FF7 was the slam dunk choice because it is not only so iconic, but as the first 3D entry the original is also absolutely god-fucking butt ugly. I can see why FF8 would be logical in a sense, but I’m not sure it has the popularity to capitalise on. It has its charm but it’s hardly most people’s favourite Final Fantasy. It would be a cool choice though.
I don’t necessarily think any of the other entries need remakes as badly. I think FF6 is absolute peak as it is but it would probably be most likely in my opinion. It is also vastly popular and iconic so there is a lot of money to be made there. And I can’t deny that even I would be curious to see what it would be like if given the full remake treatment.
I mean, there’s a fair reason most exclusivity is dead.
There’s a lot of cool PS4 games that just don’t run well on the PS4. So, it’s a much nicer experience to get them on PS5, at 60fps, full resolution, with instant load times.
It’s also honestly kinda nice that someone with low income can buy a used PS4 and still join for most of those games online.
FF7 remake is cool for a lot of reasons, but we’ve got countless reasons to support the idea that turn-based combat isn’t the barrier to playing those old games.
I think CS:2 was far too ambitious, and there were very strange design choices around subsidies which effectively removed any challenge from the game – at first. I just played it the other day, and frankly it has turned around a lot. Decent game now.
KSP2 was just a corporate shit show – devs were well intentioned but ultimately were unable to continue based on factors out of their control. It really sucks because KSP1 is one of the best games ever made and KSP2 had a lot of promise.
Revolt isn’t federated, encrypted, has no video chat, claims privacy but that claim seems to be simply because they are based in Europe. The layout is nice and ui is better than element but that’s the only upside i see. I hate the matrix client ui’s and chat sorting options.
Exactly. I wish they would have just built a great UI on top of Matrix or even XMPP, but they insisted on doing it this way. None of my friends want to switch to something that they’re boxed-in with, they don’t want an app just for one server. Matrix is the only option we have, but all of the UIs are… meh.
Yeah, they kinda screwed up Element with combining mobile and desktop features into one app. The first time I tried creating a call on desktop, it was suddenly apparent how confusing they had made it, because you can do it in multiple ways (normal calls & conference calls).
There are other UIs that look very nice, but sadly don’t support voice chat. Hopefully these other clients can catch up, but it’ll likely take a while.
So, I briefly tried out Matrix some four years ago and left because it was utter trash and from what I gather from your comment it is still pretty much trash now. But despite there not being a single usable client, people still try to convince everyone that Matrix, by some obscrure metric, is superior to all other chat programs.
Sorry to say, but a chat protocol on its own is a tech demo at best and as long as there isn’t a single feature complete and usable client, it’s an alternative for no one except hardcore tech enthusiasts.
When I last used Matrix/Elements I had to deal with “lost keys” issues multiple times in just two months. This issue is a dealbreaker if it happens just once in a year and apparently, it’s still a semi regular problem for some of my friends.
Just accept it, Matrix will never be a replacement for Discord, WhatsApp, Telegram or even just Microsoft Teams.
I didn’t mean to say that it’s (still) trash, I think it’s useable, but there are still a lot of improvements to come.
Element as a client seems to want to do everything, which is probably great for a lot of people, but it (in my experience) has led to a poor user experience (which with more time, will likely improve, they seem to have a lot of backing).
With Element completing voice/video implementation, I imagine it’ll be easier for other clients to reference their work when implementing their own support.
Once the other clients get voice support, I will definitely be trying them out again, I’m sure they will make a much simpler experience that works out the box.
The lost keys problem has luckily never happened to me, it usually boils down the user error I believe, but yeah, if it is a user error that happens often, they should figure out some way to fix that (probably a hard problem, which is sort of fixed (i believe) if you use the client on multiple devices, so if you get logged out of your account you can easily authorize your access from another logged in device, eg desktop/mobile).
Also, revolt self hosting is broken. The web call functionality (WebRTC) is being rewritten but that effort is stale and out of the box it simply does not work. There is no real documentation about this either. It just won’t work and you need to invest a lot of effort to figure out why. The moment self hosting properly works, I’ll give it another shot. Not being able to connect without a fat client is a show stopper for me. There’s no way I can get enough traction for my groups if the barrier to switch is higher than a sheet of paper.
When self hosting all the shortcomings you mentioned are perfectly acceptable for me.
Revolt hasn’t added federation because it can be a major complexity increase in the codebase, but apparently they might be allowing instance owners to integrate polyproto support (polyproto is a work-in-progress federated chat system). If you want a discord like interface for Matrix, Cinny exists. I personally prefer revolt in some ways as Matrix feels like it doesn’t fit the use case for discord as well.
Revolt isn’t new. Matrix and revolt are around the same age and are both not even feature competitive with Discord. So until there is a fully featured truly open alternative to discord, there will be still others trying to take discord’s audience.
Does matrix have multiple chat channels per server / community yet? Last I asked they didn’t understand my question. Basically matrix just isn’t meant to be a replacement for discord.
But as far as I can remember, you can’t administer the rooms in a space as one. Like you need to be invited into each separate room.
Not saying that you couldn’t add that, I’m saying they don’t seem to want to “do what discord did”. Which is a bummer since the success of discord clearly shows what would be needed.
PS: It’s fine to do that as a UX design choice, more like IRC. But the issue is that people like you (no offense) say it’s the same when it isn’t. Like not even understanding what the problem is.
But as far as I can remember, you can’t administer the rooms in a space as one. Like you need to be invited into each separate room.
Nope, again - I don’t understand who told you this. When you’re creating a room in Matrix you can make it either public, invite only, or only joinable via membership in a specific space.
Here’s a screenshot of the room security interface:
Not saying that you couldn’t add that, I’m saying they don’t seem to want to “do what discord did”. Which is a bummer since the success of discord clearly shows what would be needed.
You are correct in that they “don’t want to do what discord this”: recently (and you can see this in their apps like EleX) they’ve transitioned to looking and acting more like modern mobile chat apps like Signal/WhatsApp/Telegram - a decision I’m assuming they’ve made as most of their funding comes from people who want a replacement for those apps and not Discord.
Regardless, just using a Discord-like client (e.g. Commet) is enough to get the experience you want.
Looks like it’s just the brand it’s sold under in that market.
I was more just pointing out that they are the same thing, since it wasn’t clear if you knew that or not and I think it’s important that people know what the drugs they’re taking actually are. Tends to be safer that way.
Hopefully, you’re either taking it as prescribed or having fun responsibly. Benzos can be fun, but they’re also some of the most addictive substances on the planet.
Also, these articles you’re posting are some quality writing.
I tried a rest run with Kubuntu on an old laptop I had, and it runs 95% flawlessly. My biggest issue is my new Brother printer that I’m trying to install connected to Wi-Fi. The system sems to know it’s there, but then doesn’t seem to install the drivers. My Android phone prints there just fine.
I thank you sincerely for getting back to me on this. I wanted to let you know I just figured it out! I thought I’d document it for the next person to come along.
I had tried all of the options in that screenshot, and none seemed to work.
I had done all that, but I still had a problem. Digging through the script output, apparently I had a bad “libsane” installed with apt. Also, to add to the problems, apt doesn’t recognize the string “libsane” now. We are to use its new name “libsane1” now in apt! So, I tried to reinstall and then reinstall the brother printer drivers, to no avail. Eventually, I had to completely uninstall libsane, and then reinstall it. And everything magically worked.
It’s so easy! 🤨
One thing to be ready to have is the IP number of the printer, which I was able to get in the WiFi options of the printer.
Whew! Test page printed on my test machine! I feel like this was my last major hurdle before adopting Linux on other machines.
Why do you think this happens when these developers already had a winning formula?
I mean, all series are going to have some point where they dick things up, else we’d have never-ending amazing video game series. I don’t think that the second game in the series is uniquely bad.
Some of it is just going to be luck. Like, hitting just the right combination of employees, market timing, consumer interest, design decisions, scoping a game’s development time and so forth isn’t a perfectly-understood science. Making the best game of the year probably means that a studio can make a good game, but that’s not the same thing as being able to consistently make the game of the year, year after year.
Some of it is novelty. I mean, part of most outstanding games is that they’re doing at least something that hasn’t been done before, and doing so again — especially if other studios are trying to copy and build on the winning formula as well — may not be enough.
Some of it is that most resources don’t always make a game better. I know that at least some past series have failed when a studio made a good game, (understandably) get more resources for the next game in the series, but then try to expand their scope and don’t do well at that new scope.
Engine rewrites are technically-risky, can get scope wrong, and a number of games that have really badly failed have happened because a studio tries to rebuild everything from the ground up rather than to do an incremental improvement.
You mention Cities: Skylines 2, and I think that “more resources don’t always help”, “luck”, and “engine rewrite” were all factors. When I play a city-builder, I really don’t care all that much about graphics; I’ve played and enjoyed some city-builders with really unimpressive graphics, like the original lincity. CS2 got a lot of budget and had a dev team that tried to use a lot of resources on graphics (which I think was already not a good idea, and not just due to my own preferences; reading player comments on things like Steam, what players were upset about were that they wanted more-interesting gameplay mechanics, not fancier graphics). Basically, trying to make the world’s prettiest city-builder with the money maybe wasn’t a good idea. Then they made some big internal technical shifts that involved some bad bets on how well some technology that they wanted to use for those graphics would work, and found that they’d dug themselves deeply into a hole.
Sometimes it’s a game trying to shift genres. To use the Fallout series as an example of both doing this what I’d call successfully and unsuccessfully, the Fallout series were originally isometric real-time-until-combat-then-turn-based games. With Fallout 3, Bethesda took the game to be a pausable 3D first-person-shooter series. That requires a whole lot of software and mechanics changes. That was, I think, successful — while the Wasteland series that the original Fallout games were based on continued the isometric turn-based model successfully, Fallout 3 became a really big hit. On the other hand, Fallout 76 was an attempt to take the series to be a live-action multiplayer game. That wasn’t the only problem — the game shipped in an extremely buggy state, after the team underestimated the technical challenges in taking their single-player game multiplayer. But some of it was just that the genre change took away some of what was nice about about the earlier games — lots of plot and story and scripted content and a world that the player was the center of and could change and an immersive environment that didn’t have other players acting out of character. The audience who loves a game in one genre isn’t necessarily a great fit for another genre. In that situation, it’s not so much that the developers don’t have a winning formula as that they’ve decided to toss their formula out and try to write a new one that’s as successful.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne