It’s pretty hard to make levels of difficulty that actually change things enough outside of either giving the enemies more damage and HP or simply adding more enemies, or in scored games having higher score thresholds for higher ranks (these can be anything from an actual score to the speed you finished and everything in between that’s basically just a number that you can compare to another number).
It certainly can be done, though. I can’t help but think about the bots in counter-strike. They range from braindead drooling moving targets to Terminator machines that can 1 tap you with a pistol from across the map. They actually have a difficulty scale that’s more than simply being tougher to kill and hurting you more. It affects how they move around, the speed they begin shooting, their accuracy, etc. I don’t know why these kind of bots do not extend to pretty much any game with enemies. Just give them 3 sets of behavior that makes them easier or harder to deal with.
It depends on the genre of course because of the mechanics in play. Sure, FPS with bots are hard but a lot of genres are as challenging because the mechanics usually surround mostly running and gunning with bots (if you’re playing with bots). Making the ‘AI better’ is going to be extremely difficult, especially when balancing resources out for your minimum requirements.
But for say an 3D action game, enemy ambushes, tougher environmental challenges, harder puzzles, more platforming, increase gear rarity for ‘normal’ gear and stuff can add a real challenge. Bullet sponges seems like the path of least resistance to development time. Especially if the 3D action game is single player.
Counter-strike specifically is a tough one because what other mechanics can be involved in it? In the original CS:S there were actual environmental concerns like you could shoot off boards on the rope bridge denying that path. When it released, the rope bridge was static and was always there. I’d imagine this was due to resources on the physics vs. 31 other players having to have a reasonable sync with the server and their updates.
Battlefield has done this over the years but instead of making it really dynamic it has been fairly static, even if it changes the map, it always does it the same way. Blow up a building in BF:BC2? The walls will always fall the same way and the destruction will always be the same, so it’s like a state on or off update for that location for everyone. BF3 which was newer seemed to have even fewer instances where this could happen as just an example but they also doubled the player count. There have been other games that have done more dynamic updates but every engine, fidelity, language, updates/ticks expectations are all different.
Not every genre or game has to be focused on just your targets. The more mechanics that are offered or can be offered are going to be different but certainly, it seems like many games still do not take advantage of that even though they could.
Goldeneye and its spiritual sequel Perfect Dark (my favorite game of all time) do this varying AI skill thing along with the mission objectives expanding across difficulties. An argument can be made against it because someone playing on “easy” doesn’t really experience the whole game but it’s also cool to replay levels on a higher difficulty where the map is larger or you’re interacting with more things or you’re starting in a different location.
I remember the Command and Conquer games, namely Tiberium Wars and Kane’s Wraith. You could set the bot behavior and difficulty. Also, when the difficulty was set to brutal, the bot would have all the limits removed and would start the game with double the money the player had. Even tho this is a rts game, I think it’s a good example of how to make bots if devs are given the time and there is an effort for something more.
I think there is some merit to using it in a critical sense, just based on what happened that one time it was used.
To me, AAAA means a game that was given way too much budget for its scope, to its own detriment. Take what should be a niche, mid-budget game and pump it full of cash. The game becomes too big to fail and needs to use every “play it safe” strategy the MBAs demand in order to recoup its budget. So it aims for broad appeal, which makes it fail at being the niche game it was supposed to be, and it ends up flopping.
And AAAA is a reference to that Ubisoft exec. It doesn’t have any other meaning, so now it’s obviously just satire for a shitty game that the publisher is overconfident in and wants to charge too much money for (they were trying to defend the $70 price at the time).
where does AAA even come from. Is it like michelin stars and the american automobile association started it. If not why don't I hear about the AA or just A or B or C or D games. They should do like the recording industry and have categories based on amount sold and I would limit sales for full retail price. Once they set the price as what they think of it then they only get credit for those who pay full freight. Just to limit deeply discounting to pump the numbers and maybe to encourage a reasonable starting price.
My understanding is AAA is literally just a buzzword in the vein of AAAA. It doesn’t relate to budget, team size, publisher/no publisher, kind of same as indie at this point.
It maybe made a little more sense when it was a publisher descriptor? EA, Activision, Ubisoft were publishing games at a different scale than Midway, Acclaim, THQ, etc. But still, as far as I understand is more of a marketing term as opposed to designating anything specific.
It comes from the publishers in the 90s. They needed an easy way to tell stores/distributors how popular they thought each of their games would be, to help them decide how many of a certain title the distributor should order. The games expected to be GotY contenders would be marked AAA, AA for otherwise decent games, A for more niche games and B for “this is a starshot, we’re hoping it will sell enough to justify production costs”. That then lead to more and more games being marked as AAA due to budgets getting increased, and the whole system became a bit redundant.
he games expected to be GotY contenders would be marked AAA, AA for otherwise decent games, A for more niche games and B for “this is a starshot, we’re hoping it will sell enough to justify production costs”.
Is there any evidence of this being the case? Personally, I don’t remember anything other than “AAA” back in the day, with other variations coming about much later as budgets grew and people wanted more specific delineations.
I don’t know, but if I ever create a meme game (assuming I ever got the opportunity), I’m definitely gonna market it as a AAAAAAAAAA game that was so good we had to downgrade it to a meme because your face would melt just by looking at the title screen due to how high quality it was.
Interesting. I don’t have the biggest hands (fuck the Duke) and I didn’t notice the size difference. I don’t think I could go back to a 360 controller. The XBOne feels like the final form
Sorry to keep asking questions, but what is harder to repair? Swapping the sticks? I’ve worked on so many JoyCons at this point regular sized controllers don’t bother me much
The trigger on the xbox one controller is loose and easy to take off, and it has a spring on it that flew off and I lost upon disassembling it. The 360’s controllers will remain completely function even without any shell, but are also able to be disassembled.
Honestly, it’s still the F310 for me. I have mine since the early 2010s and it’s still working perfectly. Those things are built like tanks and between XInput and DirectInput are compatible with just about any PC game of the last forty years, no extra software required. Also, they’re dirt cheap.
Honorable mention to the F710, the wireless version. While Windows 10’s USB stack unfortunately broke compatibility with it (causing randomly dropped inputs), Linux does not have that problem.
Could just be dirty. The only time I had weird stick issues was because a hair got caught under the right stick and kept making my aim jump around willy nilly. They’re pretty easy to take apart and put back together if you have the right screwdrivers.
I had a Dualsense for my computer just because it has the best D-pad
Then I got Returnal and experienced the haptics and triggers and HOLY SHIT. I tried a keyboard and mouse and the game felt FLAT. It really is incredible! Pacific Drive also takes full advantage of it, the brake trigger feels like and actual car brake and the accelerator trigger rumbles and vibrates with the haptics as you go.
No extra confit, it just works! It has to be plugged in, though, and it only works work certain titles (pretty much only Sony stuff. I can’t remember if pacific drive is Sony?)
I’m not sure, I haven’t played Assassin’s Creed since the first game :c
I have two controllers and my oldest is two years old or so, and I have had zero issues with them personally! I treat all of my stuff reeeeeeally nice, though, so I don’t usually have issues with things.
To be specific, the Xbox One Elite controller. I really liked the Series 2 but it fell apart on me. I never had much issue with the original. I’m a glutton for punishment though, and I’d get another Series 2. I don’t mind working on them so it isn’t the biggest deal
I really love the Switch Pro controller, but I wish it had analog triggers. I also have love for the GameCube controller. I am at home with the N64 controller, but I can’t say it’s a favorite
It’s probably because I have bias, but I’ve never cared for any of Sony’s offerings. Something about the sticks doesn’t feel right with both being at the bottom
My series 1 ended up developing a pretty bad flaw with the input chip and is dead-dead. It also developed a sticky X button right away, which I could repair but went back to not being perfect. The Series 2 has been more reliable, but I also use it less.
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze