Pretty much every problem boils down to “but implementing this would’ve made us lose money”
Pokestops could’ve been “typed”. Like “hospital” could’ve been a free heal or have better healing item rates. “Museum” could’ve been the place to get fossil Pokémon, or maybe revive fossils that you find from regular stops. Maybe a grocery store would’ve had better item rates. A school could’ve been a move relearner. Maybe some Pokémon only evolve at church, or at an amusement park. The lures could’ve done something similar, turning normal stops into typed stops
I'm glad they didn't, but they could have definitely done ad deals with some large franchises and small businesses to make their locations have special features.
If Dark Souls had easier difficulties, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. People would turn down the difficulty instead of learning the bosses and how to beat them.
The games aren't as hard as people make them out to be. They just force you to adjust and learn to play in control. There's a reason people can play them with all kinds of goofy input options, though. If you pay attention to what enemies do and don't blindly spam attack every second, they're all beatable
I think that's a matter of preference. I don't think many video games have good writing (even compared to a lot of casual popular "beach read" type books), so I get my story telling from however many audiobooks I can squeeze into 2x 40-50 hours a week. I want challenges in games and I want distinct fail states to punish failure.
The unskippable "boring" introduction we've all seen 1000 times in VR is wildly better. You really feel like you're being carted through a town, hearing people all around you talk their shit. Then the dragon.
I didn't actually get that far because space constraints became an issue with where I had my setup, but going to the little town then white run felt like an adventure on its own.
Skyrim is next level in VR. Not sure if you can play it on the quest, but the level of immersion in the obscenely large world and exploring it in 3D makes the older engine feel entirely irrelevant.
They have a fixed size output, yes. That output is effectively universally substantially smaller than the input it supports. The fact that they can also take smaller inputs as well increases the actual number of inputs, because those are in addition to the number of full length messages. The point is that the input space is a fuckton of orders of magnitude larger than the output space, which means you're literally unconditionally guaranteed that collisions have to exist.
Half your points are specific to a cryptographic hash, which isn't the only kind of hash or the only useful kind of hash, but since that's what you're talking about fine.
Collisions existing are normal. You can only avoid making finding a collision easier than finding the actual input for a password application and finding a collision with a modified hard to do for a checksum. The collisions still exist. In some applications of hashing, eg semantic hashing, collisions for similar inputs are desirable.
Yes, this is the point of a hash, but it's not hard to do.
Again, same thing. Deterministic code isn't that hard to do.
Preventing predictability is the only point for a cryptographic hash (besides being deliberately heavy to prevent brute force). If there aren't systematic flaws to make the distribution of outputs distinguishable from randomness, your cryptographic hash is going its job.
Yep. It kills me, but I won't do it. It otherwise is a nice little piece of tech, but the price of dealing with Facebook is a lot bigger deal to me than the price tag in cash.
A hash converts a large input into a small output. If a hash takes up to 128 ASCII characters and outputs 64, there will be ~10^135 collisions per output. This is completely normal and not a design flaw. It's simple math.
The strength of a cyyptographic hash function (not the only kind of hash or the only useful kind) is in not being predictable, not in avoiding collisions.