Oh, man… sorry it’s coming off like that. Since it’s called the Humorless Toaster, the main inspiration is Ron Swanson. At least that’s what I was going for…
Agreed, wider and thicker with maybe a wavy/ ridge texture on the bottom half of the mustache and slight rounding/flaring on the sides that narrows to the top.
Have you tried a design where it has a mustache for a mouth? As another lemming described, wider and wavy at the bottom. And then it can move up and down when it talks?
Hitler’s mustache was initially longer, however there was a decision to trim it. There are various theories as to why it was trimmed and shaped into the toothbrush as we recognise it for today.
So many retro games are replayable and fun to this day, but I struggle to return to games whose art style relied on being “cutting edge realistic” 20 years ago.
Really? Cause I don't know, I can play Shadow of the Colossus, Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Solid 3, Ninja Gaiden Black, God of War, Burnout Revenge and GTA San Andreas just fine.
And yes, those are all 20 years ago. You are now dead and I made it happen.
As a side note, man, 2005 was a YEAR in gaming. That list gives 1998 a run for its money.
Absolutely they went for realism. That was the absolute peak of graphics tech in 2004, are you kidding me? I gawked at the fur in Shadow of the Colossus, GTA was insane for detail and size for an open world at the time. Resi 4 was one of the best looking games that gen and when the 360 came out later that year it absolutely was the "last gen still looked good" game people pointed at.
I only went for that year because I wanted the round number, but before that Silent Hill 2 came out in 2001 and that was such a ridiculous step up in lighting tech I didn't believe it was real time when the first screenshots came out. It still looks great, it still plays... well, like Silent Hill, and it's still a fantastic game I can get back into, even with the modern remake in place.
This isn't a zero sum game. You don't trade gameplay or artistry for rendering features or photorealism. Those happen in parallel.
They clearly balanced the more detailed art design with the game play.
GTA didn’t have detail on cars to the level of a racing game, and didn’t have characters with as much detail as Resident Evil, so that it could have a larger world for example. Colossus had fewer objects on screen so it could put more detail on what was there.
Nothing was going harder for visuals, so by default that's what was happening. They were pushing visuals as hard as they would go with the tech that they had.
The big change isn't that they balanced visuals and gameplay. If anything the big change is that visuals were capped by performance rather than budget (well, short of offline CG cutscenes and VO, I suppose).
If anything they were pushing visuals harder than now. There is no way you'd see a pixel art deck building game on GOTY lists in 2005, it was all AAA as far as the eye could see. We pay less attention to technological escalation now, by some margin.
Except for the ones that don’t do a good job of balancing the two things. Like the games that have incredible detail but shit performance and/or awful gameplay.
Well, yeah, but again, that's not new, and it's something every game has to do, better or worse.
I'm aging myself here, but if you must know, the time that stands out most to me in the "graphics over gameplay" debate is actually... 8 bit micros, weirdly.
There was a time where people mostly just looked at how much of a screen a character filled, or whether the backgrounds scrolled and just bought that, while a subset of the userbase and press was pleading to them to pay at least some consideration to whether the game... you know, could be played at all.
I would say GoW and SotC at least take realism as inspiration, but aren’t realistic. They’re like an idealized version of realism. They’re detailed, but they’re absolutely stylized. SotC landscapes, for example, look more like paintings you’d see rather than places you’d see in real life.
Realism is a bad goal because you end up making every game look the same. Taking our world as inspiration is fine, but it should almost always be expanded on. Know what your game is and make the art style enhance it. Don’t just replicate realism because that’s “what you’re supposed to do.”
Look, don't take it personally, but I disagree as hard as humanly possible.
Claiming that realism "makes every game look the same" is a shocking statement, and I don't think you mean it like it sounds. That's like saying that every movie looks the same because they all use photographing people as a core technique.
If anything, I don't know what "realism" is supposed to mean. What is more realistic? Yakuza because it does these harsh, photo-based textures meant to highlight all the pores or, say, a Pixar movie where everything is built on this insanely accurate light transfer, path traced simulation?
At any rate, the idea that taking photorealism as a target means you give up on aesthetics or artistic intent is baffling. That's not even a little bit how it works.
On the other point, I think you're blending technical limitations with intent in ways that are a bit fallacious. SotC is stylized, for sure, in that... well, there are kaijus running around and you sometimes get teleported by black tendrils back to your sleeping beauty girlfirend.
But is it aiming at photorealism? Hell yeah. That approach to faking dynamic range, the deliberate crushing of exteriors from interiors, the way the sky gets treated, the outright visible air adding spacing and scale when you look at the colossi from a distance, the desaturated take on natural spaces... That game is meant to look like it was shot by a camera all the way. They worked SO hard to make a PS2 look like it has aperture and grain and a piece of celluloid capturing light. Harder than the newer remake, arguably.
Some of that applies to GoW, too, except they are trying to make things look like Jason and the Argonauts more than Saving Private Ryan. But still, the references are filmic.
I guess we're back to the problem of establishing what people mean by "realism" and how it makes no sense. In what world does Cyberpunk look similar to Indiana Jones or Wukong? It just has no real meaning as a statement.
If anything, I don’t know what “realism” is supposed to mean. What is more realistic? Yakuza because it does these harsh, photo-based textures meant to highlight all the pores or, say, a Pixar movie where everything is built on this insanely accurate light transfer, path traced simulation?
The former is more realistic, but not for that reason. The lighting techniques are techniques, not a style. Realism is trying to recreate the look of the real world. Pixar is not doing that. They’re using advanced lighting techniques to enhance their stylized worlds.
Some of that applies to GoW, too, except they are trying to make things look like Jason and the Argonauts more than Saving Private Ryan. But still, the references are filmic.
Being inspired by film is not the same as trying to replicate the real world. (I’d argue it’s antithetical to it to an extent.) Usually film is trying to be more than realistic. Sure, it’s taking images from the real world, but they use lighting, perspective, and all kinds of other tools to enhance the film. They don’t just put some actors in place in the real environment and film it without thought. There’s intent behind everything shown.
I guess we’re back to the problem of establishing what people mean by “realism” and how it makes no sense. In what world does Cyberpunk look similar to Indiana Jones or Wukong? It just has no real meaning as a statement.
Cyberpunk looks more like Indiana Jones than Persona 5. Sure, they stand out from each other, but it’s mostly due to environments.
I think there’s plenty of games that benefit from realism, but not all of them do. There are many games that could do better with stylized graphics instead. For example, Cyberpunk is represented incredibly well in both the game and the anime. They both have different things they do better, and the anime’s style is an advantage for the show at least. The graphics style should be chosen to enhance the game. It shouldn’t just be realistic because it can be. If realism is the goal, fine. If it’s supposed to be more (or different) than realism, maybe try a different style that improves the game.
Realism is incredibly hard to create assets for, so it costs more money, and usually takes more system resources. For the games that are improved by it, that’s fine. There’s a lot of games that could be made on a smaller budget, faster, run better, and look more visually interesting if they chose a different style though. I think it should be a consideration that developers are allowed to make, but most are just told to do realism because it’s the “premium” style. They aren’t allowed to do things that are better suited for their game. I think this is bad, and also leads to a lack in diversity of styles.
I don't understand what you're saying. Or, I do, but if I do, then you don't.
I think you're mixing up technique with style, in fact. And really confusing a rendering technique with an aesthetic. But beyond that, you're ignoring so many games. So many. Just last year, how do you look at Balatro and Penny's Big Breakaway and Indiana Jones and go "ah, yes, games all look the same now". The list of GOTY nominees in the TGAs was Astro Bot, Balatro, Wukong, Metaphor, Elden Ring and Final Fantasy VII R. How do you look at that list of games and go "ah, yes, same old, same old".
Whenever I see takes like these I can't help but think that people who like to talk about games don't play enough games, or just think of a handful of high profile releases as all of gaming. Because man, there's so much stuff and it goes from grungy, chunky pixel art to lofi PS1-era jank to pitch-perfect anime cel shading to naturalistic light simulation. If you're out there thinking games look samey you have more of a need to switch genres than devs to switch approach, I think.
By “all games look the same” I’m being hyperbolic. I mean nearly all AAA games and the majority of AA games (and not an insignificant number of indies even).
Whenever I see takes like these I can’t help but think that people who like to talk about games don’t play enough games, or just think of a handful of high profile releases as all of gaming.
Lol. No. Again, I was being hyperbolic and talking mostly about the AAA and AA space. I personally almost exclusively play indies who know what they’re trying to make and use a style appropriate to it. I play probably too many games. I also occasionally make games myself, I was the officer in a game development club in college, and I have friends in the industry. I’m not just some person who doesn’t understand video games.
Well, then don't be hyperbolic, let's see where that takes us.
That video is still nonsensical, just eloquently nonsensical. Makes me think he hasn't been to Bilbao, for one thing, but talking about games, not architecture, he caveats the crap out of a tautology just to end up in a tautology: AAA games look like this because a AAA game is a game that looks like this, whatever "like this" means.
For one thing, man, do I wish Detroit had never existed. It's amazing that for a while there we had this little cottage industry of doomsters that used Detroit to show how bad anything ranging from David Cage's games to Sony to graphics, apparently turn out to be. To such a degree that I have very rarely seen a defense of Detroit, I've never played Detroit, the game seems to not have done that well and Cage has never published another game. It's a consensus entirely predicated on opposing a fanbase of defenders that seemingly never existed.
All the while this guy argues that AAA games have a look (then caveats that some don't) while showing clips from, if you're keeping track, a game about robot dinosaurs set in a lush jungle full of red plants (which is shocking imagery pulling inspiration from super nerdy, niche illustration work), a bleak but beautiful zombie apocalypse made out of grungy rural clothing, a superhero game and a gorgeousely unique take on norse mythology. None of those games look alike in any way that makes sense. Not more than Spider-Man 2, Transformers, A Quiet Place and The Northman look alike. Photographing people as a technique is not an aesthetic, and it certainly isn't an aesthetic limitation. That's like saying that only animation is creative while photography isn't. It's such a disservice to creativity.
But even from a 2020 video, things have moved in the direction he wants, if only because the games industry is unraveling, I suppose. If you peek at game awards in the interim, the games that got most attention in those five years include The Last of Us II, but also Hades, Elden Ring, Balatro, Astro Bot, Animal Crossing, It Takes Two, Baldur's Gate III, Alan Wake 2 and Tears of the Kingdom. In the recent batch of first party events there was a genuine splash of discourse about which rendition of fake stop motion looked better between the Louisiana fantasy Wizard of Oz reimagining and the creepy claymation... horror FPS thing? What are we talking about again?
Let me drop the pretense for a moment and make a case for what I think we're talking about: this narrative is part of the problem, if there is a problem. These contrarian takes are being tautological for the sake of affecting elevated taste and elitist insight others lack. The truth is games look all sorts of ways and explore wildly different art styles, scopes and concepts. But the discourse is antagonistic and narrow. People latch on to games not to praise them and explore them but to complain and wear them down, and so gaming gets reduced to whatever we don't like, with whatever we do like being passed as a secret hidden gem or an outlier even when it's wildly popular. It's why there's more discourse about Concord, which is a game that looked bad, wasn't great and nobody played, than about Marvel Rivals, which is a game that is just as expensive but looks bright and colorful and cartoony and is extremely popular. In the games industry people sometimes refer to that look as a "mainstream look", because so many popular games look like that. It's the look of Fortnite and The Sims and World of Warcraft and Team Fortress, and it's gradually going more anime as mainstream games pivot to Asia, becoming the look of Genshin Impact, and Zenless Zone Zero and Marvel Rivals.
This is a talking point people like to drop to feel fancy and elevated that implies that we're somehow still living in an industry circa 2008 when home console single player action adventure games dominated the sales charts and smaller games were a dying breed barely kept alive by a group of plucky indies. For better and worse, we haven't lived in that world for a while. If anything, I miss the mid 2000s AAA approach to gaming. Nobody is doing it outside of Sony and a couple weirdos like Sam Lake, and it was a comforting, creative, interesting approach that has unfortunately run out of runway while presumptuous commentators keep beating a dead horse because either they didn't get the memo or because it's perhaps too depressing to look at the real state of the industry.
Did I drop the Socratic pretense too hard? Got too real? We can go back to pretending we don't know what we're talking about if that makes everybody feel better.
Well, then don’t be hyperbolic, let’s see where that takes us.
Dude, we aren’t in a court room. Informal language is the expectation in a casual online forum. Get out of here.
… but talking about games, not architecture…
Are you going to come here and imply there’s no similarities between different forms of art? Should I not have used painting as an example earlier because we must only discuss video games?
I never played that game, but it’s amazing that for a while there we had this little cottage industry of doomsters that used Detroit to show how bad anything ranging from David Cage’s games to Sony to graphics, apparently turn out to be. To such a degree that I have very rarely seen a defense of Detroit, I’ve never played Detroit, the game seems to not have done that well and Cage has never published another game. It’s a consensus entirely predicated on opposing a fanbase of defenders that seemingly never existed.
I haven’t either, but that was a tiny part of the video and doesn’t matter. However, I want to point out that you haven’t played it so have no basis to judge. Then you claim the dissent must only be to fight the defenders and not just because it was a bad game? How to you make that judgment. You’re speaking out of your ass just because you want to say something, but you don’t have anything meaningful to say about it.
All the while this guy argues that AAA games have a look (then caveats that some don’t) while showing clips from, if you’re keeping track, a game about robot dinosaurs set in a lush jungle full of red plants (which is shocking imagery pulling inspiration from super nerdy, niche illustration work), a bleak but beautiful zombie apocalypse made out of grungy rural clothing, a superhero game and a gorgeousely unique take on norse mythology.
Setting and style are two different things. They all have the same style, though different settings. Compare Monet to Van Gogh to Corbet. Even when they’re painting similar settings their styles are wildly different. If you take the style of Horizon and plug it into the Indiana Jones game it’d look almost identical.
I don’t think you’re understanding this distinction. You’re constantly on the offense saying I’m the one who doesn’t understand, but it’s you who isn’t getting it. Look at the game Sable as an example. They could have rendered it realistically, but the style they chose turns it into something totally unique while also supporting the game and improving usage of development resources. The style is not realistic, even if the setting could be. These are very different things, and I’m speaking about style and have been the entire time.
Those quotes are all asides or insubstantial to the point being made. I have nothing to add beyond pointing you back to my previous post. Except perhaps that the points about Detroit and architecture are both directly responding to statements on the video you linked (he mentions Detroit defenders and gets super stuck on using the Bilbao Guggenheim as a proxy for samey architecture as a proxy for game visuals).
Oh, and that I'm not confusing setting and style, I'm saying that you can take the idea of leaning towards a photoreal treatment of light transfer to go along with leaning into performance capture and still have style around that choice. The statement that the retrofuturistic aesthetic of Horizon is somehow "almost identical" to the 80s movie homage of Indiana Jones is baffling. I will keep repeating this until it lands: nobody would argue that Raiders of the Lost Ark looks "almost identical" to... I don't even know anything that looks like Horizon... let's go Conan the Barbarian just because they both point cameras at people. Technique does not dictate style (or what in movies you'd call production design). That is a purely videogame-y hangup from the historical misunderstanding that technology is the main driver for aesthetics. If that ever made sense, it certainly stopped fifteen years ago.
I suppose that's at the core of the meme in the OP. Growing up in an era where going from beautiful pixel art to ugly lo-fi 3D was seen as the natural evolution of game aesthetics and never having figured out to distinguish the tech from the art as separate concepts.
I just finished STALKER 2. It’s a fucking mess and was unplayably broken for half a month at one point for me, and I fucking love it. It took me 80 hours of mostly focusing on advancing the story to reach the end, and I feel like I only saw maybe 30% of what’s out there. I can already tell that this is going to be my new Skyrim, tooling around with 500 hours in the game and still finding new situations. I’m SO FUCKING PUMPED for anomaly 2-- a lot of the same modders that worked on anomaly are already putting out modpacks for Stalker 2.
Like cgi and other visual effects, realism has some applications that can massively improve the experience in some games. Just like how lighting has a massive impact, or sound design, etc.
Chasing it at the expense of game play or art design is a negative though.
It’s the right choice for some games and not for others. Just like cinematography, there’s different styles and creators need to pick which works best for what they’re trying to convey. Would HZD look better styled like Hi-Fi Rush? I don’t really think so. GOW? That one I could definitely see working more stylized.
Idk, I’d say that pursuing realism is worthy, but you get diminishing returns pretty quick when all the advances are strictly in one (or I guess two, with audio) sense. Graphical improvements massively improved the experience of the game moving from NES or Gameboy to SNES and again to PS1 and N64. I’d say that the most impressive leap, imo, was PS1/N64 to PS2/XBox/GameCube. After that, I’d say we got 3/4 of the return from improvements to the PS3 generation, 1/2 the improvement to PS4 gen, 1/5 the improvement to PS5, and 1/8 the improvement when we move on to PS5 Pro. I’d guess if you plotted out the value add, with the perceived value on the Y and the time series or compute ability or texture density or whatever on the x, it’d probably look a bit like a square root curve.
I do think that there’s an (understandably, don’t get me wrong) untapped frontier in gaming realism in that games don’t really engage your sense of touch or any of the subsets thereof. The first step in this direction is probably vibrating controllers, and I find that it definitely does make the game feel more immersive. Likewise, few games engage your proprioception (that is, your knowledge of your body position in space), though there’ve been attempts to engage it via the Switch, Wii, and VR. There’s, of course, enormous technical barriers, but I think there’s very clearly a good reason why a brain interface is sort of thought of as the holy grail of gaming.
Having a direct brain interface game, that’s realistic enough to overcome the Uncanny Valley, would destroy peoples lives. People would, inevitably, prefer their virtual environment to the real one. They’d end up wasting away, plugged into some machine. It would lend serious credence to the idea of a simulated universe, and reduce the human experience by replacing it with an improved one. Shit, give me a universe wherein I can double-jump, fly, or communicate with animals, and I’d have a hard time returning to this version.
We could probably get close with a haptic feedback suit, a mechanism that allows you to run/jump in any direction, and a VR headset, but there would always be something tethering you to reality. But a direct brain to machine interaction would have none of that, it would essentially be hijacking our own electrical neural network to run simulations. Much like Humans trying to play Doom on literally everything. It would be as amazing as it was destructive, finally realizing the warnings from so many parents before its time: “that thing’ll fry your brain.”
Tbf, it’s kinda bullshit that we can’t double jump IRL. Double jumping just feels right, like it’s something we should be able to do.
Yeah, no, it’d likely be really awful for us. I mean, can you imagine what porn would be like on that? That’s a fermi paradox solution right there. I could see the tech having a lot of really great applications, too, like training simulations for example, but the video game use case is simultaneously exhilarating and terrifying.
People would, inevitably, prefer their virtual environment to the real one. They’d end up wasting away, plugged into some machine. It would lend serious credence to the idea of a simulated universe, and reduce the human experience by replacing it with an improved one.
I agree generally, but I have to offer a counterpoint with Kingdom Come: Deliverance. I only just got back into it after bouncing off in 2019, and I wish I hadn’t stopped playing. I have a decent-ish PC and it still blows my entire mind when I go roaming around the countryside.
Like Picard said above, in due time this too will look aged, but even 7 years on, it looks and plays incredible even at less-than-highest settings. IMHO the most visually impressive game ever created (disclaimer: I haven’t seen or played Horizon). Can’t wait to play KC:D 2!
Couldn’t disagree more. Immersion comes from the details, not the fidelity. I was told to expect this incredibly immersive experience form RDR2 and then I got:
carving up animals is frequently wonky
gun cleaning is just autopilot wiping the exterior of a gun
shaving might as well be done off-screen
you transport things on your horse without tying them down
Visual fidelity isn’t the same as realism. RDR2 is trying to replicate a real experience, so I mostly agree with you. However, it does step away from realism sometimes to create something more.
Take a look at impressionist art, for example. It starts at realism, but it isn’t realistic. It has more style to it that enhances what the artist saw (or wanted to highlight).
A game should focus on the experience it’s tying to create, and it’s art style should enhance that experience. It shouldn’t just be realistic because that’s the “premium” style.
For an example, Mirror’s Edge has a high amount of fidelity (for its time), but it’s highly stylized in order to create the experience they wanted out of it. The game would be far worse if they tried to make the graphics realistic. This is true for most games, though some do try to simulate being a part of this world, and it’s fine for them to try to replicate it because it suits what their game is.
I had way more fun in GTA 3 than GTA 5. RDR2 isn’t a success because the horse has realistic balls.
To put another nail in the coffin, ARMA’s latest incarnation isn’t the most realistic shooter ever made. No amount of wavy grass and moon phases can beat realistic weapon handling in the fps sim space. (And no ARMA’s weapon handling is not realistic, it’s what a bunch of keyboard warriors decided was realistic because it made them feel superior.) Hilariously the most realistic shooter was a recruiting game made by the US Army with half the graphics.
I see, and yeah graphics can help a lot. But how much do we actually need? At what point is the gain not enough to justify forcing everyone to buy another generation of GPUs?
i think as it advances the old ones will inevitably look dated, dont think there will be a limit short of photorealism, its just slowed down a bunch now. imagine if we had a game like rdr but actually photorealistic. shit with vr you imagine any photorealistic and immersive world, that would be so cool.
sadly, the profit motive makes it difficult for a given studio to want to optimize their games making them heavier and heavier, and gpus turned out to be super profitable for AI making them more and more expensive. i think things will definetly stagnate for a bit but not before they find a way to put that ray tracing hardware we have now to good use, so well see about that.
We should be looking at more particles, more dynamic lighting, effects, realism is forsure a goal just not in the way you think, pixar movies have realistic lighting and shadows but arent “realistic”
After I started messing with cycles on blender I went back to wanting more “realistic” graphics, its better for stylized games too
But yeah I want the focus to shift towards procedural generation (I like how houdini and unreal approach it right now), more physics based interactions, elemental interactions, realtime fire, smoke, fluid, etc. Destruction is the biggest dissapointment, was really hoping for a fps that let me spend hours bulldozing and blowing up the map.
Aluminum cases need to become standard for physical copies. Not plastic with an aluminum veneer, all aluminum.
They can be cool and do aluminum tubes holding a flash drive with the game on it if they want so they can laser engrave the sides and screw on top with the title and art.
I remember getting Prince of Persia 2008 in a steel case for a birthday or maybe Xmas and loved the design of it. I haven’t seen my steel case editions recently.
It’s a tough one. You’re not wrong by any means, but equally the environmentally unfriendly bit is why people buy physical media. The memory card holding the game is mostly superfluous because of day 1 DLC or patches, but it’s the box; art; manual; and physical tangibility that matter to a collector of the media.
Ideally there would be a middle ground - sack-off the normal physical edition and purchase the memory cards themselves - and push up the price and pay for a premium edition of the copy made from better materials.
I suspect we’d only get the worst of both worlds though, the cynic in me thinks.
Ah yes, there is that. Is that still a thing these days? I remember EA’s Project Ten Dollar a few years back gating a lot of extra features or multiplayer behind a single use code being fairly widely adopted.
I’ll admit to being a bit behind the curve now, I still predominantly use my Xbox Series S, One, and 360 just to play Doom in different rooms so maybe I’m not on the cutting edge of news!
edit: it wasn’t five dollars at all, more like ten!
I had to look up that ten-dollar thing. Thankfully I don’t think that’s a thing yet in the Nintendo world, aside from preorder bonuses.
There have been physical releases that are just a download code in a box, or a game card that contains only one of the two included games, with the second being provided as a paper download code. In those cases the redemption is tied to an individual’s Nintendo account. I wouldn’t buy any of those, though I’ll admit to buying another release (BioShock Trilogy) that was a physical game card with no games stored on it, just launchers for downloading the three games from Nintendo. But at least in that case nothing is account-locked and lending/resale is possible: pop the card in, download the games and play them for as long as the card is in your system.
I haven’t thrown away a game case since Playstation 1. My Super Nintendo ones were cardboard and got destroyed, so I did throw them away because that is what we did in the 90s.
Yeah, I find it particularly weird, because Nintendo already had smaller boxes with the Nintendo DS. Did they decide that the Switch was a big boy console, so it needed to have comically large boxes?
Man you would have had a field day with PC gaming in the 90’s!
In fairness though, even though some did skimp out and just launch a CD in, most had a manual and something of lore interest or a physical anti-piracy thing, and a fair few were stuffed full of trinkets or other world building material… just because.
Even my Atari ST edition of Zak McKracken had the floppy, manual, passport anti-piracy card, and a faux-magazine which was both hilarious and acted as a hint book too.
PC games in he 90s were like cereal boxes filled with a few CDs and a the barest of a manual. In the 80s it was the same except it was floppy disks and the manual was needed to get through the copy protection. Sometimes you’d even get a decoder ring of some sorts to decode something for the copy protection.
Yeah but it wasn’t as fun as in the 80s and 90s when they’d be sending you on a treasure hunt through the manual to find specific words and letters like you were in the DaVinci Code.
PC game cases from 90s were amazing. I wish console games would do something cool like that. They were made of cardboard, typically had boxart with a bunch of high quality engraving, had manuals inside. They felt like collectibles and you didn’t have to pay extra for any of it. It was just part of the base game price.
The total footprints of the two cases are virtually identical. The Switch game cases are taller but not as deep, and the DS cases are shorter and deeper. I believe the DS case is basically the same dimension as a cut-down DVD case. It’s the same depth, +/- a mm, with 65mm chopped off the top.
The NDS game case is 134x125mm, 167.5 square cm in total. The Switch game case is 105x170mm, 178.5 square cm in total. The Switch case is also thinner, 11mm vs 15mm. The amounts of plastic used in each is pretty similar.
How to turn a “must-play game” into trash no one wants in less than 24 hours. Good job. Makes me feel sorry for the poor devs who poured their hearts & souls into it only to have the suits fuck it up - again.
It sucks because I was looking forward to the game since I liked the first DD but after seeing all the micro transactions they added into a single player game I’m going to pass on it.
It seems your profile is stored locally from what I’ve seen, but some users are too stupid to know how to use Steam Cloud. Some users have said you can’t delete your save, but you can you just need to disable cloud backup on Steam first.
(I have no experience. I just read a lot of reviews in disappointment last night.)
Edit: Come on guys. Stop just downvoting stuff because you don’t like that it’s not as bad as it could be. Your save is stored locally, backed up on Steam Cloud. Prove me wrong if you want to downvote. That’s fine. If you’re just downvoting because you’d rather not know the reality of the situation, what’s wrong with you?
Citation? I haven’t seen this at all, and I’ve been looking at quite a bit of the stuff as a fan of the first game. That’s a big accusation to make.
People often don’t understand what they’re doing, and they blame it on things that aren’t true. Most players aren’t technologically literate enough to really know what’s causing their issues. This is the first I’ve heard of a ban, and I would suspect (though this could equally be wrong) that it isn’t because they deleted their save file and instead for doing something else, if it happened at all.
Denuvo detects manual file changes and if you do it too much (which doesn’t have to be that much) you get temporary locked out of playing the game (24h first offense). Look it up, this is the case on pretty much all recent denuvo games. This isn’t a “big accusation”, this is a straight fact. Using different proton versions also can get you “banned”.
I tried looking it up, which is why I asked for the citation. I found nothing on the topic. I don’t know where you got it from, but “look it up” isn’t an answer. Also, the save file location should be (no knowledge on whether it is) excluded from this file manipulation detection. The game itself is constantly writting to it. If it’s detecting frequent file changes, it’d detect the game itself writting to the save file.
Whose citation do you need? This is a closed-source software, there is no “proof” but only testimonies. Only EMPRESS could tell us for certain. This is one such testimony
This can also be triggered by changes in the machine itself. On linux/steamdeck, changing proton version too often leads to a 24h lock, that one you can google, it’s all over the place. Proton/wine mirrors your own PC specs, so denuvo doesnt base itself one your actual PC, but it’s configuration somehow.
As for the last part of your comment, it makes no sense. For all we know, it’s very likely that Denuvo saves a checksum of its files to their server when you exit that save or the game and checks them back when you open it again. The only way to prevent this and modify the save without the game knowing would be to make a kernel module to edit the save directly in memory while the save is running, though depending on how denuvo works, something like cheat engine might also do the trick.
The person said people have been banned for deleting their save files. I haven’t seen any reference for this. What you posted is for a totally different game and is not related except both have Denuvo. I don’t doubt Denuvo anti-cheat (maybe also anti-tamper) will ban you for doing things it doesn’t like, but deleting save files shouldn’t, and I haven’t ever heard of that happening.
As for the last part of your comment, it makes no sense. For all we know, it’s very likely that Denuvo saves a checksum of its files to their server when you exit that save or the game and checks them back when you open it again. The only way to prevent this and modify the save without the game knowing would be to make a kernel module to edit the save directly in memory while the save is running, though depending on how denuvo works, something like cheat engine might also do the trick.
Checksums for the game files do not include the save folder. That would defeat the purpose of a checksum. Sure, maybe they fucked up and included it, but that would cause it to go off every time the game saves as well. Every file change changes the sum, so even the game doing so would also. How would it know the difference?
Again, I don’t like Denuvo. I think a lot of stuff happening with this game is bad. We don’t need to make stuff up though. There’s plenty actually there to be angry about. Making stuff up just makes the valid complaints get lumped with it and ignored.
I’m not talking about one checksum that’s hardcoded somewhere, I mean they calculate it every time you close the save. Do they actually do that, I don’t know, but they could if they wanted to.
The reason why I linked some random other game is because nobody is saying this is the game’s fault, but Denuvo’s fault. Denuvo behaves extremely similarly regardless of the game it runs on, so if it happens for most other games, good chance it happens for this one too.
I’m not talking about one checksum that’s hardcoded somewhere, I mean they calculate it every time you close the save. Do they actually do that, I don’t know, but they could if they wanted to.
They could do anything, and anyone can claim they are doing things without evidence. I have seen nothing except this person’s comment that it’s happening, and even what you posted has nothing to do with save files. I don’t believe such a thing is happening because I haven’t seen any evidence for it and have seen many people discuss deleting their saves. A claim like that needs evidence. It’s going to make people fearful of deleting saves.
Why did you come do defend this person’s specific claim only to say “Denuvo bad.” We all already know that. We don’t need to make shit up about it. Please stop. Criticize what we actually know is happening with the game. There’s plenty.
Once again, these are secondary sources at best. “people are saying that they heard somewhere that…” Are these using the same secondary source? I don’t know. I haven’t seen any evidence that it happens with save files.
The second third (didn’t realize it was 3) link also mentions switching Proton versions too much can cause issues and uses a primary source, and I saw that review the other night while looking at reviews. That is much more trustworthy.
I’m not saying it isn’t happening, but I don’t trust what everyone says. I also don’t trust that a user actually knows what triggered an action. The number of people I’ve seen say the saves are stored online because they don’t understand Steam Cloud is proof that a lot of users aren’t technologically literate enough to just take their word. With there being no first hand source, and potentially both of what you linked using the same secondary source, I still see no reason to believe this.
So, “How many testimonies do you need to consider it “evidence” as you say?” More than 0, which is what we’re at right now.
Edit: Missed the first article when I clicked the links the first time. Even it says it can’t verify the reports and it’s just gathered from forums (and proceeds to not cite them). Any half decent journalist would verify it for themselves, but we know these aren’t journalists, they’re blogs that just repeat any drama they can find. Still only secondary sources at best with no citation, so nothing to be taken as anything more than the comment above saying “they heard it happened to someone.”
Apparently all the purchases you can buy are cheaply available in game with the in game currency, and there’s no real reason to pay real money for them unless you’re like some live streamer goob.
That’s not completely true, there is a limited number of port crystals until NG+ (around 5 or 6) and the adventurers camping kit is unobtainable otherwise (although you can get a better one from a side quest).
Ferrystones are also very rare, unlike DD1 where you get an unlimited one right away.
What I’ve heard from people playing the game, is that those and everything else you could pay real money for is dirt cheap to buy and purchasable with the in game currency that you earn by playing the game and that you earn the in game currency quickly enough that you aren’t having to grind anything if you want to buy the stuff.
I think there’s some sort of higher-up mandate at capcom to force monetized content into their games, and the dev teams are just working around it, something like that. The same thing happens in monster hunter, street fighter 6, I think devil may cry 5, and it’s all structured in basically the exact same way, where you can either get access to stuff really quickly without paying, or the stuff you have to pay for is basically just aesthetic, or both. I think monster hunter rise even tried to do the same “pay to edit your character” thing. I still don’t think it’s a good practice, but japanese devs are gonna japanese dev, I suppose. Reminds me of fromsoft titles requiring community made performance patches, or being locked to like, 30fps as an engine requirement, shit like that.
Games are supposed to be fun. Forcing paying customers to do something intentionally designed to be not fun before they can have fun is stupid. I know I’m in the minority, but I straight up won’t participate in that bullshit.
I mean…the weak start is kind of the basis of every rpg and almost every fps in existence. You start with the crappy bb gun and then somehow you end up becoming an all powerful stealth archer, even though your game doesn’t even offer a bow to use.
Gaining strength through experience is fun if it’s done in a sane way is fun. Farming the same monsters over and over to unlock common feature is not. Hit the X button 4.5 million times to continue is shit.
It’s not an accident that unlocking this stuff is tedious when there’s an option to just pay more money to do so. That’s the value proposition behind microtransactions in games: Give us money or we’ll force you to do boring shit for many hours.
Man. It sure sucks I only start with a water can and 500 coins in Stardew Valley. I could do so much more if I could just start with 20 upgraded sprinklers and 20,000 coins.
The worst part of it is that those same assholes that insisted on micro transactions will blame every other aspect of the game before admitting that it did poorly on release because of the blatant money grabbing.
Yup, I’ll wait 4 years or whatever until it’s released as “Dragon’s dogma 2, darker arisen, game of the year edition” with all the dlc and microtransactions baked in on a steam sale or some such
I’m pretty mixed on this. I want to support niche games like this being made. I don’t want to support using Denuvo (even if it’ll be removed eventually) or bad MTX. Also, you’ll miss the online components on a cracked version, which is really cool in DS1 at least and I think even better in 2 from what I’ve heard.
The thing to me is, I don’t want the online experiences in most of my single player games. I turned off invasions and messages in DS. I could care less about someone else’s experience bleeding into mine, most invasions were annoying and messages were memes. For DD, let me build my pawn, pick from some randomly generated ones and that’s it, don’t punish me for wanting to single-play my single-player game. I don’t mind DLC that is purely a time saver, some people want to pay to win, in a single player game that’s fine, as long as it’s not replacing some stupidly long grind. But at the end of the day, there are far too many “single player” games that are “connect to our server to use the thing you just bought.”
You can play this offline I’m 99% sure. Sure, it’s best enjoyed online (the online experience is seemless and you don’t actually interact with other players, just the pawns they created), but it’s purely optional.
This game is getting so much hate for made up reasons and it’s really frustrating. I would love for the actual reasons to be addressed, but if they see that 99% of it isn’t stuff that’s there anyway, why would they bother fixing the 1% when it’ll just get lied about no matter what?
You can, after you get through a bit of a process of making your pawn and uploading it. I agree it’s being reviewbombed, my response was to yours about claiming that “you’re missing out if you don’t play online.” But also, you’re talking about a company that pulls hundreds of millions of dollars a year, not an indie developer. If the game sells well, the reviews don’t mean anything, it’s successful. If it doesn’t, it’s their job to focus on what consumers didn’t like and change it.
If the game sells well, the reviews don’t mean anything, it’s successful. If it doesn’t, it’s their job to focus on what consumers didn’t like and change it.
Ideally, yes. However, it’s taken 12 years for a second entry of this franchise. If it doesn’t do well (which I think we’re well past it not doing well, because it’s selling great), most likely they’d just never make a game like it again. The first game is a cult classic. It released about a year after Dark Souls 1 and scratch the same itch before anyone else was making Souls-likes. It didn’t do huge numbers though despite being received fairly well. The fact they made a second is unexpected, and we’d certainly not get a third if it only did as well as the first. They wouldn’t learn a lesson except not to touch this. The same MTX methods are in RE and no one comained, so they aren’t going to learn the lesson we want for just this one game.
It’s going to make them boatloads of money, the review bombs won’t matter. They’ve broken 200k concurrent players on steam, it’s a financial success. Of course they won’t make another like it again, neither will almost any AAA developer. The market is gearing towards games as a service, forced online/multiplayer and some such, except for the few household names continuing to support single player titles. This was a planned business decision to cash in on a franchise that was calculated as a perfect time to release a sequel, and put in the work to capture the longtime fans, and it’s making money. I’m happy for it, but Capcom is a corporation, they ran financial models and test groups to see if the game would sell well, it has, and so it’s successful.
its what japanese game companies do after a “golden era” when they come off on top. they make stupid business decisions that tank their goodwill they just earned.
its why when a japanese game company makes it big, it almost always is followed with becoming the villian immediately after
the sucess of monster hunter, resident evil remakes, and sf6 has gotten to their head.
Honestly, I might get shit for this and he was definitely an asshole, but Phil Fish was right. The Japanese game industry went through a shitty period for awhile years ago, got out of it, and then now (Capcom anyway) starts doing shit like this.
Sony became very aggressive and anti consumer the moment the PS4 outsold the Xbox One after being behind the shadow of the 360 for most of its life. started paying for a lot of timed exclusives, exclusive game content (e.g COD, Hogwarts Legacy), block a lot of cross platform attempts.
Nintendo went very anti consumer after being very generous with the WiiU, and resurrecting the 3DS and releasing the sucessful, but very feature limited Switch. introduces paid online for an online service thats effectively at times, worse than the WiiU, decides to sell emulated titles either on limited time offer (Mario 3d collection) or required subscription to online, and take away browser and local save backups.
i could keep going on with a lot of sucessful japanese game companies, but its basically the same story every fucking time.
For context: I make indie games and have released two so far and I’m currently working on the third one which is weird as fuck. So the way that Steam works is, they don’t send you money anytime you make a sale, but they send all of it at the end of every month. Now September is almost over and I got an e-mail titled “Steam Payment Notification” and I get all hyped up. I open it and read it that the Payment Notification is actually that there is no Payment since I didn’t make $100 in sales. Way to hype me up and bring me down, Steam.
Yes, their cut is 30% which is a lot, but they are pretty much the only big platform out there. Epic games has been trying to get in the game but so far they are not close. Their cut is 15%.
I want to note that you’d need about $143 in gross sales to meet the threshold of $100 in net profit.
On the surface that sounds like a lot. But, they’re providing a service without any guarantee of any income. Epic can only compete because they’ve few users and are willing to operate at a near loss in attempt to garner market share.
This will be a difficult one for others to understand as a “good deal”. Gamers are usually correct when they pull out their pitchforks. This should not be one of those times.
While I’m no fan of Epic Games for bribing companies to keep games off of Steam for a year or more, Valve’s market dominance in PC game sales isn’t a good thing for developers or consumers.
Competition in capitalism is always better than a lack thereof. But, we’ve not busted monopolies in a significant way since Ma Bell. And, even if we were, at 75% of the global market share they’d not warrant any action yet.
There’s going to be a dominant organization because late stage capitalism sucks. And, I’d rather it be Valve than some alternative trying to fuck me over at every opportunity.
The thing is, steam’s market dominance is one of user choice rather than anticompetitive strategies or lack of alternatives. Steam doesn’t do exclusives, they don’t charge you for external sales, they don’t even prevent you from selling steam keys outside the platform, or users from launching non steam games in the client. The only real restriction is that access to steam services requires a license in the active steam account. Even valve-produced devices like the steam deck can install from other stores.
Sure, dominance is bad in an abstract theoretical way and it’d be nice if Gog, itch.io, etc were more competitive, but Steam is dominant because consumers actively choose it.
Youtube and twitch work this same way. When I was starting there were months where I didnt make any money because I didn’t meet the minimum. Hoping next month meets the requirement for you boss 🙏
It accumulates, so there is no money lost. It does kinda suck though that as you start, even though you can make money and did make a bit you don’t get to see it yet
It does make sense from a payment processing standpoint. It doesn’t make sense to spend more money on creating the transaction than is actually being sent.
Sending a simple transaction like this costs a couple cents though, which they could in theory bill to the developer as well. Setting the threshold at 100 is probably more to accrue additional interest on Steams bank accounts.
I think in the US I’ve heard ETF/ACH transaction fees are usually around $2.50? It might be possible to have that apply across a batch, though, as in if you submit 10 payments to 10 different people as a single transaction it’s still just $2.50, or 25¢ per person. I’m only getting this from hearing accountants complain at companies I’ve worked with, so I don’t understand the details. But I’ve seen it pretty common with companies doing payouts to want to see a minimum amount before they actually send the payment, otherwise it’s not worth doing.
I used to pay a particular company by purchase order for this exact reason. CC takes 2-3% of the payment, but purchase order - they’ve got to get themselves into the company system, track the PO, invoice, track the payment…at the time, a common estimate was $50 to process a PO, and if you’re only buying $100 batches, that’s a big hit. Did not like that company, but they were the only place to get whatever it was I had to buy.
Yeah, pretty much. A lot of their games appear on a 80% sale half the time, and even then it’s still not worth it. It’s not even about the money, it’s about being disrespected by the dogshit they continue to release.
I would rather give my time to a passionate indie studio, where the people put together a genuinely unique experience
My worry is that without a lawsuit or other action, we'll keep seeing LLM slop companies taking down smaller websites for bogus reasons. This needs to be codified somehow that there were damages done to Itch's earnings (and more importantly the earnings of the independent creators on the platform who should start a class-action suit), and that what Funko's contracted LLM company did was wrong.
There's financial damages, loss of profit, emotional distress, reputation loss, and more. We need to take action against these companies for their wrongdoing. So either they need to willingly pay up and have that payment be known and public, or they need to be made to pay by the courts.
The expression is actually “hear, hear!” A shortening of “hear him, hear him”, an instruction saying “listen to what this guy’s saying. It’s good shit.”
Itch is by no means a small time player. Doing some very fast statistics off of the game price breakdowns available and the counts of games available vs. the number they rate as best sellers, if 20% of their best sellers make a sale each day and 7.5% of their non-best sellers make a sale each day, assuming an average price for the three pricing filters of (under $5, $2.5), ($5 to $15, $10), (over $15, $20), then Itch sells approximately $20k/day. Half a day is $10k. If those averages are actually much higher in their respective areas, as in just below the maximum then the daily total jumps to over $35k/day. There is wiggle room in my assumptions, but it is safe to say that Itch sees about $25k±7k/day.
As mentioned in other suits, there are nonmonetary damages as well which are harder to quantify without access to their analytics such as reputation damage, lost traffic, maintenance and repair from the forced outage at the domain level, etc. I could see a suit for $50k in actual damages and another $500k-$1M in punitive damages to send the message that this behavior is intolerable in general.
A law firm capable of handling such a suit would probably bill at a rate of $2000/hr, or more.
If your numbers are right, then they could afford to pay for 20 hours of work. That’s probably not enough to even file the suit. Again, this assumes your numbers are right but even if they were 10x this it may still not make sense to file a suit.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the math works out in their favor.
Except that most firms that charge $2000/hour take the fee from the settlement, not up front, when doing civil litigation. Really only criminal law is paid directly by the client, at least in the US.
Well let’s say $30k, treble damages to $90k. So up to 45 hours of billable time before losing money. I don’t know how much time a suit takes, but I’m pretty sure it’s more than that. I don’t know how likely it is for them to award legal fees, either.
Even if they work on contingency, they’d still have to be sure they’d win and turn a profit before they’d take the case.
That is where punitive damages come in. Most huge settlements are substantially punitive, which are damages awarded not on merit, but with the express intent of making the settlement hurt enough that the offender, and others in similar situations, think twice about taking similar actions.
Itch doesn’t appear interested in suing unfortunately. I want them to, not because I’m bloodthirsty, but to set precedent that this wreckless use of AI content moderation isn’t OK. I can imagine Disney and Nintendo following this.
Yes, “reckful” is a real word, although it is rarely used in modern English. It means being thoughtful, careful, or prudent, essentially the opposite of “reckless.” It comes from the same root as “reck,” which means to care or pay attention to.
Examples of Usage:
In older texts, “reckful” might describe someone who is cautious or considerate of consequences: “He was reckful in his approach, weighing every decision carefully.”
Why It’s Uncommon:
“Reckless” became the dominant term in English, and “reckful” fell out of common usage. Today, terms like “careful,” “prudent,” or “mindful” are more likely to be used in its place.
So while “reckful” is technically correct and would make sense in context, it might sound archaic or poetic to most modern English speakers.
They really should because the law has already decided that AI isn’t an independent entity, and is essentially just a computer program.
So whoever initiated the AI is ultimately responsible for its behavior, they can’t claim the AI malfunctioned because they chose not to bother having any human oversight, they knew that this was always a possibility and still they took responsibility for it.
I have no problem if games reached this via a similar model that Larian used here (lots of experienced staff, pre-built systems, 6 years of development, 3 years of expertly done early-access with a highly engaged player base) but they’re not going to. They’re going to implement more crunch, more abuse, more destruction of the few people who want to work in games in order to get there. And that’s where I have the issue.
I want shorter games, with worse graphics, made by people who get paid more to do less. Because that’s what’s needed to make truly great games. People who are passionate, not burning themselves out just to barely make deadlines, make great games.
I want shorter games, with worse graphics, made by people who get paid more to do less.
Honestly that’s an excellent summary.
Don’t get me wrong BG3 is probably one of the best games I’ve ever played and I eventually want BG4 or whatever expansion/spin-off/sequel they want to make. However I waited 23 years between BG2 and BG3, I don’t want to wait that long again, but I can wait.
But to your point I want good games. I don’t need 100+ hour adventures. In general I don’t want 100+ hour adventures. Those should be rare. I want games that I can finish (at a casual pace) in a weekend or two.
Portal 1? Braid? Both are short puzzle games that are absolutely fantastic.
Stanley Parable? Gone Home? Excellent story games. You can beat them in about as much time as it takes to watch a movie.
It’s disappointing that AAA studios don’t recognize this. I don’t want a bloated game that takes 300 hours to experience most of it. I don’t want a giant map. I want a good game. I want a small map filled with life, not a large one with soulless procedurally generated dungeons.
I don’t think demanding quality games is inherently at odds with wanting studios to not abuse their workers. What we really should support is broad labor protections and labor unions for developers. Because clearly the AAA studios don’t need the excuse of high demand for features from gamers in order to abuse their people since they have been doing that for years while churning out trash titles.
Completely agreed. The issue is that gamers™ aggressively advocate for better quality, and do not care about workplace abuse or worse products with more features. This creates the current feedback loop we have where games that are longer, have flashier features, and aren’t finished at launch.
Labor unions and protections would be excellent, but isn’t something that I, a non-game developer, can do much to advance, besides avocation.
What’s particularly notable about this well above average gaming year is that the clearly top two games so far aren’t using state-of-the-art graphics.
Given how messy PC gaming has been lately, with a recent history of GPU shortages followed by an underwhelming new generation and some very poor game optimization, I wouldn’t mind seeing a trend of game development slowing down on graphics tech for a bit.
But also legitimately. Like remember how good games would get near the end of a console’s lifecycle? Then a new console generation would drop and the games would look sharp, but also a bit wonky, until enough years has past, and thennn… another new console generation would drop, and the constraints would disappear again. Always too soon, I thought - just as the games were getting truly good again!
Heh, yes, I still have fond memories of the late 16-bit generation and early fifth-gen games that didn’t get on board the 3D bandwagon. Sprite-based games started to look mighty sexy until everyone decided that untextured polygons were the way to go for a while. 😑
Always preferred Duke 3D to Quake. The later is way more sophisticated from the technical standpoint (though Build does allow some neat tricks) but Duke is just so vibrant and fun. Destructible environment, original weapons, large enemy variety and proper bosses… Meanwhile Quake is just… brown.
Educate a pleeb here, I’ve been out of the gaming loop. What’s the notable exceptions of great games this year and what two that are not state-of-the-art graphics do you mean?
This thread’s on Baldur’s Gate 3, that’s one of them. I should have specified the other of the two most highly-rated games this year; it’s The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. Both games are more or less running last-gen graphics tech and are ahead of the pack on review scores. Zelda looks good for a Switch game, though.
You could probably ask a dozen gaming enthusiasts and get a dozen different answers on why this year has been exceptional. I’d say it’s because we have a lot of big releases from venerable franchises arriving all in the same year (Baldur’s Gate is one, plus Diablo, Final Fantasy, Harry Potter, Resident Evil, Star Wars, Street Fighter). There are hits from new IPs like Cassette Beasts, Dave the Diver, Hi-Fi Rush, and maybe Starfield in a few weeks if it’s not a disaster.
It’s a nice mix of old and new worlds and plenty of surprises. On top of all that, it’s only August. I think there’s a sense that the industry is starting to leave the pandemic behind, too.
As I’m getting older, I’m definitely starting to appreciate that I just can’t see shit. If the game’s going for an ultra-realistic environment, then there’s just so much more visual clutter that I need help picking things out.
In my opinion, it’s just an accessibility feature. Those are always nicer to have than to not. But if you’re a purist, or you don’t have any problem finding things, then I’d also hope you’d be able to disable it.
The problem is that games are designed for it to be used. I hated using Witcher senses in Dying Light 2, but good look finding lootables without it. It’s a cop out solution.
It really depends on the game, you can’t put all games under an umbrella and say it’s all bad. I love the ones in Starfield, warframe, No Man’s Sky, Assassin Creed Origins and Odyssey and many more. As long as it has actual uses more than just highlighting stuff and/or is well designed it’s always welcome IMO. Haven’t played DL2 yet but I really can’t think of any game where it felt like a cop out for otherwise bad design.
Avatar : Frontiers of Pandora has had me going like Rowan when played in explorer mode. It gives you hints like in other recent Ubisoft games but holy shit some of those were near useless… I wasted entirely too many hours just exploring and circling around the correct answer. I recently switched to the more friendly Guided mode and it has the waypoint only appear in Hunter mode, so that was kinda nice. Hasn’t completely spoiled the experience although I still wish it would only activate once you were in the vicinity indicated by the clue (ie, if the clue gives you some corner of the map to explore, then the guided mode would only start helping once you’ve reached that general area).
But yeah, overall, I disagree with OP. Make it optional, make it diegetic, make it subtle, but the option is a wonderful game design element, in my book.
One thing I think is that the longer time you need to use it, the harder you’ve failed in you basic design, because I shouldn’t have to press the damn button 90% of the time like I used to in Far Cry Primal. That game is still my favourite as a precursor, but I was using the hunter vision way way way too much.
If you look at old games, the reason they didn’t need this was because they couldn’t have nearly as many props in a scene. I like to use classic WoW as an example. It didn’t have any kind of highlighting for objects to interact with, but you didn’t need it because there just weren’t that many objects period.
Highlighting interactables, whether it be through a pulse like the meme, or just based on proximity, is a compromise in modern games to make things playable while also having dense, prop-filled environments. The infamous white or yellow paint for climbing surfaces is another example.
I doubt many designers love these solutions, but they’re currently the best we’ve got. It’s not an easy problem to solve, but I hope a more immersive solution comes along someday. In the meantime, having it is better than not, I totally agree with you.
💯 Playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 and there is so much detail and it’s beautiful.
…but then when I’m trying to pick out herbs and plants and it’s all so beautifully rendered I don’t know what plants and flowers can be harvested and which are just there to be pretty. Dead Eye is a lifesaver for that.
That desaturated-with-highlighted-items vision is a design choice that does solve a problem even in realistic worlds – even if it’s just to show players something the character can see but is hard for the player to spot.
Games soon: modders removed the nail clipping mechanic for a 1600% performance boost (while also adding ultra wide support and removing the arbitrary 30fps cap in cutscenes); however the due to legal action the modder had to take it down or him and his family would be jailed and forced to pay $30 million for harming the company.
You joke but this is exactly what people did to play Final Fantasy Origin on release, a mod that made everyone bald because the hair was the reason the game ran so bad lol.
My joke is very very much inspired by real events. SE is notoriously bad at ports. Trying to play FFXVI and it goes to screensaver during cutscenes without mods. Amateur hour, haha.
Oh the new one, my friend had to install razer chroma to finish a dungeon because apparently the game has some connection with it to change the color of the keyboard during that dungeon. Something about it making a lot of calls to that software if it couldn’t find it, ends up bringing the fps way down lol.
That doesn’t really mean that they store it in plain text. They sent it to you after you finished creating your account, and it’s likely that the password was just in plain text during the registration. The question still remains whether they store their outgoing emails (in which case yes, your password would still be stored in plain text on their end, not in the database though).
Honestly, why risk duplicate passwords even then? I have one strong password that I use for accessing my password manager, and let the password manager generate unique random passwords. Even if I had an easier password that I duplicated with some small changes, I’d still use a password manager to autofill it anyway. I use bitwarden personally, you can also self host it with vaultwarden but it seemed like more trouble than it was worth imo
This is a friendly reminder to everyone that password managers are not risk free either. LastPass was hacked last year, NortonLifeLock earlier this year.
Personally the risk of bitwarden is outweighed by its convenience (compared to self hosted/local only solutions) in my opinion, but I know that’ll change real quick if bitwarden ever has a breach. If it does I’m jumping ship to a self hosted or local only solution, but I’m hoping that doesn’t have to happen
Bitwarden is end to end encrypted. If the host gets hacked your passwords are still as safe as your master password is. Self hosting wouldn’t really be a huge help there. Possibly even detrimental depending on your level of competence at securing a public facing web host.
Yeah at this point it’s considered likely that LastPass vaults are being cracked, based on LP being the common link between various other accounts that are being breeched.
A small number of rounds of encryption being the default for users with old enough accounts is believed to be a significant part of the issue. It means even if their password was a good one, the vault can be brute forced comparatively quickly.
If their password was actually good (18+ random characters) it’s not feasible with current day technology to brute force, no matter how few PBKDF2 iterations were used.
Obviously it’s still a big issue because in many cases people don’t use strong enough passwords (and apparently LastPass stored some of the information in plaintext) but a strong password is still good protection provided the encryption algorithm doesn’t have any known exploitable weaknesses.
your passwords are still as safe as your master password is
They’re as safe as your master password is…and as the encryption is. LastPass famously got hacked recently, and in the aftermath of that many users noticed that their vault was encrypted using very small numbers of rounds of PBKDF2. The recommended number of rounds had increased, but LastPass left the number actually used too low for some users, rather than automatically increasing it. Users of Bitwarden and any other password vault should ensure that their vault is using the strongest encryption available.
Self hosting wouldn’t really be a huge help there
Well, self-hosting makes you a smaller target. The most determined attackers are likely going to go after the biggest target, which is going to be a centralised service with thousands of users’ vaults. If you host it yourself they probably won’t even know it exists, so unless there’s reason for someone to be specifically targeting you (e.g. you’re a public figure), or you get hacked by some broad untargeted attack, you might be better off self-hosted from a purely security standpoint.
(That said, I still use centrally-hosted Bitwarden. The convenience is worth it to me.)
You’re underestimating the attack surface of a self hosted set up. You don’t need to be specifically targeted if, for instance, someone hacks the Bitwarden docker image you’re using, or slips a malicious link into a tutorial you’re reading. It’s not a set it and forget it solution either, you’re responsible for updating it, and the host OS. Like I said, depending on your competency, it’s not inherently more secure.
This is why I don’t use a common centralized password manager, just like I don’t use any of the most popular remote desktop solutions like TeamViewer for unattended access.
I run a consumer copy of Pleasant Password Manager out of AWS and use NoMachine for unattended access to any machines where I need it.
Security through obscurity is tried and true. Put as little of your security attack surface in the hands of others as is reasonable.
I actually think this is the case. I could be completely wrong but I swear I saw the same question like 6 years ago in another forum software that looks exactly like this one lol. And people compalined about it storing plain text, but the response when asking the forum people was that it was only during that password creation, it’s not actually stored.
I don’t know if it’s crazy for me to think it’s the same forum from that many years ago, still doing the same thing and getting the same question.
There are plans to update the forum, including for better security (the main issue with changing the forum software is concern over reliably migrating all of the existing content). After emailing (admittedly not current best practice), the passwords are hashed and only the hash is stored.
…and later…
The forum has been updated to https, and passwords are no longer being sent by email.
Which raises the question of how old OP’s screen shot is.
Also, no, the password would not necessarily still be stored in plain text on their end. The cleartext password used in that email might be only in memory, and discarded after sending the message. Depends on how the UBB forum software implemented it and how Larian’s mail servers are set up.
EDIT: I just verified that this behavior has resurfaced since it was originally fixed. OP would do well to responsibly report it, rather than stirring up drama over a web forum account.
It is still a bad idea to send the password in plaintext via email. You never know when Bard will peek a look and then share your password along users as a demo account to try that forum.
You should always change your password from the system generated one to prevent that from happening. The app that you signed up for should enforce that by making you change your password when you log in.
There’s a lot of reasons why emailing passwords is not the best practice… But AI bots stealing your password to give people free demos is a wild paranoid fever dream.
It is meant to be as a joke, of course the AI is not that dumb enough to give it away as free demo. Why am I being downvoted? Why don’t people understand jokes these days? Do I always have to include /s when making a sarcastic joke even though it is so obvious?
I just started (Outer Wilds) the other day. Not sure what I’m doing, lol. I died the first three times by not wearing a suit. I bought it purely on the recommendation on another Lemming (Lemmy user?) and they said just get into it and don’t look into anything else. Looking forward to just trying things on my next run.
Good luck, I also bought it on recommendation and did not enjoy it. If you’re curious why let me know, I don’t want to shape your opinion on the game with my opinions.
I had a few things spoiled for me unfortunately, but the spoiler was so cool it prompted me to try the game, so net win? Lol, I’m jealous you get to go in blind! Can’t wait till I have Alzheimer’s and I can replay it for the first time. It’s definitely a game that encourages you to just try things to see what happens, I love it :)
It also certainly doesn’t help me remembering which is which when in Outer WILDS you explore different worlds and in Outer WORLDS the tutorial area is kind of an overgrown wilds in which you explore very few worlds. When I have to talk about either one of them I just say “You know, the one with the crazy gravity physics and planets” or “You know, the one that’s basically just Firefly the video game.”
lemmy.world
Ważne