I remember playing a soccer game on the n64 on a friends house. His mom came in and did some Smalltalk. She asked who was winning. We pointed at the guy who was winning. She said: no, the football game.
We were a bit confused until we realised that she thought it's a real game that we were watching on tv. I saw how her mind was blown in real time. On my way home, i thought that it makes sense, because the games these days look so real. In hindsight tho, what the fuck
I’d bet some of this is CRTs and public non-digital television at the time.
While we can look at current N64 graphics and compare it to IRL, we’re like “HUH? Not even close”. But that’s not the comparison that was happening in the 90s.
In the 90s, sports were usually shot on a shitty film camera, then converted into signals that ran at 480p and broadcast across shitty infrastructure. These were then shown on really fuzzy CRTs with awful washed out colors and blown up really large. Not to mention, if you didn’t have cable (which many people didnt), we’re also talking radio transmission and bunny ears which even further shittied the picture. What real sports looked like on TV was also, by today’s standards, total ass.
But now we have digital cameras sending 4k digital signals to high resolution and vivid color TVs. It’s totally different.
Not to mention, the fuzziness of CRTs made N64 era graphics seem better because it would essentially anti alias for you and such and make things look rounder than they actually were, which was one of the hardest things to do in that era.
It’s hard to even relate to this because even if you go find a sports broadcast from the and watch it now, you’re still not experiencing the shitty CRT and it’s pathetic reproduction. You kind of can’t even see how bad this shit was unless you watch like someone’s home camcorder recording a CRT and watch THAT footage.
Does it excuse her? Not entirely. I’m sure if you really looked you could figure it out during closeups of the players and such. But at a passing glance, this is way more understandable if you think about what her reference for what “real sports on TV” looked like.
To be fair, playing that on a CRT at whatever resolution was available at the time (480p or less), you really couldn’t tell those were just triangles. You had to use your imagination to fill in the gaps, which made everything look better.
Endermen are famously inspired by the creepy pasta Slenderman.
Markus Pearson has a lot of problems, but I haven’t seen anything to confirm that Endermen are born from racism. Everything mentioned in the image was just an unfortunate collection of coincidences.
(I’m researching this and found a funny comment about how Notch put Endermen in the game then immediately admitted that they were a horrible idea because their taking blocks disrupted normal gameplay.)
Starfield. People played for 700 hours then wrote a bad review then play for another 300 hours . Bro if you put 1000 hours into a game there was obviously something you liked about it.
Your comment got me curious, so I did some digging. Unfortunately Steam caps out filtering reviews at “above 100”, so I couldn’t find a way to get data on the difference between 100-200 hour players vs 500-1000 hour players for example. But I broke it down by 0-24 hours, 25-49 hours, 50-99 hours, and 100+ hours to see the results.
Unsurprisingly, folks who played it for less than 25 hours liked it the least, with an average of 50% positive reviews. This is also the largest sample size by far, accounting for 51,686 of the roughly 140,000 reviews.
More surprisingly however, the next three data sets (25-49, 50-99, and 100+), order themselves naturally from “most positive sentiment to least”. Essentially, the longer you play it after 25 hours, the more likely you are to rate it negatively.
Breaking it down:
0-24 hours: 50% positive reviews out of 51,686 players.
25-49 hours: 69% positive reviews out of 34.644 players
50-99 hours: 64% positive reviews out of 30,775 players
100+ hours: 61% positive reviews out of 22,800 players.
Oh, and because I just reread your comment, I checked out the 1-10 hour players as well, and your guess there was accurate. 40% positive reviews out of the 27,316 players in that range.
And given that there were more negative reviews in the 0-24 hour range than reviews from people who even played it for more than 100 hours, I would say you were mostly right about the guess that players who played it for a very extensive time and reviewed it negatively were a minority. Even if that minority was made up of about 8,900 reviews, or roughly 6.3%.
While this is far from a “definitive scientific test”, the data on Steam seems to indicate that among people who liked the game enough to put significant time into it, the more they played, the less likely they were to rate it positively.
I upvote things I like, and don’t want to be one of those people who comment “THIS!”, but you did proper research and it didn’t get the acknowledgement it deserved.
It’s a great example. Starfield (like other BGS games) does a lot of things well that few other games do at all. So it’s frustrating when they put out a game that is pretty mediocre outside those few strengths, and also your only real option for scratching those particular itches.
To be fair, starfield could be simply addicting, and addicting doesn’t mean a player can’t find the game underwhelming. I spent a lot of time on cookie clicker and in retrospective it was boring, but I kept playing because the numbers were going up. What saved me was clearing my browser’s cookies (lol) and loosing my progress.
lemmy.world
Najnowsze