Blizz always has great ideas and then falls flat in execution. I say this as a WoW player. It’s ok. If they can pull off these ideas, which they absolutely have not proven, then this could be good. I remain skeptical.
You have a point, but I think WoW succeeds in spite of itself. They promise big things then deliver a fraction. It never lives up to the hype, IMO. I think it’s that there’s nothing better, and if there was, it’d have to be a LOT better because of sunk cost fallacy. 80% of the reason I play WoW is because I have always played WoW. I like my stuff and friends there.
Definitely not the oldest, FFXI and EQ are still alive and getting updates, and Anarchy Online is in maintenance mode because it’s presumably still turning a profit for Funcom.
people really enjoy the boot of anti-cheat on their necks.
maybe these companies could move their cheat detection to the server where they control the code. maybe don't just send all player positions so wall-hacks become impossible. maybe use some machine learning to look at input patterns and detect when a player is sending things that don't look human.
the list of things companies could do to actually fix cheating in pvp games is long and all they want to do is pay for ridiculous anti-cheat that impacts normal users.
maybe these companies could move their cheat detection to the server where they control the code. maybe don’t just send all player positions so wall-hacks become impossible.
That’s not how video games work. If you want interpolation of positions then you have to send the positions of the players that you can’t see but are heading towards a place you can see. You could take a bunch of difficult math to do and filter out who to send the data to or not. It would create a lot of bugs. So you could just send just the people who are within X distance of you and call it good. Most, if not all game engines do it this way.
You have to have interpolation on the client side, it’s the only way you can play the game on the internet. It’s what Doom did to get multiplayer working and we’ve never been able to find anything better.
maybe use some machine learning to look at input patterns and detect when a player is sending things that don’t look human.
They already do that. It’s called heuristics.
the list of things companies could do to actually fix cheating in pvp games is long and all they want to do is pay for ridiculous anti-cheat that impacts normal users.
Yes.. honestly, imho, any game that's competitive should either embrace "cheating" and design its gameplay to be as transparent as chess (ie.. make it ok to be tool-assisted) or be designed around controlled environments that forbid using tools like that.
Anyone who doesn't want to surrender to a controlled environment (whether it's in the form of some kernel-level control or VPN / Stadia-like platform) should just look for coop games.
It's sad that FPS have evolved towards the competitive landscape... to me, the best experience in the original classic Doom was coop mode. Yet Doom Eternal, at most, only supports some wacky asymmetric team deathmatch.
One thing I realized actually is that I meant Quake which first used network interpolation. I think classic doom didn’t have networking but I am not sure, to be honest. Either way, it’s before my time.
That said I think it’s a bummer that even casual non-ranked experiences have had a large problem with cheating. Even co-op games have lots of cheating but the nature of the game means the cheating affects people who don’t want to cheat less. They aren’t directly subjected to it, it’s still a problem though, the cheating still affects things like the game economy and player perception of the game.
That said everything has gone towards the competitive because even casual versus experiences are competitive now. Super Smash Bros. was just supposed to be the silly, not-serious fighting game that now has large tournament play. Every game, no matter how casual, has gotten competitive. Our culture is so ingrained with competing that we might as well have spitting tournaments… Wait let me google. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_pit_spitting They totally have spitting tournaments. Honestly, human culture is that of competition. I don’t see a way we work around that at our evolutionary core we are competitive but I don’t see it as a good thing.
Doom did have networking, using IPX. You had to start the game with a parameter from the DOS commandline. Like Quake, the maps had special player spawn points & items for deathmatch too. The term "deathmatch" was coined by the Doom game mode.
However, there was no frame interpolation in the original Doom, instead, there might be a latency in the inputs. The game state only advances when all players have sent an update for that "tic" (1/35 of a second), so the game might be laggy for everyone if the connection from one of the players is slow.
But multiplayer back then was mostly for LAN parties. At least in my area. I didn't even have an internet connection at that time, personally. In fact, even during the Quake age, I was only able to play on LAN... and I still liked coop better.
Even co-op games have lots of cheating but the nature of the game means the cheating affects people who don’t want to cheat less. They aren’t directly subjected to it, it’s still a problem though, the cheating still affects things like the game economy and player perception of the game.
Yes, what I meant is that cheating becomes irrelevant in coop, not that it doesn't exist.
If a game has an economy that makes some players richer than others (like say.. in many MMOs), and you actually care a lot about being rich in that universe, then it'd starts being more of a competitive thing and less about coop... a game can be competitive and be PvE.
Even singleplayer games can be competitive if you make it about beating your friend's "score" or speed.. almost anything is susceptible to speedrunning.
I guess the question on coop vs competitive is more about what are the goals of the players. If people play games to have a fun time, or if it's because they want to have some way to prove themselves they are good at something :P
Absolutely, the goal of the player is mutable, and thus really anything, even co-op games, becomes competitive with the right player mindset. I feel like even with co-op that mindset can affect almost any game.
I wrote a snarky response because of the final insulting comment in yours but then thought better of it, going to try to address a couple of your points legitimately even after the unnecessary personal attack.
It's a lot cheaper to make your server dumb. It costs you less in programmers with deep multiplayer programming experience, it costs you less in ongoing hosting because of reduced CPU usage, and it makes the problem less "yours" as a developer.
I'm saying that's shitty that the developers will try to save money that way rather than investing in actual effective, privacy-respecting cheat prevention.
Your argument seems to be that a quake-style predictive algorithm is the only solution possible for online games. I doubt that is the case, but even if it were, using some raycasts on the server for some basic sanity checks on what data to send to players is an example of where lots of developers just can't be bothered.
If you want to dismiss machine learning as heuristics, I'm sorta ok with that, as I think they are just glorified heuristics, but even the most basic analysis isn't done by most developers. Instead, they rely on the sales pitches of various anti-cheat software and don't implement anything beyond it, even when there might be some low hanging fruit.
I am not saying developers are lazy, there's tons of stuff to work on. I am mad that this problem gets repeatedly pushed onto the users rather than the developers, though, and I think it's reasonable for me to offer some pushback when both my CPU cycles and my privacy are being abused.
I wrote a snarky response because of the final insulting comment in yours but then thought better of it, going to try to address a couple of your points legitimately even after the unnecessary personal attack.
Sorry, It’s not meant as an attack. I am simply calling it as I see it because I get a lot of gamers who think they’ve arm-chaired thought far more about my job as a networked gameplay engineer than I have. I’ve been doing this for a very long time and I know where developers cut costs. Anti-cheat isn’t just a slap-it-on and call it a good solution. There are a lot of reasons you want to trust the client and it makes the gameplay feel far better.
It’s a lot cheaper to make your server dumb. It costs you less in programmers with deep multiplayer programming experience, it costs you less in ongoing hosting because of reduced CPU usage, and it makes the problem less “yours” as a developer.
Typically, the server, especially in counter-strike’s case, isn’t dumb. In all games, the server still handles the dealing of damage which typically includes validations of that damage. In counter-strike’s case, very little data is calculated on the client. Most of it is raw data sent from input to the server.
Your argument seems to be that a quake-style predictive algorithm is the only solution possible for online games. I doubt that is the case, but even if it were, using some raycasts on the server for some basic sanity checks on what data to send to players is an example of where lots of developers just can’t be bothered.
Lots of game engines including source include and utilize ways to ensure the player is reporting sane inputs. Also, interpolation is different than extrapolation. Lastly, you don’t need to do raycasts to double-check this data. A lot of the time the raycasts are done on the server itself. In counter-strike’s case this is also true. Raycasts are done on the client typically for cosmetics only. You can see this with 3kliksphilip’s videos on sub-tick.
If you want to dismiss machine learning as heuristics, I’m sorta ok with that, as I think they are just glorified heuristics, but even the most basic analysis isn’t done by most developers. Instead, they rely on the sales pitches of various anti-cheat software and don’t implement anything beyond it, even when there might be some low hanging fruit.
Heuristics haven’t been done by developers in a long time. A lot of that is actually done in Valve’s case by Overwatch. Also, Valve makes it’s own anti-cheat called VAC. They aren’t getting sales pitches.
I am not saying developers are lazy, there’s tons of stuff to work on. I am mad that this problem gets repeatedly pushed onto the users rather than the developers, though, and I think it’s reasonable for me to offer some pushback when both my CPU cycles and my privacy are being abused.
Frankly, I feel like it’s wrong for you to say that the problem is pushed onto users when you don’t understand the code and effort the developers are writing to solve this issue specifically with counter-strike. VAC is probably the anti-cheat with the least amount of client code. It rests almost entirely on the server. One thing VAC does do is lock down the client on Windows to prevent modifications. One thing you can easily do is replace assets for walls with transparent textures to see through walls. That’s why things like the code and assets can’t be tampered with. Most game engines only send updates to the positions of actors in a network bubble. Maybe Counter-Strike’s network bubble is too large at the time but that’s not an argument you made.
Frankly, I feel like it’s wrong for you to say that the problem is pushed onto users when you don’t understand the code and effort the developers are writing to solve this issue specifically with counter-strike
You are the one who continues to make assumptions about what I do and do not understand about the code that makes this work in various games.
I don't really feel like getting into the nitty gritty here in comments, but if your experience is what you say, I'm very surprised at some of your unqualified statements.
Your comments are enough to see where your knowledge of what a networked gameplay engineer does at Valve lies. Especially since you make assumptions that the developers aren’t doing things when very clearly there are proof and industry standards that say they do those things. If you are Andrew Burke who works at Valve as an Animator, I would recommend talking to the engineers there.
Edit: Who I am shouldn't matter to you. Addressing the idea that you can shift some or all anti-cheat to the server is something you should try to engage with directly rather than appealing to authority. For what it's worth, I've spent time as a programmer in the game industry in a handful of different roles and your search will eventually find me if you keep going down that road. My experience isn't what I am arguing here, though.
It’s not really an assumption if I say “if”. I can agree with you that shifting as much data as possible on the server is best. Valve already does that pretty well for counter-strike. Far more than other competitive FPSs. They still keep shot registration on the server whereas most competitive shooters now have that on the client to have the correct gameplay feel. The big balance between keeping stuff on the server and putting some authority on the client is the gameplay feel. Counter-Strike has been and still is notorious for getting shot around a corner when you don’t see who shot you. This is because of server authority rather than client authority.
Second: Some people find the game enjoyable enough. Not every part will be though. If I turn off the startup logo shit, am I wasting my money? That’s part of the vanilla experience that I’m now missing, right? How is this different if not?
I’ve got better stuff to do with my time then those temples and that more important than any “value” I lose not engaging in it. However, how is it valuable to do? If it isn’t enjoyable, it wastes time, and I don’t get anything for it, isn’t that the reverse of value? Isn’t the smart thing to do removing it? Wtf is wrong with you where you’d want to engage with something you don’t enjoy?
Dude, read. I didn’t pay for it. Damn, you’re annoying. I’m done. I’m not sure why I responded so many times when you’re clearly a troll, or at least as good as one.
Obviously Im referring to the game when I say paid, not the mod that would be even funnier, well if being intentionally obtuse helps u cope like when youre equating logo to gameplay, so be it
Really wish they would update it to allow you to define the space boundaries with the headset on. With the Vive if you don’t start it a certain way then you have to redo the boundary setup.
Yikes that sounds annoying and yea they should definitely make it possible, this really shouldn’t be much of a challenge to code on their end.
I’ve only had to do this a handful of times because I moved the base stations or reinstalled. (Index)
I disagree. I definitely feel like I’m there with everything scaled up to real size. Like I never really considered how absolutely massive Radroaches from Fallout were until playing Fallout 4 VR.
You don’t need me to post the parade of gifs showing how broken and beyond the veil broken it was at launch. Recall it was so broken that Sony had to remove it from purchase. I hate this revisionist crap.
Sony only removed it because there was a mass-refunding problem since CDPR told people they had to contact Sony to get refunded, while that wasn’t Sony’s policy. Had nothing to do with how broken the game was (which it was).
Pretty simple root cause analysis to conclude that the game’s brokenness was the ultimate reason though. Like, why was the game being massively refunded?
Sure, but Sony didn’t decide to take it down because it was broken. Only because people were refunding. Bit pedantic, but I see a lot of revisionist history going on in this thread and just wanted it to be clear.
we can be clear that sony removed it because it was so broken that people were mass refunding it. it’s revisionist to say “it had nothing to do with how broken the game was”. the broken game is the direct cause.
It’s still early morning for me, so I apologise for my words and thoughts being muddled.
I just meant the direct reason they removed it wasn’t because it was broken. They would have removed any game that was being mass refunded. But yes, the reason people were refunding was because it was broken.
It’s weird - when I played at launch, I had precisely one bug that impacted my gameplay. Other than that, the game ran pretty smooth and was a joy to play.
Now mind you, I was playing on a PC with a Xeon, 64GB of RAM, and an RTX 2080ti. Nothing ram badly on that system three years ago. Nowadays the older CPU, slower RAM and admittedly older GPU without all the newest bells and whistles (DLSS Framegen I’m looking at you) can’t quite measure up to the latest titles.
Cyberpunk, at launch, was great. For me. Specifically for me. I loved it and still do. But this article hits a point for me that I’ve been struggling to find reason to write about without feeling like I’m ignoring people who primarily play on consoles or can’t afford a nice PC. Regardless…
Man it fuckin’ sucks how you can spend a huge amount of money on a new GPU and then four months later a new one comes out that blows it out of the water. New hardware is so much better and - because all the game devs are using that hardware to design their games both on and for - systems like mine that are still fairly new can’t run the latest games at high settings anymore.
It used to be that if you ponied up the money for a high-end rig, you could expect decent performance for years to come. But I guess blowing a grand on a GPU these days just means you’ll be doing it again in a year or something, instead of the decade or so before.
I’m not saying my PC is bad. Most of what I play runs excellently. But when I spend a grand on just a GPU I expect that GPU to run the newest games at high settings for a long time. Jedi Survivor, Starfield, both run like crap on my system. Never mind the 2TB NVMe drive everything’s installed on.
I had a similar "it's great I don't get what people are talking about" experience, only I was running it on lesser hardware than yours: 4GB GTX 970, 12-core i7-5820k, 32GB ram. I ran into a handful of bugs that were funny but not really disruptive (e.g. some dude's corpse floating behind a car as I was on the highway) and otherwise had a blast.
Nonetheless, it didn't really feel finished, y'know? That part wore on me, and I think is what undermined my enjoyment the most. It really was released too early.
Ran it on a 980ti, i7 4770k, 32GB ram at release. It certainly struggled at parts, but overall decent experience. And that was a pretty outdated rig at that point.
People just threw a tantrum. There were fewer serious bugs than Skyrim, which got all around glowing reviews. People have claimed the hype was why their expectations were so high, but as someone who wasn’t even planning on playing it for a couple years until it was gifted to me, it was a decent game that had some areas of obvious improvement. Definitely a worthy first attempt at a GTA kind of game, and its a damn shame the gaming community chose it to be the meme pinata for the year.
Nonetheless, it didn’t really feel finished, y’know? That part wore on me, and I think is what undermined my enjoyment the most. It really was released too early.
The performance issues seem to be what every article and blog post focuses on because it’s the easy thing to talk about, but I think this right here is what the actual biggest issue was and the real reason people shat on the game.
I didn’t hate it by any means. And I, like you, ran it without issue. I just sort of lost interest because it was janky and super unpolished. Like I was playing an early access game. It wasn’t big bugs as in the game breaking and not running. It was just lots of little annoyance that felt unfinished or half conceived, or like they didn’t undergo full play testing.
The massive performance issues experienced by some just compounded those issues that existed even when it did run perfectly well.
This was totally out for me. It ran ok on my setup, but it was a shit game. It randomly generated traffic when you turned your back. AI for NPCs was often barely functional. Numerous build options seemed either broken or just untested. Itemization was boring and poorly balanced. Vehicles handled like crap in a game with a car collecting activity. The crime system was so undeveloped it felt like it was a joke from the Devs with police spawning in a bowl of rice to bust a cap.
Anyways, I played about 20 hours and realized the game wasn’t finished or feature complete, and absolutely wasn’t what had been advertised. I refunded, but I’m watching feedback now and may buy again if the game is closer to it’s original sales pitch.
I’m actually a fan of the game because I can see the vision they had. I think people are more harsh because they see how great it, “could have been”. But to this day so many weird bugs, qc issues that are not even graphics related. Basic qc like overlapping dialogue, mission problems, things disappearing, etc. I’m rooting for the team to keep up improvements. But for them to tell me I’d have a better time starting over is a little annoying. If this is so much better what was I playing before ? Sure, more money, feedback and most of all time is going to make a better game.But they know there are things they could have done better if they are suggesting starting over.
They are suggesting you start over so you can enjoy the rebalance of the game with the updates. They aren’t saying you have to, just that you’ll get the most out of it if you do.
I think you’re taking this wrong. They’re saying you can play it all again and the experience will be somewhat different with the new systems. They are saying you’re a loser if you don’t or whatever. Basically, they’re saying the update effects the existing game too, not just the DLC.
Maybe it’s because they view playing the game differently than you do. Personally I see it as a game you can ‘run’, sort of like a rogue-like. There’s different ways to execute missions, a few different ways to interact and varied builds for a character. I’ve played the game twice now, once as a corpo gun slinger and once as a street kid hacker. For this update I’m doing a nomad ninja.
I have waited till the release to play it. It’s still in its wrap. Is now the definitive moment finally? Do I get the DLC right now, or is that for later?
Maybe so! I had not heard that. So perhaps the best route is to play through a second time, with the update 2.0 patch and dlc, and play the dlc storyline after the main story has concluded.
So you bought the game on release and never played it because it turned out to be a broken unfinished mess, and now, without having played it again, you’re asking if you should dump even more money into it?
The downvotes, the jokes, I find it immature. Seems like lemmy turned out to be to have become toxic with the Reddit refugees.
Look, I’m looking forward on playing the game ever since release. I still respect cd project for what they have done with Witcher 3. I simply waited to play the game as my time is sparse nowadays and I have to chose consciously how I spent it. If the game gives me dozens of hours of a great time, I see no problem in spending the cash.
pcgamer.com
Ważne