291–300 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try the last of us and celeste.
The last of us is just a generic 3rd person shooter saved by its cinematics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Nearly anything on the internet that is concerned with speed does this in some fashion.
The problem is that the bandwidth costs become too high. Internet streamed video can be encoded with get efficient algorithms, it can be cached at your ISP, and it doesn't care much about latency. None of these are true for game streaming. People will want a higher quality image with low latency and it's not something that can ever be cached.
Considering those last-mile edge devices often cost in the tens of thousands of dollars and use a lot of power, including a few hundred ARM cores isn't a huge cost increase for the benefit it provides.
> The goal is typically less about art (e.g. The Irishman) or even editorial vision (e.g. Black Panther as part of the MCU), and more about creating an environment that audiences never want to leave ... everything is about the player, not the storyteller. > One can debate how this orientation limits the artistic potential of the category. The video game interaction model, which emphasizes freedom for the user within…
I’m a bit tired to read this type of comments throughout this thread. I can guess that this is written by people who never have enjoyed a good experience playing video game and then produce a theory that video game are just a bad medium. I’d say whoever is reading this: Play “the last of us” and understand how video games can be a much greater medium that movies and tv cannot emulate.
You'd be wrong - I grew up playing them, and specifically gravitated toward RPGs, the closest genre of video games to storytelling.
> and then produce a theory that video game are just a bad medium.
I didn't say they are a "bad medium". I said the medium has chosen a trade-off in it's interaction model that makes it more challenging to tell stories as coherent and powerful as found in traditional narrative media, and furthermore that there is limited demand for that sort of narrative in games in the first place.
There's a point that the article only brushes on that seems important. My generation (born in early 70's) was the first to really come up with access to video games pretty much as a given. We had space invaders etc in the arcades (or wherever else they could fit a cabinet), hand-held Nintendo and basic home consoles in primary school and then of course came the boom with PC, PS, X-Box and all that followed. But a lot…
I'm mixed on this. I grew up with games, similar age as you. I haven't completely stopped but I'm down to a 2-3 games a year. Why? Because they are all the same damn game!!! FPS # 12446, 2D side scroller # 692134, Yet another twin stick shooter, Yet another shmups, Yet another Metroidvania, etc... They aren't changing enough to hold my interest. Even games that seem "new" don't feel new. I played "Baba is You". Got m…
And sure, I also play a lot less than I used to. But there are still fantastic games out there worth playing. I loved Hollow Knight and Cuphead and Hyper Light Drifter. And they all were created by people who grew up with the same games as I did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something CK2-like ("sim RPG"?) had already been my hypothetical mobile game concept long before I even discovered (and immediately fell for) CK2: Macromanaging a player character that is basically just another NPC existing in a few layers of abstracted off-screen simulation, a slightly interactive story generator. Highly hypothetical of course, no way I'd ever make it a reality. For example a pirate game would have…
This reminds me of an idea, has there ever been any multi-tiered games such that, 1. Each tier is its own game, 2. The games are not independent As a simple, two-game, example. Imagine a strategy game such as Shogun (turn-based strategy). When the players kn that game start conflicts that opens up a match for FPS-type players to join. The outcome of the battle will depend on the FPS-player performance while the match…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>FPS gaming with a keyboard and mouse isn't coming with you on your phone for the morning commute Fortnite on mobile says otherwise
Fortnite's not an FPS... More seriously, I think this is meant to imply a game like Quake or Counter Strike ("Skill based") rather than Fortnite - i.e. Fortnite has aspects unlike those other two games that cultivate different skills.
There are many games where these aspects aren’t core to the game but there are for sure many where they are.
I was pretty surprised by PUBG’s success in the mobile space - Then again I sunk an immense amount of time into Ring of Elysium when it came out on PC and that was in many ways mobile-esque in gameplay and visuals.
So there’s probably more crossover potential than I acknowledged in the earlier post. I think a lot of my opinion on the limits of cross-platform (multiplayer) gaming was formed back when Quake 3 got cross-play between PC and Dreamcast. It was an absolute bloodbath.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the bandwidth costs become too high. Internet streamed video can be encoded with get efficient algorithms, it can be cached at your ISP, and it doesn't care much about latency. None of these are true for game streaming. People will want a higher quality image with low latency and it's not something that can ever be cached.
Two words: edge compute. The major ISPs are in the process of rolling this out in trials, with nationwide rollouts likely to start in 2021. The general idea is that you build some amount of CPU / GPU capacity in the boxes on the poles outside your house. Initial versions likely won't be able to support the full Stadia 4k experience, but it'll be enough to play games like Fortnite or Minecraft. Considering those last-…
You're not going to get a lot of gaming done on ARM cores, when the games Stadia is trying to sell are built for x86 and x64.
Games that run on ARM devices (Fortnight, Minecraft) can already run on Stadia's end user hardware (phones, low-end computers, even many android-based smart TVs), and don't require streaming infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you think the OP is making a moral argument against games, but I don't believe they are. I have no moral issue with time spent on games. My son plays quite a lot and I think that's fine. I have zero interest in them though. There are a lot of reasons for this, but they aren't moral reasons - just preferences. I'd note that this also reflect in my lack of interest in board/card games. I know a lot of pe…
It's important to think that the moral critique of video games isn't the only one around; it's possible to think that it's moral to play video games[0] but that they have a much lower aesthetic value (inherently or on average) than other artforms. [0] The moral status of people who play games involving killing, rape, etc. may seem irrelevant, but there's a paper I read a while ago[1] which argues that under a deontol…
The moral argument you point to there seems limited to violent FPS-style games - unless you consider Chess to be deontologically questionable (and surely these concerns are increased in games like poker, where bluffing (lying) to other humans is part of the game). It's an interesting intellectual argument, but not particularly relevant to my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you think the OP is making a moral argument against games, but I don't believe they are. I have no moral issue with time spent on games. My son plays quite a lot and I think that's fine. I have zero interest in them though. There are a lot of reasons for this, but they aren't moral reasons - just preferences. I'd note that this also reflect in my lack of interest in board/card games. I know a lot of pe…
It's important to think that the moral critique of video games isn't the only one around; it's possible to think that it's moral to play video games[0] but that they have a much lower aesthetic value (inherently or on average) than other artforms. [0] The moral status of people who play games involving killing, rape, etc. may seem irrelevant, but there's a paper I read a while ago[1] which argues that under a deontol…
I think even most deontologists would consider the deontological status of participation in a game depicting/simulating certain subject matter as at least sometimes significantly different from the deontological status of actually participating in the act, a distinction similar to use/mention distinctions.
Sure, a set of moral axioms on which those are categorically equivalent is possible, but I don't think it's common even among deontological frameworks that don't reduce to consequentialism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's important to think that the moral critique of video games isn't the only one around; it's possible to think that it's moral to play video games[0] but that they have a much lower aesthetic value (inherently or on average) than other artforms. [0] The moral status of people who play games involving killing, rape, etc. may seem irrelevant, but there's a paper I read a while ago[1] which argues that under a deontol…
> but there's a paper I read a while ago[1] which argues that under a deontological system, playing such games may be immoral because of their content - a pro tanto wrong. I think even most deontologists would consider the deontological status of participation in a game depicting/simulating certain subject matter as at least sometimes significantly different from the deontological status of actually participating in…
True, that's as much as the paper argues, too. My point wasn't that most deontologists would consider it immoral, only that someone has argued (quite convincingly) that it can be.