You mean like a game needs to offer more than dull enviroments to be not boring although the astronauts on the moon didn’t seem to be bored on the dull moon?
Exactly! Now go tell Todd that his game isn’t real and therefor his example “astronauts on the moon weren’t bored although the moon is dull” doesn’t make any sense.
It’s like you’re getting there without actually ever getting there.
It’s a reason why the astronauts weren’t bored on the moon. The fear of death. Games don’t have that and that is one of the reasons games need to be interesting and can’t be dull like the moon. I’ll just rephrase the same thing over and over for you. I do see some things may appear challenging to understand for some.
Read the title of the article and you may be able to piece things together: Bethesda says most of Starfield’s 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because ‘when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there’ but ‘they certainly weren’t bored’
Dude… You’re even agreeing with me without realizing it. My point is, because a game can’t create tension by threatening you with real death, it needs to be interesting in some way.
You do know this threat is about some dev saying the first guys on the moon weren’t bored although there’s basically just sand and rocks to be found? And that because of this it’s fine most planets in a game are baren and uninteresting?
The Bethesda guy compared the game to RL. I am just pointing out why this makes no sense.
I am kinda certain no game has dying. I haven’t died in any yet. Although I remember a piece of The Onion of a suicide feature of a car seat. Maybe someone should build a gaming chair with this feature to improve the immersion.
The cool thing about pathtracing is it doesn’t really matter how complex a scene is. The bad thing about pathtracing is it doesn’t really matter how complex a scene is.
If your card can’t run remixed HL2, it also won’t be able to do HL1