Red Dead Redemption 2

Anything to do with games at all.
7256930752

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by 7256930752 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:39 pm

Gemini73 wrote:That makes it perfectly acceptable then.

What do you do if given the option people are choosing to work like that for financial gain, reputation, etc?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Moggy » Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:39 pm

Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:Depends on your point of circumstance, some people would love the chance to work more and increase their income.


Yeah, I am sure people are desperate to be able to work for 100 hours a week.

I literally pointed out above that I have worked in that exact scenario. Also see people working in the city or competitive industries in which people wear hours worked as a badge of honour.


Yeah you said other people were working 75 hour weeks. That's not the same as you doing it and it is not the same as a 100 hour week.

And it is disgusting that some work cultures sees that as a "badge of honour" and appalling that wages in some industries are obviously so low that people would welcome the chance of actually earning some decent money.

75 or 100 hours a week is unhealthy.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Moggy » Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:41 pm

Hime wrote:
Gemini73 wrote:That makes it perfectly acceptable then.

What do you do if given the option people are choosing to work like that for financial gain, reputation, etc?


I’d limit them to a maximum amount of time per week and not pay them (either in money or reputation) for anything extra.

75 hours a week is not productive time, you will be paying people who are just there (either for money or for reputation) not people that are actually doing a good job.

User avatar
OrangeRKN
Community Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by OrangeRKN » Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:43 pm

Hime wrote:
OrangeRKN wrote:Various mechanics and interplay between mechanics, like Octoroks cleaning rusted weapons. I think maybe the last thing I stumbled across were the animations for kicking or punching open a chest without armour equipped and Link wincing in pain, which while not a mechanic is pretty fun :lol:

Do you really class that as a reward for exploring? There are lots of games with cool animations and system that reward an eye for detail.


Not so much the animation (that's just the last thing I remember coming across), but with the octoroks there is an area on the volcano set up to encourage discovering that mechanic (a bunch of rusted weapons stick out the ground and an octorok watches over them). So it's an environmental setup designed for the player to discover that mechanic if they go exploring there, which is really neat.

Image
Image
orkn.uk - Top 5 Games of 2023 - SW-6533-2461-3235
7256930752

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by 7256930752 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:19 pm

Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:Depends on your point of circumstance, some people would love the chance to work more and increase their income.


Yeah, I am sure people are desperate to be able to work for 100 hours a week.

I literally pointed out above that I have worked in that exact scenario. Also see people working in the city or competitive industries in which people wear hours worked as a badge of honour.


Yeah you said other people were working 75 hour weeks. That's not the same as you doing it and it is not the same as a 100 hour week.

And it is disgusting that some work cultures sees that as a "badge of honour" and appalling that wages in some industries are obviously so low that people would welcome the chance of actually earning some decent money.

75 or 100 hours a week is unhealthy.

Ok I didn't realise I needed to specifically point out that I had worked like that but well done :lol: . 75 hours for a few years is arguably worse than 100 for a few months but competition on most hours worked.

But the badge of honour is often created by the people working the hours. Also you are massively underestimate greed, lots of people just want more money.

7256930752

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by 7256930752 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:20 pm

Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Gemini73 wrote:That makes it perfectly acceptable then.

What do you do if given the option people are choosing to work like that for financial gain, reputation, etc?


I’d limit them to a maximum amount of time per week and not pay them (either in money or reputation) for anything extra.

75 hours a week is not productive time, you will be paying people who are just there (either for money or for reputation) not people that are actually doing a good job.

What if that is required because of emergency situations or there is literally no choice if you're in a 24 hour industry such as national infrastructure?

7256930752

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by 7256930752 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:22 pm

OrangeRKN wrote:
Hime wrote:
OrangeRKN wrote:Various mechanics and interplay between mechanics, like Octoroks cleaning rusted weapons. I think maybe the last thing I stumbled across were the animations for kicking or punching open a chest without armour equipped and Link wincing in pain, which while not a mechanic is pretty fun :lol:

Do you really class that as a reward for exploring? There are lots of games with cool animations and system that reward an eye for detail.


Not so much the animation (that's just the last thing I remember coming across), but with the octoroks there is an area on the volcano set up to encourage discovering that mechanic (a bunch of rusted weapons stick out the ground and an octorok watches over them). So it's an environmental setup designed for the player to discover that mechanic if they go exploring there, which is really neat.

Don't get me wrong, it's really cool and the the sort of attention to detail that sets Nintendo games appart but that sounds more like a digital safari or something rather than a gameplay reward for exploring.

TL;DR: Where is my loot? :shifty:

User avatar
Manwell Pablo
Member
Joined in 2017

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Manwell Pablo » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:27 pm

Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Gemini73 wrote:That makes it perfectly acceptable then.

What do you do if given the option people are choosing to work like that for financial gain, reputation, etc?


I’d limit them to a maximum amount of time per week and not pay them (either in money or reputation) for anything extra.

75 hours a week is not productive time, you will be paying people who are just there (either for money or for reputation) not people that are actually doing a good job.

What if that is required because of emergency situations or there is literally no choice if you're in a 24 hour industry such as national infrastructure?


Surely this is getting a little besides the point now as the developers at do not fall into that category.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Moggy » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:29 pm

Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:Depends on your point of circumstance, some people would love the chance to work more and increase their income.


Yeah, I am sure people are desperate to be able to work for 100 hours a week.

I literally pointed out above that I have worked in that exact scenario. Also see people working in the city or competitive industries in which people wear hours worked as a badge of honour.


Yeah you said other people were working 75 hour weeks. That's not the same as you doing it and it is not the same as a 100 hour week.

And it is disgusting that some work cultures sees that as a "badge of honour" and appalling that wages in some industries are obviously so low that people would welcome the chance of actually earning some decent money.

75 or 100 hours a week is unhealthy.

Ok I didn't realise I needed to specifically point out that I had worked like that but well done :lol: . 75 hours for a few years is arguably worse than 100 for a few months but competition on most hours worked.

But the badge of honour is often created by the people working the hours. Also you are massively underestimate greed, lots of people just want more money.


You said that you had literally worked in that exact scenario but your post said other people did. Maybe they were happy to, maybe they felt they had no choice.

It’s disgusting either way and is not a way of getting good results.

What if that is required because of emergency situations or there is literally no choice if you're in a 24 hour industry such as national infrastructure?


An emergency situation (natural disaster or war) is always going to be an exception.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people to cope, without having to rely on people working 75 to 100 hours a week.

I don’t want to go for an operation with a surgeon who’s just finishing his 90 hour week.

User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009
Location: SES Herald of Vigilance

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Preezy » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:31 pm

This thread has been derailed worse than the Union Pacific Big Springs train robbery of 1877.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Moggy » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:32 pm

Preezy wrote:This thread has been derailed worse than the Union Pacific Big Springs train robbery of 1877.


That’s Rockstar’s fault for being capitalist bastards.

7256930752

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by 7256930752 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:35 pm

Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:Depends on your point of circumstance, some people would love the chance to work more and increase their income.


Yeah, I am sure people are desperate to be able to work for 100 hours a week.

I literally pointed out above that I have worked in that exact scenario. Also see people working in the city or competitive industries in which people wear hours worked as a badge of honour.


Yeah you said other people were working 75 hour weeks. That's not the same as you doing it and it is not the same as a 100 hour week.

And it is disgusting that some work cultures sees that as a "badge of honour" and appalling that wages in some industries are obviously so low that people would welcome the chance of actually earning some decent money.

75 or 100 hours a week is unhealthy.

Ok I didn't realise I needed to specifically point out that I had worked like that but well done :lol: . 75 hours for a few years is arguably worse than 100 for a few months but competition on most hours worked.

But the badge of honour is often created by the people working the hours. Also you are massively underestimate greed, lots of people just want more money.


You said that you had literally worked in that exact scenario but your post said other people did. Maybe they were happy to, maybe they felt they had no choice.

It’s disgusting either way and is not a way of getting good results.

What if that is required because of emergency situations or there is literally no choice if you're in a 24 hour industry such as national infrastructure?


An emergency situation (natural disaster or war) is always going to be an exception.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people to cope, without having to rely on people working 75 to 100 hours a week.

I don’t want to go for an operation with a surgeon who’s just finishing his 90 hour week.

I'm sorry this wasn't made clear, I didn't think it would need clarification. I'm still not sure why it's disgusting if it's a choice, the potential to substantially increase your income is a nice option to have.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people but there are numerous scenarios that leave you short staffed. It's going off the point of Rockstar but the fundamental point was you have no idea how the staff feel.about working additional hours.

User avatar
OrangeRKN
Community Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by OrangeRKN » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:36 pm

Hime wrote:TL;DR: Where is my loot? :shifty:


Well my other example would be the motorbike, that's some pretty sweet loot for completing the game :P

Image
Image
orkn.uk - Top 5 Games of 2023 - SW-6533-2461-3235
User avatar
Manwell Pablo
Member
Joined in 2017

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Manwell Pablo » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:43 pm

Interesting debate really, even more fascinating some people are actually considering not buying a product because a few game developers have worked 100 hours a week for a few weeks (which may have been of their own accord anyway) I would heavily imagine many have bought products from company's that behave far less ethically towards their employees than that in the recent past, especially those that operate in developing countries to save costs.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Moggy » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:44 pm

Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:Depends on your point of circumstance, some people would love the chance to work more and increase their income.


Yeah, I am sure people are desperate to be able to work for 100 hours a week.

I literally pointed out above that I have worked in that exact scenario. Also see people working in the city or competitive industries in which people wear hours worked as a badge of honour.


Yeah you said other people were working 75 hour weeks. That's not the same as you doing it and it is not the same as a 100 hour week.

And it is disgusting that some work cultures sees that as a "badge of honour" and appalling that wages in some industries are obviously so low that people would welcome the chance of actually earning some decent money.

75 or 100 hours a week is unhealthy.

Ok I didn't realise I needed to specifically point out that I had worked like that but well done :lol: . 75 hours for a few years is arguably worse than 100 for a few months but competition on most hours worked.

But the badge of honour is often created by the people working the hours. Also you are massively underestimate greed, lots of people just want more money.


You said that you had literally worked in that exact scenario but your post said other people did. Maybe they were happy to, maybe they felt they had no choice.

It’s disgusting either way and is not a way of getting good results.

What if that is required because of emergency situations or there is literally no choice if you're in a 24 hour industry such as national infrastructure?


An emergency situation (natural disaster or war) is always going to be an exception.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people to cope, without having to rely on people working 75 to 100 hours a week.

I don’t want to go for an operation with a surgeon who’s just finishing his 90 hour week.

I'm sorry this wasn't made clear, I didn't think it would need clarification. I'm still not sure why it's disgusting if it's a choice, the potential to substantially increase your income is a nice option to have.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people but there are numerous scenarios that leave you short staffed. It's going off the point of Rockstar but the fundamental point was you have no idea how the staff feel.about working additional hours.


It’s rarely a choice. People are either forced or pressured to feel that they have to do it, or they are low paid and have to do it to make ends meet.

Even the few people that want to do it shouldn’t be allowed to as it’s never going to lead to decent work being produced and is massively unhealthy.

I can’t think of any scenarios (outside of war/natural disasters) that would leave you so short staffed that people have to work 75-100 hours a week. Other than scenarios that involve short sighted or greedy management.

7256930752

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by 7256930752 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:04 pm

Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:Depends on your point of circumstance, some people would love the chance to work more and increase their income.


Yeah, I am sure people are desperate to be able to work for 100 hours a week.

I literally pointed out above that I have worked in that exact scenario. Also see people working in the city or competitive industries in which people wear hours worked as a badge of honour.


Yeah you said other people were working 75 hour weeks. That's not the same as you doing it and it is not the same as a 100 hour week.

And it is disgusting that some work cultures sees that as a "badge of honour" and appalling that wages in some industries are obviously so low that people would welcome the chance of actually earning some decent money.

75 or 100 hours a week is unhealthy.

Ok I didn't realise I needed to specifically point out that I had worked like that but well done :lol: . 75 hours for a few years is arguably worse than 100 for a few months but competition on most hours worked.

But the badge of honour is often created by the people working the hours. Also you are massively underestimate greed, lots of people just want more money.


You said that you had literally worked in that exact scenario but your post said other people did. Maybe they were happy to, maybe they felt they had no choice.

It’s disgusting either way and is not a way of getting good results.

What if that is required because of emergency situations or there is literally no choice if you're in a 24 hour industry such as national infrastructure?


An emergency situation (natural disaster or war) is always going to be an exception.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people to cope, without having to rely on people working 75 to 100 hours a week.

I don’t want to go for an operation with a surgeon who’s just finishing his 90 hour week.

I'm sorry this wasn't made clear, I didn't think it would need clarification. I'm still not sure why it's disgusting if it's a choice, the potential to substantially increase your income is a nice option to have.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people but there are numerous scenarios that leave you short staffed. It's going off the point of Rockstar but the fundamental point was you have no idea how the staff feel.about working additional hours.


It’s rarely a choice. People are either forced or pressured to feel that they have to do it, or they are low paid and have to do it to make ends meet.

Even the few people that want to do it shouldn’t be allowed to as it’s never going to lead to decent work being produced and is massively unhealthy.

I can’t think of any scenarios (outside of war/natural disasters) that would leave you so short staffed that people have to work 75-100 hours a week. Other than scenarios that involve short sighted or greedy management.

Sorry but this is complete speculation and pretty naive. Some people have to work all hours to make ends meet but that doesn't mean they're poor but they need the income to match their lifestyle. The idea that the only people that work really long hours do so to earn enough to go home and eat gruel while funding their managers caviar and lobster is not true.

Suggesting their output will be poor is again, naive and baseless as it's completely dependent on the type of work you do.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Moggy » Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:07 pm

Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:Depends on your point of circumstance, some people would love the chance to work more and increase their income.


Yeah, I am sure people are desperate to be able to work for 100 hours a week.

I literally pointed out above that I have worked in that exact scenario. Also see people working in the city or competitive industries in which people wear hours worked as a badge of honour.


Yeah you said other people were working 75 hour weeks. That's not the same as you doing it and it is not the same as a 100 hour week.

And it is disgusting that some work cultures sees that as a "badge of honour" and appalling that wages in some industries are obviously so low that people would welcome the chance of actually earning some decent money.

75 or 100 hours a week is unhealthy.

Ok I didn't realise I needed to specifically point out that I had worked like that but well done :lol: . 75 hours for a few years is arguably worse than 100 for a few months but competition on most hours worked.

But the badge of honour is often created by the people working the hours. Also you are massively underestimate greed, lots of people just want more money.


You said that you had literally worked in that exact scenario but your post said other people did. Maybe they were happy to, maybe they felt they had no choice.

It’s disgusting either way and is not a way of getting good results.

What if that is required because of emergency situations or there is literally no choice if you're in a 24 hour industry such as national infrastructure?


An emergency situation (natural disaster or war) is always going to be an exception.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people to cope, without having to rely on people working 75 to 100 hours a week.

I don’t want to go for an operation with a surgeon who’s just finishing his 90 hour week.

I'm sorry this wasn't made clear, I didn't think it would need clarification. I'm still not sure why it's disgusting if it's a choice, the potential to substantially increase your income is a nice option to have.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people but there are numerous scenarios that leave you short staffed. It's going off the point of Rockstar but the fundamental point was you have no idea how the staff feel.about working additional hours.


It’s rarely a choice. People are either forced or pressured to feel that they have to do it, or they are low paid and have to do it to make ends meet.

Even the few people that want to do it shouldn’t be allowed to as it’s never going to lead to decent work being produced and is massively unhealthy.

I can’t think of any scenarios (outside of war/natural disasters) that would leave you so short staffed that people have to work 75-100 hours a week. Other than scenarios that involve short sighted or greedy management.

Sorry but this is complete speculation and pretty naive. Some people have to work all hours to make ends meet but that doesn't mean they're poor but they need the income to match their lifestyle. The idea that the only people that work really long hours do so to earn enough to go home and eat gruel while funding their managers caviar and lobster is not true.

Suggesting their output will be poor is again, naive and baseless as it's completely dependent on the type of work you do.


It’s naive to think working 100 hours a week might be a little too much? :lol: :lol: :lol:

We aren’t going to get anywhere with this so I’m going to stop derailing the thread.

7256930752

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by 7256930752 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:21 pm

Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Hime wrote:Depends on your point of circumstance, some people would love the chance to work more and increase their income.


Yeah, I am sure people are desperate to be able to work for 100 hours a week.

I literally pointed out above that I have worked in that exact scenario. Also see people working in the city or competitive industries in which people wear hours worked as a badge of honour.


Yeah you said other people were working 75 hour weeks. That's not the same as you doing it and it is not the same as a 100 hour week.

And it is disgusting that some work cultures sees that as a "badge of honour" and appalling that wages in some industries are obviously so low that people would welcome the chance of actually earning some decent money.

75 or 100 hours a week is unhealthy.

Ok I didn't realise I needed to specifically point out that I had worked like that but well done :lol: . 75 hours for a few years is arguably worse than 100 for a few months but competition on most hours worked.

But the badge of honour is often created by the people working the hours. Also you are massively underestimate greed, lots of people just want more money.


You said that you had literally worked in that exact scenario but your post said other people did. Maybe they were happy to, maybe they felt they had no choice.

It’s disgusting either way and is not a way of getting good results.

What if that is required because of emergency situations or there is literally no choice if you're in a 24 hour industry such as national infrastructure?


An emergency situation (natural disaster or war) is always going to be an exception.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people to cope, without having to rely on people working 75 to 100 hours a week.

I don’t want to go for an operation with a surgeon who’s just finishing his 90 hour week.

I'm sorry this wasn't made clear, I didn't think it would need clarification. I'm still not sure why it's disgusting if it's a choice, the potential to substantially increase your income is a nice option to have.

A 24 hour industry should employ enough people but there are numerous scenarios that leave you short staffed. It's going off the point of Rockstar but the fundamental point was you have no idea how the staff feel.about working additional hours.


It’s rarely a choice. People are either forced or pressured to feel that they have to do it, or they are low paid and have to do it to make ends meet.

Even the few people that want to do it shouldn’t be allowed to as it’s never going to lead to decent work being produced and is massively unhealthy.

I can’t think of any scenarios (outside of war/natural disasters) that would leave you so short staffed that people have to work 75-100 hours a week. Other than scenarios that involve short sighted or greedy management.

Sorry but this is complete speculation and pretty naive. Some people have to work all hours to make ends meet but that doesn't mean they're poor but they need the income to match their lifestyle. The idea that the only people that work really long hours do so to earn enough to go home and eat gruel while funding their managers caviar and lobster is not true.

Suggesting their output will be poor is again, naive and baseless as it's completely dependent on the type of work you do.


It’s naive to think working 100 hours a week might be a little too much? :lol: :lol: :lol:

We aren’t going to get anywhere with this so I’m going to stop derailing the thread.

No it's native to say what you did about people working 100 hours, as I clearly explained.

No problem.

User avatar
Tafdolphin
RETURN POLICY ABUSER
RETURN POLICY ABUSER
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by Tafdolphin » Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:25 pm

If someone is working 100 hour weeks they are either:

1) being cowed into doing this by poor management or industry expectation.
2) a workaholic, and will eventually work themselves to death.

Either separately or as a combination of the two and every permutation is bad. Really bad.

---------------------------
Games wot I worked on:
Night Call: Out now!
Rip Them Off: Out now!
Chinatown Detective Agency: 2021!
EXOGATE Initiative: Early Access Summer 2021
t: @Tafdolphin | Twitch: Tafdolphin
7256930752

PostRe: Red Dead Redemption 2 - PS4, XB - 26/10
by 7256930752 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:31 pm

Tafdolphin wrote:If someone is working 100 hour weeks they are either:

1) being cowed into doing this by poor management or industry expectation.
2) a workaholic, and will eventually work themselves to death.

Either separately or as a combination of the two and every permutation is bad. Really bad.

What if it is was a short term, volountary situation that resulted in personal gain that you deemed worthwhile for said hardship?


Return to “Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PuppetBoy and 181 guests