The ability to segment and target your audience more effectively leads to higher engagement, improved conversion rates, and better customer retention. Time is money, and building local backlinks for SEO when it comes to digital marketing, speed matters.
I got hit on a couple times in Starcraft 2 of all games just because I had a feminine-sounding username. I literally got “damn girl, look at that MMR” once and it’s so funny.
Upskaling is a fabolous technology and the split that quality needs to do between hardware upgrades and software support. Overall the existence of the technology is definitly a positive one.
However people are worried about a development that we are already seeing where games are just not efficient with their resources and require way to much computing power. People are afraid studios will decrease the amount of work they put into optimising because they feel like Upskaling will solve all perfomance problems for them. But optimisation needs to happen on both parts. That’s what people are afraid of.
ofc optimization is still needed, I meant that upscaling improves the maximum you could reasonably get out of your hardware. I'd also like to see actual low options come back bc it's really annoying not being able to turn the graphics down anymore.
I think the greatest growth for me is realising how good “high” or “medium” presets are nowadays. There is a lot of FOMO on missing the best (looking) experience, but IMO modern medium settings are stunning. I was watching a graphics comparison of Kingdom Come 2 and the improvements from “ultra” were so miniscule. The jump from “low” to “medium” to as incredible tho.
I’m a game developer and I will 100% confirm that studios have already started and will continue assuming the user has DLSS/FSR/XeSS enabled because it turns out rendering half as many pixels can get you across the finish line.
It was already fairly standard practice to try as hard as you can for performance, and when that fails to bring you good performance at native resolution, just cut some resolution (for example, to 900p from 1080p).
However, I do want to add that DLSS/FSR/XeSS is great technology for the low end of the market who can’t afford insane rigs but do get to have a slightly sharper image than previous upscalers could accomplish.
Look at the release of Rise of the Ronin for PC, the game has a huge CPU bottleneck, poor performance around big cities, looks like the game render stuff that shouldn’t be rendered. The last patch they released? “Graphics mode”…
So sad about GoG’s revenue drop. It’s my store of choice and I genuinely find it more unintrusive than Steam, but if it keeps going like this, I wonder how long it will exist. Hopefully they manage to turn things around.
I want to like them, but I use Linux and they contribute almost nothing to gaming on Linux, so, I switched to Steam as my primary store for games. I still hope they do better and buy them games from time to time.
I have to second this, trying to get gog to work on steam is a royal pain in the butt, it’s like they tried to make it incompatible with WINE, unless it’s part of the lutris library you need to hope a launcher like heroic works. I didn’t have much luck with it but I know many did.
I really wish GOG would do more to support Linux and the Deck. I started buying a little bit more there ever since Heroic came around but overall the Steam experience is still vastly superior.
I make sure that every game I buy on GOG is done so through Heroic, so that the team (hi, Linguin!) gets the small % of each sale. I do love that GOG have an arrangement with them - it makes me very glad there is some option. And lucky for us, that option is amazing.
As with each of these I post, I am just amazed that what I stumble over, save and share here in these posts is as interesting to others as it is to me!
Yeah I know. Cliche as fuck. But for those who weren’t around when It came out, it’s really hard to describe just how absurdly revolutionary OoT was. Between it and Mario 64 (another Top 5 game for me), you essentially had the foundations of 3D gaming that are still used today.
But besides that…it’s an amazing game that I’m still replaying nearly 30 years later. Ever single complaint I have about this game is a tiny issue that has been solved in other versions (like binding the Iron Boots to the C button).
The last console I had was the Sega Mega Drive, so I don’t have much knowledge of console games, but are you sure Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time “essentially set the foundations of 3D gaming that are still used today?”.
Quake 1, was released on June 1996. Quake II was released on December 1997.
Ocarina of Time was released on November 1998, the same time as Half-Life.
Sure, Mario 64 was released in June 1996, same time as Quake 1, but Quake 1 also had multiplayer - a key milestone for 3D gaming at that time).
You also had Frontier: First Encounters, released in April 1995, with primitive, but full 3D graphics:
I am just curious, is there something about Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time that I don’t know about with respect to their contribution to 3D gaming (either from a technical or game design perspective)? They are clearly great games, I just don’t really understand how they could be the foundation for all 3D gaming.
Fair enough lol. Not all 3D gaming obviously (I mean they aren’t First person shooters, like most of your examples), but effectively the Action, Adventure, Platforming, etc angle (which makes up a fairly massive chunk of games today).
What I’m talking about is the fundamental gameplay of both. Online Multiplayer was revolutionary, but it wasn’t really a fundamental change to the gameplay itself (Like with Marathon introducing mouse control)
It’s interesting that you mention Tomb Raider though because that’s a perfect comparison. It was a fairly indicative of the industry as a whole with its stiff controls, static cameras, and dodgy combat.
Mario 64 brought a full range of movement and action to games. It was really the first 3D game where just moving was fun (which is why they started the game in a peaceful courtyard, they wanted you to just have a fuck about). It also brought the user controllable camera to games (It hasn’t aged well, but that camera system was amazing when it came out). Also, while it didn’t invent the Hub world (it had been used in 2D games) it pretty much set the standard for it.
OoT built on Mario64 with two major bits of gameplay. Target lock-on (Then called “Z-Targeting”) and contextual buttons. Both of which are just so fundamental to games these days it just feels obvious. More relevant back then (but not now), it created the template for how you could faithfully transition a series from 2D to 3D while perfectly maintaining the feel of the 2D series.
Now, neither of those things alone would justify it being in my Top 5. The fact that they’re both so aggressively fun and well made does that.
I see. I still think claiming that Mario 64 and Zelda 98 are the foundation for most 3D action and adventure games doesn’t really align with reality.
Especially the piece about Mario 64 being the first 3D game were movement was fun. I understand that the definition of fun is subjective, but this is basically false.
Beyond Quake, in Frontier: First Encounters you could literally fly between solar bodies, do planetry landings, fly between cities. This is far more difficult to pull off well than the relatively primitive movement in Mario 64.
Same with setting the standard for player hubs. I haven’t played Mario 64, but I have seen friends play Mario Galaxy and the hub area in Galaxy is well designed, but simplistic and with no dynamism related to gameplay.
Not sure about how exactly target lock-on functions in Zelda 98, but target lock-on definitely existing long, long before Zelda and in more complex, dynamic environments.
Don’t get me wrong, you like what you like and clearly Mario 64 and Zelda 98 are good games, but it is strange to put them on the pedestal in this manner. Especially when many of your statements almost approach a PR level of what I assume is hyperbole (e.g. “first 3D game with fun movement” - this is clearly false).
Mario 64 was the first use of the analog stick in a console game. Push it a little bit to walk, push it all the way to run, and several states in between. Maybe you can find a simulator that had analog control, but I’m sure you can see the difference.
Ocarina of Time was a solution to that type of game in 3D space that, as discussed above in things like Tomb Raider, was far more awkward in its predecessors as the industry was figuring out how to make games work in 3D. It’s very similar to how Halo wasn’t the first console FPS, but it was the first one smart enough to put guns, grenades, and melee all on their own buttons, among other innovations.
I'd also add Mario 64's use of a controllable third person camera - all the games @Agent_Karyo mentioned are first person, and I don't think movement in those types of games is at all comparable. The camera was the key point to making a 3D platformer even possible at all, and it immediately became vital to many other genres too.
I know that by today's standards that camera is known for being rather antiquated, but it was revolutionary for its time. One detail I think deserves more credit is how they tried to anthropomorphize the camera as Lakitu to introduce it to players.
Yeah, OoT feels dated by modern standards, but that’s largely because it set the standard for 3D games. Future games have built upon the mechanics, but OoT was what paved the way.
In short. The higher the social status of the woman compared to the man, the more likely the man is to sexually objectify her. Wheras women aren’t more likely to do this based on relative status.
Objectification is defined as reducing a person to solely looks and sexual function.
Similar stuff is seen in primates. Females are easier targets to assert dominance over. Since they are physically weaker. Male long tail maqacues losing their status, would seek out younger/weaker targets to establish dominance over. Something that was interesting too, is that female maqacues with more masculine facial features, were less often subjected to dominance seeking behaviour (from both males and females if I recall correctly) than females with more feminine faces.
It seems to boil down to “who can I dominate with little risk?” Female? Easy. Big male? Stupid idea. Young male? No problem. Male of equal size? Potentially.
It isn’t that confident humans of the male reproductive caste treat women more flippantly; it’s that actual competency correlates with not being as much of an insufferable whiny piece of shit.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne