When Youtube Gaming was still young I played Call of Duty with people from a gaming community called Hupit.com, which was founded by a prominent COD youtuber. With Covid I found people through Reddit for Simracing, and we have done tons of races together in the last 3 years.
I’m gonna be honest, I never really understood what it did. The difference between fullscreen and windowed mode is kind of obvious, but borderless? I get what it does, it’s like windowed mode but borderless and it can take the whole screen. But then why not just make it fullscreen? I don’t understand it.
And especially when apparently some games run better with it? Which… I don’t know, I just don’t understand it.
I’m a lefty, but there was no way in hell I was moving the mouse to the other side every time I used the family computer, so I just learned how to use my right hand.
As a kid I had my own PC early and my dad set it up left handed for me. Now I’ve played games left handed in general for 23 years, and shooters in particular for 15 years already, it’s too late to relearn :-)
I feel like Payday 2s sound track is underappreciated in general conversations about game music.
It has gotten a driving beat to it and instills both anxiety and courage. Not to mention how they have a system similar to the L4D2 Director system where the gameplay is perfectly matched and foreshadowed by the music.
Probably difficult for technical reasons, but it would be cool if I could rewind the game arbitrarily in games where you can quicksave/load. Like I can save and try the thing and reload if I don’t like the results, but it’d be neat if I could just rewind.
Rewinding is technically possible, and there are games that incorporate rewinding into the game, like Braid or Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. Probably some newer ones. However, that only works if the game developer conforms to a lot of constraints. I don’t think that it will ever be a standard feature on all video games.
Not all functions are “reversible”; you can’t just run everything “backwards” easily on a general-purpose computer. One specific operation that is famously not-easily-reversible – and that we are so confident that this is not easily reversible that we make a lot of computer security rely on it – is multiplying two prime numbers together. So you’d have to impose dramatic constraints on how games can be written to provide the ability to just say “start running the game in reverse”. (Related trivia: the question of whether the real world can theoretically be run in reverse if you could look perfectly at everything in the universe for just one moment, the arrow of time, is, as I understand it, something of an open question in physics.)
One tactic for “rewinding” is to basically store checkpoints periodically and then retain enough information, like the player’s inputs, such that one can basically “fast forward” from a checkpoint. If you can “fast forward” cheaply enough in terms of CPU time, then rewinding to a checkpoint, and then fast-forwarding to a given point, once for each frame, looks like you’re running in reverse. This is basically how modern movie codecs work today: you have keyframes that are basically a “checkpoint” of a frame that are stored, maybe every few seconds or so. Then you have information necessary to compute the next frame from the existing one. So when you seek backwards in a movie, internally what a movie player is likely doing is seeking backwards to the keyframe prior to the time where you’re trying to seek to, then playing forward. That “seek back to a checkpoint, then play forward” is a lot more technically-easy to do than to require a game to truly be reversible, since in many games, it’s possible to store a fairly-small amount of information to record the game world at that point in time – and “play forward”. But many games also can’t store their entire world in a small amount of space, and for some, it’s hard to perform saves cheaply-enough in terms of CPU time – constantly and frequently-enough, maybe every couple seconds. If you can’t reduce the game state to a very small amount of information, then you are only going to be able to rewind so far. Implementing this is, today a requirement of a number of multiplayer games – nearly all multiplayer game engines basically rely on each computer involved being able to deterministically generate the same world state on each participating computer. One technique to reduce apparent latency to other players is to do client-side prediction, predict what the other user is going to do, like continuing to walk in the same direction that they’re walking, and then render each frame as if they had done that. Sometimes, that prediction is incorrect, and in those cases, they’re going to need to be able to re-generate the world state; what they do is constantly internally checkpoint and then roll world state forward by replaying inputs when they actually learn what that other player was doing. So some games and game engines already basically implement the internal functionality required for this sort of approach, at least over a limited period of time. But it requires the developers to constrain what they do throughout the game to some degree.
Little Big Planet. Every level’s music track brilliantly fit both the aesthetic and tempo. The sequels never cam close to capturing that same magic as the first one.
I just want proper Nvidia Surround/AMD Eyefinity/ultrawide screen resolution options. About 50% of games have them, 50% don’t, and it’s really frustrating to play a game where my playing experience would be so much better if I could use Surround, but the game just has no support for any resolution that isn’t 16:9.
I’ve had a couple of games I’ve encountered that are literally unplayable at 21:9. You’re either stuck with textures stretched to oblivion or it cuts off a significant chunk of the screen. Admittedly this is mostly with older games that predate 21:9 displays but holy crap is it annoying when I can’t play a game because it can’t handle my display and stretches instead of displaying at the configured resolution
I’m more forgiving of that kind of thing with older games that predate ultrawide resolutions, and consider it a pleasant surprise when I find an older game that works fine with it. But since I’m running a Surround setup, I have the ability to just turn off a couple of monitors and run in 16:9 if I have to - which I do for most older games. It really sucks there isn’t a good workaround for you, and others with 21:9 screens.
But it’s bloody annoying when it’s a new game that doesn’t support anything but 16:9, or only supports it badly. The only argument I can see against supporting wider resolutions is that in competitive games, apparently the wider field of view offered by screen resolutions wider than 16:9 offers an unfair competitive advantage to the players that have them. (Like one person having a better CPU or GPU, or more RAM than someone else doesn’t?!) With single player or cooperative games, where there is no competitive element that gives an advantage to whoever has the best hardware, I really can’t see any justification for not supporting non-16:9 resolutions.
bin.pol.social
Ważne