Cethin

Is your comment written by AI? It seems weird, and we already went over most of what it says.

Also, DQ runs on Nintendo systems. That makes me certain it’s cloud based.

Damn, your system is insane. Yeah, an RPG maker game is next to nothing compared to that. Still, Dragon Quest I think is 3D. It takes a lot more VRAM than RPG maker.

I have 16GB VRAM, which is a lot for most systems. That’s easily consumed by an LLM. Any model that doesn’t use at least that much tends to perform pretty poorly, in my experience. That’s not mentioning how much heat it generates while running, which has to be removed from the system or it’ll slow down. Even if your system can handle it, it heats up fast. It’s great when I need a heater running, but when I need AC my room gets warm quick.

If you look towards the horizon with the sun, a little before sunrise or after sunset, you’ll probably be able to see flashes of them as they catch the light.

I don’t know, but I’m willing to bet that economies of scale actually mean data centers are more efficient. This isn’t to say their use is justified, just that they’re able to take advantage of things a home computer can’t.

However, having to run it locally means it needs to be much more limited. This is doubly true if you want to run the game and the LLM at the same time. The LLM is easily able to consume all resources your system has available if you allow it to, which means the game won’t run well (if it runs at all). This limits the use so it can’t just be shoved everywhere and constantly running, like it could if it’s sent to a data center. It’s not more efficient, just less consumption.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

If you look weak, you’re a target. The only way to have peace is to look strong.

It depends on how it’s done, and what’s important to the game, if you can do this. If you can see outside the elevator, it obviously has to be really moving a fixed distance. Also, if you’re supposed to know the height you moved it needs to be fixed, so the experience conveys that. The key is to just make it as long as, or longer, than your longest expected load time, or make the door stay closed until it’s done.

For an example, Dark Souls 1 has to have fixed length elevators. The length is totally tied to the physical world. If it changed length to suit loading times, it’d throw off your sense of where you are. Dark Souls 2, many of the elevators are just trying to convey a sense of traveling, not a specific amount of it. The world is abstract, and the transitions are more about a feeling than the actual physical scale. (These two use the exact same system though obviously, but it’s a good example of different goals.)

I’m pretty sure the price increase is for OSRS also, but they just don’t get anything.

Anyway, I somewhat agree with your argument. You get what you pay for, and if you want the game to not have MTX then you’re going to pay more (possibly, increased players could counteract this). I wouldn’t use an “hours played” metric to defend this though. I think it’s a bad metric even for regular games, but especially RS where it’s a “second monitor game” much of the time. Enjoyment/$ is the metric that matters. It’s harder to measure (as it should be, as it’s subjective), but it’s actually the reason we play games.

Eh, I’ll wait for reviews at least. It wouldn’t be the first sequel to drop the ball. I don’t have any loyalty to a company. Even though I think every game they’ve made, from Natural Selection 2 on, including Moonbreakers (even if it didn’t do well it was the best model painting simulator I’ve seen), has been worth playing, that doesn’t mean it always will.

Hanlon’s razor applies here. It could be, but I doubt it. It’s just yet another stupid CEO who thinks he, and his AI chatbot, are smarter than everyone else.

However, internet users are also stupid. They think buying the game will hurt them. In what world does that make sense? They company made the purchase with this deal, assuming they’d pay it. They expect it to make them money. The CEO just thought he could just squeeze extra profit out of it by getting out of the deal. It doesn’t mean they’ll lose money by paying it. It just means the game is making them a ton of money, but they’ll have to give some of it back to the studio.

But it also helps the game sell better. I’d bet, if the game does well, Kraft on will make far more than that back. They didn’t purchase the company to lose money. They just thought they could get out of paying that money and make more profit. It’s not that they’d not make a profit by avoiding this, just less.

Emulating the former is good enough for games preservation (or whatever you decide to do with the games).

Well, that’s the excuse at least. The law would have to effectively kill 3D printing. Is that the goal? Idk.

Wait, they made a second one?

Almost certainly an economic one. Most of our “economy” (stock value, but the media and owners treat this as if it’s the economy) is tied up in just a few companies, and all of those company’s value are most AI. I’m reasonably confident there will be an AI crash, which will tank stock values and everyone with investments in these companies.

I’m not so sure if there will be a housing market collapse.

More of a reason to do it then. That’s scummy. I guess I’ll be avoiding them like the plague.

I’m skeptical, but it makes a lot more sense. You don’t just “learn to code.” Writing the text is the easy part. It’s about solving problems. This is next to impossible to do reasonably without actually understanding what the solution needs to do and what capabilities you have to do it. That’s why the LLM method has produced such shit code. It’s just reproducing text. It doesn’t actually understand the problem or what it can use to get it done.

Yeah, I know of that, and I’m aware it happens. Even still, those designs have the concept right. I don’t see how anyone draws the smoke stack on the front of the engine but then, for some reason, draws the Steam coming out the rear. If they didn’t draw it at all then I think it’s reasonable. I just don’t see how you get to the point of the OP.

It’s like drawing a bike and drawing the pedals, but the chain connect the handlebars to the wheel or something. It’s just not something someone’s going to do. (On that page, literally everyone who included a chain connected it to the pedals. It maybe do weird things, but that basic thing is consistently correct, because you don’t draw pedals and not understand that that’s where the chain connects.) They’ll draw something that doesn’t function, because the don’t understand how a bike works maybe, but there are some basic things everyone knows.

I agree, it doesn’t resemble typical AI generated content in appearance. It does in form though. It’s like the most “I’ve seen pieces of a train, but I don’t understand what a train looks like or how it works” drawing I’ve ever seen. If the flame is at the back, how would that work with the entire rest of the engine (the cylinder at the front)? Why do the linkages not make sense.

If this is made by an autistic train fan, this is incredibly wrong. If it’s made by a person joking about them, it’s slightly more forgivable (but still, I don’t think anyone wouldn’t understand the Steam comes from the front).

You’re right, the perfect edges and perfect circles and all of that make me think it’s not AI slop at first, but even the least careful person I don’t think would make this many stupid mistakes. They’re mistakes you’d expect for something that knows that the shape is statistically expected from trains, but it doesn’t have any understanding of why.

That’s all it shares for now (for the California law). Once that’s in, what’s one more step, where the user has to provide proof of age, rather than just presenting one? That requires identification.

If their goal is identification, rather than actually protecting pedophiles (we know this isn’t the case because the Epstein clients are not facing consequences), then it’s easy to see how this leads to that.

The slippery slope is not always fallacious. If it’s a reasonable case, it’s just called a slippery slope argument.

They can be compared in that they’re both open-world action-adventure games. I can’t play every game, and of those I’m much more interested in Outward, because it’s trying (and often failing, but still trying) to do something really interesting. BotW was trying to do something others have done, just very polished. I’m more interested in the games who are experimenting, even if I have to deal with a bunch of jank.

BotW and TotK make you think, but in a way that a child can complete it without much issue. That’s fine, but that’s their target. If it’s harder than that then it’s too hard for the game. This isn’t a complaint, but an observation. It’s like going to Pokémon and expecting a challenge. It’s literally made for children, so it’s not going to be there. It’s on me if I go in expecting a challenge.