It’s showing me two AMD GPUs currently but one of them is listed as a new product so it might not have been there when you last checked.

https://www.scanmalta.com/shop/12gb-xfx-amd-radeon-rx7700-xt-qick19-black-graphics-card.html

Something about the Blitzball players all being characters you could find in the world, some of whom would otherwise be unremarkable NPCs really burrowed into my brain with FFX. Something about the fact that you’d have relationships with characters in two different contexts where they would often play a wildly different role in each really made the world feel a little bit more alive than normal.

I like it but found the fear of using items you might later need too be exacerbated to an uncomfortable degree by the magic system. I suspect I’d enjoy it more today than when it came out.

It’s because they go hand in hand. I’ve had experience with customer service roles where staff are empowered to solve issues and it requires very very very slightly higher investment in your employees to pull off.

All you’re arguing is that the web is decentralised, not that any given website within it is.

YouTube music seems to hit a perfect blend of stuff you know and stuff you don’t.

YouTube music pays artists slightly less badly than most services fwiw.

I thi k that’s the wrong timestamp. I had to skip ahead to about 38 minutes I think.

I found Jerry’s writing to be exactly as it was. I no longer have a taste for it.

Unreal is good if you want to work on big expensive projects at big companies. Godot is good if you want to work on your own projects today and potentially but not definitly work on small to middle-sized projects at small to middle-sized at small to middle-sized companies in the future. Unity is fine if you want to work on small to middle-sized projects at small to middle-sized companies now and potentially in the future.

Which sucks. There ought to be a clear and unambiguous path to chose for someone moving into game development today but since Unity keeps making weird choices that are hostile to developers whilst not continuing to improve at a good pace, it’s hard to say for sure which engine will fill in the not-Unreal Engine part of the market unless you have a crystal ball.

Realistically the best thing is to have as strong a foundation in programming generally as you can so that switching engines is minimally disruptive (as there will always be a need to do so eventually. There’s very little chance one single engine will continue to be the standard over the 40+ years of a career.)

I’m not so sure about that. Godot is fantastic for making the sorts of projects they are describing. But if the relatively minor difference between Unity and Unreal’s workflow are a turn off for them, then the consciously different workflow in Godot is probably going to be a significant barrier. Personally, whilst I love Godot because it’s FOSS and lightweight and a great platform for building smaller scale games: a big part of the appeal for me is that I find the Unreal and Unity ways of doing things stupid, confusing and clumsy and the Godot way clever, clear and elegant. I know lots of people feel the exact opposite.

I think the game “development” industry is run by people who don’t understand the difference between a game designer and a game developer. As such there’s lots of people who only know as much about game design as the average developer does being tasked to do game design work and vice versa.

The reality is that it’s a lot of fuss for a game development company to switch engines but for an experienced individual developer it’s not a huge deal to switch engines. If you learn game development and design today using Unity then 100% of the game design knowledge is exactly transferable and 80-99% of the game development knowledge (depending on exactly what you’re doing) will transfer to Unreal or Godot or whatever else you might need to use later.

It’s like a musician switching from one audio production suite to another. The musical theory stays the same and while the exact details of how to make each bit of software do stuff is different, the actual stuff you’re making it do is broadly the same.

In the comment you replied to they meant video game development companies by “developers” not the individual employees at those companies who do the actual work of developing games. Typically the actions of video game development companies are driven by the MBAs who have most of the big picture decision making power rather than the individual employees who develop the games.

Everyone in this thread is failing to understand that “developers” in this context can mean both “people who develop videogames” and “businesses that develop videogames.” As the people who develop videogames are not always the ones who make decisions like this at businesses that develop videogames those two different things that everyone is using the same word for often have opposing positions on the matter.

In my eyes it’s no different than a publisher selling a book that is in the public domain. You’re not paying them for their copyright, you’re paying them for everything else that goes into putting a physical copy of that text into your hands.

Also what’s with the third person, who else is there with you calling the shots?

It was you. You were there and you knew from day one. Lots of allegations were directed at you, specifically. What is happening.

Of course he didn’t write it.

Huh?

I suspect that all the not Linus people were already working towards publishing a response like this to the Gamer’s Nexus video when Linus ran off wildcarding again and they then decided to rush out a video so they could clearly state that Linus’s response only represented Linus’s knee-jerk response and was not supported by or representative of LTT/LMG’s take. So… It really really sucks that they responded to a situation created by them rushing and being sloppy by rushing and being sloppy but it may well be that if Linus had been kept under control they wouldn’t have and keeping Linus under control seems to be a big part of their strategy going forwards. I guess my point is it’s too early to judge whether the shift in internal power dynamics at LTT/LMG, refocusing their priorities and reducing their rate of output will actually solve the issues or not.

I think I heard that (and the jokes about the CFO being the “sponsor”) had been trimmed out of the video (which I haven’t checked.) The first time I saw it (just about an hour after posting) it was still included and you could still see the value that Billet labs was giving for their prototype was still unblurred and there was a comment from the head of labs about how they were going to post some sort of transparency video behind a paywall (on Floatplane.) When I rewatched later that day (to show someone) they had blurred out the value, they still had the jokes about selling stuff. I’m not honestly sure if they still had the thing about the plan for the paywalled transparency video. Later I saw a short reaction video to the drama that claimed all of those elements had now been removed from the LTT video.

I really doubt this post is by Linus directly. It’s been about two days since the brand new CEO and the rest of the c-suite informed Linus that any communication he makes regarding stuff like this has to go through them now.

Tbf the current CEO has been there less than two months not two years.

Yet the solution is so simple. Let the them spend 20 – 35 % of their paid time on backlog. Let them refactor the architecture. Let them improve the code base. You know, that thing the Lean book talks about, the part that everyone overlooks, the part so critical yet so often overlooked that others wrote books that ride that one aspect home.

But why do that when instead you can just pretend those issues don’t exist (or simply fail to understand them) and secure a bonus/promotion/personal favour by cutting “unnessecary” labour costs then celebrate by burbling on about how capitalism “maximises efficiency”.

That’s really poor moderation. Do you have the details of where to look to see it all?

Have you tried Divekick? It’s a 2d fighting game (IE, like Street Fighter) that only uses two buttons for 100% of the controls.

Brigette in Overwatch heals by attacking enemies if you wanted to try another example of that idea.

I definitely lean this way too, though I’ve become better able to step away from that mindset in games I want to enjoy without it.

I think part of what has helped for me is, having an awareness of that tendency, I now try to actively feed or restrict it.

IE, I play a lot of games where that is the intended fun experience. Stuff like Magnum Opus (or any Zachtronic’s title), Slay the Spire (or other roguelikes), Overwatch (or other competitive games) are all designed from the ground up for the fun to be in playing the game at the highest level of execution possible (some more mechanically others more intellectually.) I try to make sure I’m playing something like that if I feel like I’m at all likely to want to scratch that optimisation itch with that gaming session.

Otherwise, when playing games where that isn’t really the point, I find it easier to engage with the intended experience knowing that if I want to do the optimisation thing I could switch to something that is much more satisfying for that, but I also try to optimise how well I do the thing the game wants. If it’s a roleplaying game, I might try to challenge myself to most perfectly do as the character would actually do, rather than what I might do, or what the mechanics of the game might incentivise me to do. Often that can actually lead to more challenging gameplay too as you are restricting yourself to making the less mechanically optimal choices because you’ve challenged yourself to only do so where it aligns with the character.

One of the more important skills of good game design is to understand that whenever your players are complaining about something, there is something wrong that you need to identify and address whilst also recognising that it’s rarely the thing the players think is what’s wrong (as they just see the negative end result) and that they tend to express those complaints as demands for the solution they think is best to what they think the problem is.

In this case players are yelling at Blizzard “There’s not enough content!” when in fact, as you’ve observed, there actually is plenty of content, it’s just (seemingly, I’ve not actually played it myself to say for sure first hand) that Blizzard made it too easy to optimise your way past all of that content as a minor inconvenience on your way to, uh, nothing.

The answer to the problem is twofold. One you need to plug those holes in your balance so players are no longer incentivised to optimise their way past actually playing and enjoying your game (now I talk about it I think I vaguely remember reading an article that Blizzard are doing exactly that and having a hard time cleanly pitching the benefits of it to the player-base, which is why you also need to.) Two, try to put the horse back into the stable by now, sadly, actually having to create the end game content that players have bursted their way through to because your game design unintentionally promised it would be there (or just write those players off as a lost cause. Which seems like a dreadful idea as they are the ones who were the most passionate early buyers of your product…)

Alternatively… If they’d caught these issues before release (which is often, though not always, a matter of giving the developers and designers the resources to do so) they could simply have caught those issues of optimal builds being too powerful for the content and adjusted either or both to be a better match and ended up with a title that players liked more than they will like the harder to make version Blizzard now needs to turn Diablo 4 into (not to mention, that the work they need to do to introduce worthwhile end-game content could have just gone to a paid expansion for their more well regarded release instead.)

But then the Bobby Kotick’s of the world are boastfully proud of their complete inability/unwillingness to think about the development of their games in that way so here we are…

Sort of reminds me of Diep.io in some way I can’t quite put my finger on. Not sure that’s actually very useful feedback though.

That can be overcome by handling save and exit and continuing from those saves differently to normal saves (is have normal saves be possible whilst continuing to play and be loadable as many times as you wish until it is overwritten, but have “save and exit” create a seperate save file that is deleted after successfully loaded.) One type of save allows you to undo in game events, the other only allows you to end your session an resume it at another time.

Does mean more work to do to make it work properly though.

Iirc they are working to integrate it into the Steam client on desktop wherever possible (and to try to allow for cloud syncing the game state between devices.) Not sure how it’s been going but iirc it was never going to be made available until after the UI update (which came out quite recently.)

The issue from a design perspective is that many players have a tendency to optimise the fun out of the games they play. Meaning that if there is a fun thing to do that you carefully made for them to enjoy but there’s an unfun thing to do that wasn’t the point but is a slightly more effective strategy, many players will find themselves drawn to do the unfun thing and hate playing the game, whereas if they had only had the option to do the fun thing, they would have done, wouldn’t have cared in the slightest about the lack of a hypothetical better strategy not existing and loved the time they spent with the game.

Good game design always has to meet people where they are and attempt to ensure they have a great experience with the game irrespective of how they might intuitively approach it.

So… Not having ways for players to optimise all the fun out of their own experience is an important thing to consider.

There’s quite a few Attenborough VR projects and the are all worth checking out. I also think the ISS stuff is really cool.

Also much more engaging than BeatSaber IMO, never been a fan of flailing my arms to slash blocks on beat. But shooting and dodging? Give me more!

Personally I’m more interested in flailing my arms than shooting and dodging.

Pistol Whip is just a much better execution of its concept than Beatsaber is of it’s own. Though Beatsaber is a pretty decent execution of Beatsaber. It just falls slightly short of its potential. Whereas Pistol Whip shoots straight past any expectations you’d have for it and finds new ways to be better than it strictly needs to be.

Depends what exactly your after. I suspect you’re looking for something to parallel flatscreen AAA titles in which case there’s only a handful and I think they’ve all been mentioned already.

On the other hand, Pistol Whip is one of the best games I’ve ever played. But it’s more the equivalent of a flatscreen hit indie genre title than a AAA blockbuster.

I think that’s quite likely yes. But that in and off itself indicates that management consider stuff like UX to be non-essential expertise that sits outside of what is required for a functioning lean operation.

It says in the post:

“realized they should have had automated filters in place to prevent such issues. They are now implementing a two-step automated filtering and flagging system for user handles while still involving human moderators.”

They wouldn’t need to implement a system they already implemented but wasn’t working properly. They’d just be fixing it.

Failing to attempt to design and impliment an important feature at all is not the same as a bug. Unless I’m missing something they aren’t saying “we did have systems in place to prevent people creating accounts with intentionally offensive usernames but we oopsed so it didn’t work as intended until we fixed it.” They’re saying “it either didn’t even occur to us our software needed that or we decided we just don’t care so we didn’t even try to do it until people pointed out that we were missing this important thing at which point we started working on it.”

So, either they somehow just missed that this is something they need (which they really shouldn’t have and suggests they aren’t thinking even slightly about user conduct on their platform) or they did and decided they wanted to see if they could get away with just not doing it.

I understand it’s easy to get lost in the core functionality of making the thing go but you can’t lose sight of the actual intended outcome like this.

Most roguelikes either have no story or keep it out of the way.

That’s actually both very doable and marketable.

This is the article/report about US politics that I just can’t process into my brain as being anything but intentional satire but I can’t seem to see anything to indicate this is anything other than a real article on a straight news website. Does anyone have any further context about newsrepublic that would help?