AI benefits humanity in thousands of different ways, as it’s a massive field of computer science. Ever used to text to speech or speech to text system, read an OCR scanned document, played chess against a computer etc, those are all uses of artificial intelligence, just the ones that suffer from the AI effect.
This current fad of shoving LLMs into absolutely everything and pretending they are actually intelligent probably never will for the most part, unless they actually manage to create an AGI out of it. And then we all die.
Probably because Kojima didn’t have time when the request came in. I wouldn’t mind a new Matrix game with current tech, as Matrix is my favorite movie of all time. I’m so glad there is no successor to this perfect movie, because the story ends right with the phone call.
I watched the second one in theatre and don’t want to talk about it. Lot of people like it. But that is where I stopped. I don’t even know what happens after. :D
Neo becomes Superman in the Matrix, and the agents escape into the real world. It’s stupid, and everything else is irrelevant.
The first one is the only one worth watching. If you want more, check out the Animatrix. It’s a series of Anime shorts by different artists and directors that’s much more entertaining.
2 is okay, but nowhere near as good as the first. 3 is absolutely forgettable outside of “Neo Does A Superman” for his flight.
Animatrix, an animated anthology released between 1 and 2, holds up pretty well, in my opinion, but isn’t heavily connected to the main movies outside of one particular story. Kinda wish they went more down that route, it was neat seeing other stories in the universe outside of The Second Coming of Neo arc.
From a lore point of view, they’re not that bad and it all makes sense when you consider what the Wachowskis were TRYING to do. All the sequels and all the media associated with the sequels were ambitious to say the least. Reloaded, 4 shorts from the Animatrix, Enter The Matrix (the game), and a collection of comics all tie together the overall lore. it’s a lot. Basically back in the day if you wanted the COMPLETE story for Reloaded you had to watch like 2 shorts from the Animatrix and play Enter The Matrix. The issue is for the third film, while it was filmed at the same time as Reloaded, doesn’t really expand on some of the stuff revealed in the other media that tied into Reloaded.
The third film simply felt like was something that was forced on the Wachowskis by Warner Bros. Like I imagine very little was cut from both films because they really couldn’t cut anything and it was clearly evident they NEEDED to cut stuff.
All that being said The Matrix Online continues the story and expands the lore, which was canon, and it actually got quite a bit better.
“The current Early Access version also falls short in terms of content volume.We are deeply disappointed by the former leadership’s conduct, and above all, we feel a profound sense of betrayal by their failure to honor the trust placed in them by our fans.”
This statement seems manipulative to me. As a Subnautica fan, I have always been interested in quality of content, not how fast it gets created. I can wait for a good game. Krafton is trying to disguise their own profit-driven expectations as if they came from me and others like me, deceptively using us as pawns in guilt-laden psychological warfare against the people who have been developing the game.
In a nutshell, interpolated frames are basically just extra generated frames that go between the frames outputted by the video game itself. They’re used to combat things like motion blur, and to make animations look smoother.
Right? “We made a mediocre game that doesn’t deliver on the promises we made. Pls give good review now”
That being said, I have not read the Steam reviews, but it could be that they are getting bombed, but the situation described in the article is just people not liking the game for valid reasons
I went and read a good chunk of negative steam reviews for it. And yeah, the vast majority of the negative ones are about mechanics, or performance, and seem perfectly legitimate. A lot that basically even say, "I don't recommend now but seems like it will be good once they cook for a bit."
I did see a couple made super recently that were basically negative reviewing because of this dude's statements, but not many.
And funny how the only reviews I could imagine being considered review bomb-y seem to only have happened because of his whining about being review bombed.
Mostly it looks like the game's recent "The Breach" update was legitimately poorly received by the playerbase, the studio head decided, "No, it's the children who are wrong."
Ugh, this discussion happens every time this topic comes up. There’s nothing about the phrase “review bombing” that implies the reviews are somehow illegitimate. It just means a large number of negative reviews in a short time.
While it mentions malice in the first few words, I would argue many of their examples are not malicious, including the one given about the first known use of the phrase:
One of the first appearances of the term “review bomb” was in a 2008 Ars Technica article by Ben Kuchera describing the effect in regards to Spore, in which users left negative reviews on Amazon citing the game’s perceived lackluster gameplay and digital rights management system.
based on this article I’d say it has more to do with the organized nature of reviews. It even says:
Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading.
What other purpose for reviews is there than signaling to others whether or not they should buy the game?
Do you think the negative reviews for No Rest For The Wicked don’t have the intention of making it not sell as well? And if not, why do you think players leave them?
Related: I got PS+ for my birthday and saw they had Indiana Jones in the catalog and downloaded it without really looking. I thought it was the new one; it was a PS2 game. lol
Most games that are long are artificially so, with padded out content and grinding to advance. Short excellent games sell well. Huge expensive messes don’t.
Just like movies, large blockbuster, high budget content can sell well but does risk sacrificing its soul and purpose. Occasionally one is both excellent technically, artistically and fun too.
Or you can have smaller games with a more specific purpose which won’t sell as well. Some low budget games are bad. Some high budget games are bad. Neither is a mark of quality, they are just different ways of making games with different outcomes and purposes.
Games need to turn a profit to be visible, so they should be looking at what’s the optimum way to spend their budget and make sales.
As gamers, we should be rewarding good games, and avoiding microtransactions and all the upsells. I don’t buy any cosmetics or additional content (unless it’s a continuation of the game that makes sense as another chapter). I want to avoid that side of gaming as it doesn’t lead to good games. I pay full price at launch for my favourite game series, but not extra content. Other games I purchase later on sale.
Not even then. I think the thing that’s easy to forget about shareholders is they’re not doing this because they’re evil and get off on watching people suffer. They’re doing it because their own personal inadequacies are so vast that the only way they can cope with life is by trying to fill that enormous emotional hole with money. As a result, even when every other person on the planet has been crushed and ground into paste, and just one person with this mindset finally owns everything… it still won’t be enough for them. They will still be left with that unfillable emotional hole. They will still be empty inside.
videogameschronicle.com
Ważne