A long time ago (at least 15 or 20 years) I played a game on PC with physics like this. I specifically remember driving a Dodge Viper, and every crash would crumple the body a little more where it took a hit. At one point I ended up crumpling the entire car into a single tire I could drive around, as the tires were the only thing that didn’t squish.
YES It was a Dodge Viper game, as in that was the only car available I think. And there was a button to either crush the car more or maybe launch it into the air? I’m pretty sure that’s how I managed to crumple it into a ball with wheels just like you. 15 to 20 years ago sounds right
This game is awesome and deserves more credit than it receives. The only thing it lacks imo is built-in multiplayer support (right now you can have mp with a mod but it has some flaws).
Aero is simultaneously half missing and the most detailed aero of any game I’ve played. if you take all the weight out of a piccolina and put a mattress on the roof and push it down a hill it flys.
beamNG was one of the games that drove me to build a new PC this summer with an actually modern CPU. That physics engine is completely unparalleled but damn have you gotta pay for it.
The headline made me think I must be missing something. It’s not weird to me that games look better/more realistic over time. That’s the progression of technology.
So I watched the video, and… if I was missing something in the headline, I missed it in the video, too. I want my 6 minutes back, please.
To summarize: the video opens on a series of games, each one progressively older, overlaid with a review of that game from the time it came out praising it as the best graphical fidelity of its time. Basically, they’re saying “Yes, graphics got better, but we always seem to conclude that they’re the best they will ever be”
no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.
we have to use a decentralized open alternative (like lemmy) to take back control, switching to a proprietary solution by yet another company will only delay the problem further.
We can’t just get out of capitalism, but you can work to improve your situation. If you have a yard, grow a garden.
Also, see if there’s a mutual aid group in your area, and if not consider talking with your neighbors about what you can do to help each other out. One person might be good with car Maintanance. Another might be a good gardener. Everyone can contribute something.
Gardening will not solve the climate crisis because it won’t offset the millions of tons of co2 being emitted.
It would help, sure, but we have to radically change production to stop it. Currently the rich own those, so the best we can do short of removing them is plead.
Also yes, you can’t just get rid of capitalism, history shows it takes years/decades of planning and organizing. Start as soon as possible because I don’t think we have all that much time.
Where did I say it would solve the climate crisis? I was just having an alternative to capitalism to provide some of your food. Of course it won’t dismantle capitalism or save the world. People have been gardening forever, yet here we are. It’s just a step you can take to take some control over your situation back.
and better if that capital comes from a network of companies/volunteers instead of one monolithic corporation that can just bully everyone into their will.
no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.
There was a time, long ago, where companies actually cared about their customers, and wanted to sell them good products while making a profit, and they strived for the win - win, and the “customer is always right” philosophy. They took their fair share, and they didn’t triy to squeeze every last dime out of their customers with crappy products.
Not that that they were saints by any stretch of the imagination (there were definitely bad players back then too) but there used to be a sense of ethics with Capitalism, in America at least, a sense of products being warrantied to work the way they should be and advertised as how they would actually work.
I have no effing idea how to get back to that state, as it seems like the “lunch for wimps” crowd are running the c-suites these days.
No way of going back to that state unless we start from scratch, power is too consolidated as it is. And capitalism would soon evolve back to something like this eventually anyway.
We are on late stage capitalism now, as predicted by Marx.
e: also those better times werent that good either if you werent white/from somewhere rich, not long ago kids were working in coal mines.
Regulation. Take the money out of governing, both national government and private directors. If someone makes decisions that affect many people, make that person accountable, either through a competitive market or a functioning justice system.
The problem is that the fantastically efficient tool that is capitalism will try to increase it reach as much as possible. Killing competition and undermining laws will always be the end goal, so long as they are in anyway allowed.
The reason companies used to care is because not caring drove customers to the competition. But then there was no competition, and the care evaporated. As long as they are allowed, they will take. Civility can only be guaranteed if profits are on the line.
Tbh mainly because of dumb content. I grew up with free TV so i understand and can life with some ads if the content can be used for free. Also tbh i still sometimes use it for music and that one video gaming magazine’s channel that i really like.
I feel like I’ve become somehow allergic to youtubers and such.
The video pretty much describes why Fandom is so bad and why many games are moving their wikis to alternative services, and why you should stop using it in general. Some examples include:
Ads everywhere, including autoplaying video ads that play another ad when they’re done. There are also ads sneakily inserted in the middle of articles that are related to the wiki, like a Gamespot review (Gamespot is owned by Fandom)
A sidebar you can’t remove that promotes their content
Fandom hijacked the community’s Mcdonald’s wiki to turn it into a giant advertisement
Accounts that are 4 days old can bypass restrictions and easily vandalize pages
Fandom sometimes introduces things nobody wants, such as AI generated answers that are usually wrong, take up the top half of the page, and with no way for wiki admins to remove it. They removed it after a lot of backlash but still…
When people fork their wikis to other sites, fandom refuses to let admins delete their old wikis. This makes new wikis difficult to start because Fandom usually ends up as the top result on search engines, even if they’re old abandoned wikis.
And then you learn about Fextra’s embedded twitch player that artificially inflates their twitch view count and pushes out smaller content creators who are actually trying to engage with a game’s audience.
God, I hate constantly seeing their channel with 50k+ views on Twitch. It’s insane that embedding the player throughout their entire website isn’t against TOS.
You can block the element behind the player with the UBlock Origin element picker and it won’t comeback. I took the time to build this into my UBlock filters list since I regularly use their shitty WotR Wiki. I would kill for a good WotR Wiki.
Oh yeah… Gamespot, that place existed and it was terrible always. Then you look at the other things Gamespot own and realize they all got butchered in terms of reliability and impact.
Seems like on that last one someone could go through and change all the content in every page to a link to the new wiki. A PIA? Certainly, but at least it would get the ball rolling and use the built up SEO from fandom to help your new site get views.
Unfortunately they just use a bot to revert those. You’re not allowed to truly migrate off fandom, all you can do is fork your own data and try to out-SEO the fandom wiki, because as soon as you put it.on fandom, fandom owns it too.
I wonder if you could use a bot and AI to write fake information and post that instead. Seems like fandom wouldn’t have enough game specific info to judge the accuracy, especially if it happened over time.
The video also calls out that one of the challenges in moving off of fandom is SEO. The fandom sites often are above the new sites even when the fandom site becomes a pile of unmaintained, vandalized garbage. This suggests that vandalism actually helps fandom.
The best thing we can do is not visit the sites and don’t link to them, instead using and linking to their new sites.
Fandom is a wiki farm, meaning it hosts a bunch of wikis. Also they run on freely available software mediawiki.
Fandom has a couple main problems:
Barriers to entry are super low, verification for users takes place 4 days post account creation, with no other steps needed by the user. Paired with the limited options that moderators have for editing access on wikis and you have a wiki that is much tougher to moderate.
Ads. Fandom is for-profit. And that means super obtrusive ads that we’ve come to expect. But fandom also shoved ads in the middle of wiki pages, with admins having no control of where those should be placed. There’s also the matter of sketchy ads that are served to minors. Also, some of the ads are outdated but are for subsidiary companies of Fandom.
The Grimace Incident. Basically Fandom took over and turned the McDonald’s and grimace wikis into huge advertisements, wiping out the hard work that the actual wiki maintainers did. They also put in a bunch of factually incorrect information, literally going against the whole purpose of a wiki and really worrying other wikis, because what’s stopping Fandom from getting paid again and repeating the event with their wikis?
I’m sure I glossed over a bunch of the details but that’s the best I can do from memory.
It is called individious, there are many hosts you can choose from. In any instance, a youtube link you paste in the search bar gives you that video in individious. If a certain video is not working, you can use “Switch Individious Instance” to quickly jump to another.
Why would we need a fediverse alternative 😂 unless you want to go around editing wikis with your mastodon account, wikis are basically just static webpages. It’s called HTML 😂
Believe it or not, Wikipedia actually does use a single global account for all of its wikis. That includes Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, and almost every other site listed on their website. The only one you have to create a separate account for is their test wiki where they test new versions of MediaWiki (the software they develop for their wikis).
Wikis like Fandom typically make it easy/easier to create and edit pages. Wiki editors are rare and you want to make it as easy for them to latch onto helping and volunteering as is possible.
Maybe a fediverse option isn’t needed (though the below comment’s point about having a central account would make it easier for a lot of users), but having a convenient and easy way to create a wiki for your favorite fandom, without using Fandom would go a long way toward breaking Fandom’s hold over the entertainment sections of the internet.
I learned about this plug in the other day. Indie Wiki Buddy. It’s not a fediverse alternative, but it’s the next best thing. It can redirect your Fandom results to their independent alternatives.
For me it would be Spider-Man, Cyberpunk 2077, and anything VR.
The polish of a Sony game, something I haven’t had since the PS2, on PC was refreshing. The absolute insanity of pushing the scale of a rendered world to make Night City something that feels genuinely huge. And expanding that into real-world space is something that I had dreams about as a child.
However the 3rd is a bit different for realism, as VR done well doesn’t need graphical fidelity (=/= resolution). Games that require it, like a painting simulator, sure, but there are games like Moose Life which just recreate the old arcade style of game. No realism needed. And this is where I begin to ramble some!
If I were to go back a generation, I’d say the list is much stronger in art-directed styles. The watercolor of Okami, the cel-shading of Borderlands - now timeless classics sheerly due to their artistic direction while other games of the same era are the subject of title. Opposed to Call of Duty or Battlefield, it’s clear that each generation with some stagnation “looks” better than those before it.
But again, what exactly is it that makes current day CoD or BF “different” from something like say, 2007 Crysis?
Crysis has a bit more aliasing. That’s pretty much it? This whole idea of “realism” in video games is just preposterous to me because there are so many examples of amazing art, and then there are drab games aiming for “visual realism” which could have been something much more impressive. Crysis not only pushed the hardware of its time but it also made stylistic choices which have kept the game visually relevant.
I think another example somewhat fitting into this is games like Horizon Zero Dawn and Death Stranding - clearly more cartoonized games that are surrounded by a world influenced by realism, but rather than focusing in on what visually is most realistic they aim for stylistic choices. I would say that GTA 5’s story somewhat falls in here as well, but it’s something that RDR2 fails at exceptionally for me. On the flip side, the Darksiders series just doesn’t mesh with me stylistically, while Elden Ring is everything that I felt Darksiders could have been (visually). But even Elden Ring is just a few lines more detailed than a game like Dragon’s Dogma: Dark Arisen - render distance taking away from DD:DA’s “realism”, something that Elden Ring particularly shines at.
Ultimately I think this sort of thing comes down to our subjective perceptions. When I was a kid I played a lot of 2D side scrollers and pixel art games, I got a PS2 and experienced a lot of 3D and 2D platformers, and then the PS2 was stolen and I was relegated to flash games until the Wii. I experienced such a wide range of games before the age of 10 that now as an adult I find the aesthetic of a game to be just as important as the gameplay or its story. Quite frankly, I don’t really care if a game looks like Heavenly Sword or Darksiders or some abstract blobs and hitboxes. If it’s designed well, I’m interested, although I do have a harder time with 2D pixel games these days (the Steam Deck helps! It’s the feeling of the right console for the right game that usually prevents me from playing them on PC)
It seems a shame that even today this discourse of “best graphics or bust” is still around. It’s always been surrounding the console war culture and invades games that it had never been an issue for before, but seems nonexistent when realism actually fits a genre. For example, the graphical fidelity of Monster Hunter: World is beautiful but very out of place for the MH series, aiming for “realism”. They did a great job stylizing the game but it doesn’t detract from the more animated MH games.
Now, almost any horror game ever. So many of them push for visual realism because that’s how to get the most effective shock from gore, meanwhile there are some games that are clever about their horror, like Outlast using the perspective of a camera with night vision. Realistically, I think a game like this, or Phasmophobia, or Hellblade Senuas Sacrifice show that horror games don’t entirely need realism and too many use it as a crutch.
I don’t really think realism is “necessary” for any game with a strong art direction, and more often than not the art direction is what keeps the visual strength of a game relevant. That said, I think there are good examples of realism that have existed, but ultimately they seem likely to fade away until a remaster comes to remind a new generation of gamers that it exists, whereas a game with strong art direction seems to tend to have more staying power.
Finally - what is realism, anyway? Photorealism? And how much does realism affect immersion, since that seems to be a component?
RDR2?
Mirrors Edge?
Horizon Zero Dawn/Spider-Man?
Hitman 3?
Call of Duty?
Crysis?
Fallout/Outer Wilds?
Ace Combat?
Counter Strike?
Far Cry?
Alien Isolation?
To me, all of these stray pretty far from “realism” if the definition is avoiding things that look animated? Like the character models or aspects of the surrounding world. I feel like if I were so focused on realism then I would be distracted by the foliage of RDR2 or the animated models of Fallout/Cyberpunk 2077. However other aspects of those games look absolutely incredible, but don’t always mesh with the rest of what’s going on. This is why I feel that art direction is just more important than “realism” - because photos in 2077 just look better with the character models and the world matching than RDR2 does with it’s semi-realistic but still animated human characters in a semi-photorealistic world but it’s still pixelated grass and dirt so there’s obvious spots where a screenshot is a video game, not a photo. Sorry, that was a mouthful!
I guess what I’m getting at is what exactly does attempting visual realism bring to a game that proper art direction wouldn’t do just as well?
Is it just the innate desire to get movies as playable games?
Kinda gives me suspicions that the next console won’t be backwards compatible. They couldn’t market another Mario Kart, or Smash Brothers while I’m at it, if you could just play the old one… unless it’s a significant upgrade.
I sure hope the next console is backwards compatible, or I aint buying it.
I mean… mk8 is from the wiiu. This is the exact situation you are describing, it already happened. They just resold that game and many others and people bought them in droves
This is true, but the slight difference is that the WiiU extremely undersold. A significant number of people who own a Switch did not own a WiiU-- I myself did own a WiiU, and was bummed to not be able to play Mario Maker, Splatoon, Mario Kart 8, 3D World, and so on… but most of my complaints were met with re-releases and sequels. I can’t say I entirely disagree with the decision, again since the WiiU was a major flop, but it would have been nice to have my WiiU library brought over. But for most people, they didn’t care. I mean, MK8D sold more copies than the WiiU itself.
But this is a different ball game. The Switch is a success. Many people own a Switch. The Legend of Zelda games on Switch are among the highest rated video games in history. If this catalog is lost when transferring to the next console, Nintendo would absolutely be shooting themselves in the foot. Historically, Nintendo is somewhat on board with backwards compatibility, but not always, so we’ll see.
There’s a lot of room for improvement. The physics change from each major entry, and I’d like to see more realistic inertia to everything, and less floaty. Having to generate speed (or control it) to make a jump or stay on course would change the feel of the game and make things more interesting.
As a kid in the 90s, I couldn't really tell the difference between the capabilities of the SNES or Genesis and a hand-drawn cartoon on TV. As far as I could tell, if it was 2D, those machines could process it, but my brother and his friends just a few years older than me could tell where the limits were. When Mortal Kombat got big, I thought that was the end state for video game graphics. Everyone's just going to do that, because you can't get more real than real people, I thought. Early 3D graphics did age more poorly than the best pixel art the SNES and Genesis had to offer, and we knew at the time that that would be the case too. After years of revisiting those 2D games via emulation, a trip to a local Barcade reminded me of how important scanlines were to the art style of most games from the era, and now I basically only emulate those games with scanlines on and the most accurate emulation available when I'm playing anything earlier than the PS2.
Half-Life 2 was insanely impressive, and the thing that sold it most was the big real-time G Man head at the beginning of the game. Valve took cutting edge research in animating faces during dialogue and implemented it into the game in a way no one had seen before. It did wonders for selling the "realness" of what you were looking at. Just 3 years later, we had Crysis, a game pushing graphics so far that no one could even build a machine that could run it at max settings at the time, but even on medium settings, it was the best-looking game I'd ever seen.
Nowadays, I can look at a Digital Foundry video with side by side examples of ray tracing on and off, with them explaining to me how and why it's so much better, and I often can't really tell the difference unless I squint. I did see an Alan Wake II example that seemed pretty noticeable, but mostly only in the side-by-side, and if I was in the market for Alan Wake II, I likely wouldn't notice what I was missing when ray tracing is turned off. The things that make games look best to me now are when they can add all of that fidelity to the textures and animations of human beings, like in Death Stranding, because we're wired to more easily detect when a human being isn't real than anything else.
youtube.com
Aktywne