money to continue to make you games that you enjoy.”

    I’d be relatively cool with that. Even though I don’t really believe there is a place for paid-for skins and the like in single-player games anyway, I think it’s ridiculous. At least we could stop dressing it up and move forward.

    In a world where loot boxes are definitely not gambling, and don’t for one minute think they are – you can check out the fuss Blizzard has caused with Hearthstone’s gambling mechanics of late – companies continue to extract as much extra cash out of players as they can by upselling this nonsense, mainly to those who can afford it, but sometimes to those that can’t, and that is the concern.

    While it might be true that the majority of microtransactions are all funded by people with more money than sense, I have had to have enough conversations with my kids to suspect that it’s not just mine that are being targeted with this stuff, and find it attractive.

    Mecha Break is another game to fall foul lately of seeing the cash signs ahead of providing a game that could be amazing, and more and more games seem to set out to put things they know players will want behind extra purchases.

    Fun is now a premium service

    The constant drain on funds is going to become an issue as the asks keep getting bigger. It’s not just buying a game and maybe paying for skins for a little more “fun”; it’s that on top of the Netflix subs, the Prime subs, the Spotify subs, etc. Something has to eventually give.

    In the same report, Ubisoft highlights that it believes Star Wars Outlaws failed to meet sales expectations due to a declining interest in the Star Wars franchise.

    I somehow doubt it is anywhere close to being that simple. Maybe we are misunderstanding what the word “fun” actually means.

    The Escapist is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy



    Source link

  • Are tokens copying Essence of the Wild still tokens?


    Some of my friends and I got into an argument about Essence of the Wild.

    With Essence on the battlefield, I played Fungal Sprouting and put 6 1/1 green saproling creature tokens on to battlefield. These saprolings obviously became Essence of the Wild as they entered the battlefield.

    When I played Rootborn Defenses, I tried to copy what I assumed was a creature token version of Essence of the Wild (created as described above). This is where the argument occurred. The claim was that I could NOT populate my Essence of the Wild (one of those created with Fungal Sprouting), as the creatures were no longer considered tokens because the card they copy is not a token.

    Are they still considered tokens and can I populate them?



    Source link

  • What are the odds in Scrabble of not being able to make a legal move on opening turn


    I’ve been playing the game for 50 years and this happened to me recently:

    I had the following rack

    PBQZJDH

    And so I could not play a legal move.

    I’ve been trying to work out the odds of this (no legal word on the first turn) happening.



    Source link

  • What could happen in some cases when activated abilities are countered


    The opponent decides to use the activated ability of Nevinyrral's Disk. When the artifact is tapped to use it, I respond by casting a Stifle, which counters the Disk’s ability, avoiding the total destruction that would result.
    My question, however, is the following:

    • Nevinyrral’s Disk is normally placed in the graveyard after being used;

    • but its activation was countered;

    • therefore, does the Disk remain on the Battlefield, or is it placed in the graveyard from the game in any case,as indicated by the card text, even after its ability was countered ?



    Source link

  • Why are enemy color pairs less "cohesive"?


    It seems to be common knowledge that enemy color pairs in Magic have less synergy than allied pairs. As an example, the highest score question on the site, What are the names for Magic's different colour combinations?, asserts without explanation that allied color pairs have "higher deck cohesion". Then it repeats this claim in explaining why wedges are generally less often seen than shards. But I don’t really understand why. It seems to me that every color pair offers something different, and many enemy color pairs seem very cohesive to me. The current meta in multiple formats seems to support this.

    In standard the most popular deck right now according to MTG Goldfish is Izzet Prowess. And the 2 most popular modern decks are Boros Energy and Izzet Prowess.

    I haven’t played much Canadian Highlander, but watching LRR’s North 100 podcast, it seems Jeskai is the most powerful color combination in that format.

    It doesn’t seem like an outlier when multiple formats of varying power levels are dominated by enemy color pairs and wedges. Izzet Prowess seems like a very synergistic deck built off the payoff for slinging a lot of cheap spells. Boros Energy in Modern seems built off the back of several very powerful cards some of which happen to have Energy. But to me, Red and White offer a lot to each other. Red provides reach in the form of direct damage and card selection with rummage/impulse draw effects, while White is a better at going wide and gives non-damage based removal to deal with high toughness or non-creature threats.

    Perhaps I am somewhat conflating power and cohesion, as my examples rely on high performing decks. And I do want to acknowledge that there is a bit of a bias with my examples, perhaps Boros and especially Izzet are just particularly well suited to each other among enemy pairs. However, other color pairs seem similarly synergistic to me. Simic pairs the card draw of Blue with the ramp of Green for a powerful big mana deck. Orzhov pairs the go wide power of White with the sacrifice theme of Black to be the backbone of many aristocrats builds. Golgari pairs the powerful mill and graveyard effects of Green and Black giving a powerful, recursive engine. All the enemy color pairs have a very solid synergy built in, in my opinion.

    So can someone please explain where this seemingly common conception that allied pairs are more "cohesive" comes from?



    Source link

  • Elden Ring Nightreign’s been out less than a day, and a Souls legend is already showing off a duos mod demo for it, because of course they are

    Elden Ring Nightreign’s been out less than a day, and a Souls legend is already showing off a duos mod demo for it, because of course they are


    Boy, that escalated quickly. Elden Ring Nightreign, as I write this, has been out less than a day. So, of course someone’s already put out a video demonstrating a duos mod for it.

    To be fair, I guess Nightreign’s devs had arguably thrown down the gauntlet to the FromSoft modding community when the game’s director admitted that duos play hadn’t been a big focus in development and would only potentially get some TLC further down the line.

    Anyway, modder Yui – that’s the same person responsible for Elden Ring‘s Seamless Co-op mod and its various siblings for other FromSoft games – is unsurprisingly the person who’s managed to whip this out in uber-quick fashion.

    In the video below spotted by IGN, they demonstrate a mod that’d allow you to hop into a Nightreign session with just two players instead of the usual three or one plucky solo Soulser that’ll have a much easier time once the next patch drops.

    Watch on YouTube

    “As the modification runs without connecting to the matchmaking server, it is possible to use additional mods during gameplay,” Yui explained in the vid’s description, adding that they “Made it for fun.”

    As of right now, they’ve not released this mod to the public meaning you can’t play it. I’d imagine if they do intend to put it out that it’s currently a work-in-progress that’ll need a lot of extra graft to fine-tune the likes of balancing – that being the main thing FromSoft’s had to work on in order to make sure the game works just as well for solo players as it does trios.

    After all, more stabby blokes, more stabs inflicted on bosses, therefore bosses need to be able to take more stabs to not die too easily, and vice versa.

    If you’re going HAM on Nightreign this weekend, make sure to check out our bunch of handy guides to help you get to grips with it, and our ranking of every Nightlord, The latter’s based on key factors like difficulty, spectacle, and how often they brush their teeth.



    Source link

  • How likely are you to lose because Fool’s Landing sinks into the abyss?


    Since I like probability questions, and tttpp brought it up, I figured it might be interesting to calculate how likely you are to lose on the first turn in Forbidden Island, because Fool’s Landing sinks into the abyss. This question is only interested in figuring the odds of losing the game during the first players turn. It would be slightly more difficult to figure the odds of losing during the first round, where each player has taken one turn at most. If this question gets enough attention, I might decide to ask that question and figure out the odds. To figure out the odds of losing, you will need to calculate the following:

    • What are the odds that the first player cannot shore up Fool’s Landing? (depends upon the first player’s character, their starting location, and Fool’s Landing location)
    • What are the odds that no player has received a Sandbag/Helicopter (depends upon number of players)
    • What are the odds that a Waters Rise card is drawn?
    • What are the odds that Fool’s Landing is redrawn after Waters Rise? (difficultly level effects this)

    What are the odds range of losing on the first turn for a 2-4 Player game? Calculate each individual component separately, and then provide a range of maximum/minimum odds of losing on the first turn based upon the individual components above. Assume the following:

    • The all players will attempt to shore up Fool’s Landing. (use Sandbags/Helicopter)
    • The default island map is used.
    • The first player and their character are randomly determined, per the rules.
    • Ignore the odds of losing because a player sinks into the abyss. (optional:)
    • Ignore the odds of losing because both tiles for a particular treasure sink into the abyss. (optional)

    Note: Calculate this if you want, but I am not uninterested in the minimal effect on the result of losing first turn.



    Source link