Mixed bag with a negative trajectory imo. Hell or High Water and Sicario where good, but the later seasons of Yellowstone, the spin-offs and Tulsa King weren't. I didn't even consider watching Lioness given how he writes female characters.
To be fair, the criticisms cut both ways, but I'd imagine it was tailored made to be a "conservative friendly" vessel for the message.
All of Sheridan's work is laced with faggotty feminist talking points and injun hand wringing. I stopped watching anything with his name attached.
Beth sells the ranch to the Indian chief for $1.59 per acre
Beth kills Jaime in a fist fight
Thanks, glad I decided to avoid it. Quite possibly the most Taylor Sheridan ending imaginable.
If you don't mind; It's unlikely that I'll return to it.
I've watched the first 3 seasons; Not sure if I want to watch anything past that. I'm guessing John dies in the end protecting what he loves, with the looming threat of "progress" being inevitable?
If churches enforced their own doctrines, we'd have a lot fewer problems, which was OPs point.
Definitely. My point is that verses like the above, or the likes of Leviticus 19:33-34, be it by intended meaning or interpretational error, can be frankly disastrous to Christian society.
"We are all equally made in God's image" would be another
No shit, but I doubt people are taking exception on the basis of this being "thought". It either reflects training data bias, or more likely, is imposed through explicit LLM alignment.
Disturbing, considering how many "mouth breathing faggots" do attribute too much value to LLM generated responses, and that not all instances will be so on the nose.
In ten years, when a bunch of people are using AI to build shoddy asset flips, I imagine Nintendo will still be churning out blockbusters that sell millions using deliberate design decisions featuring timeless art direction.
Agreed. Still, a useful tool and it'll be interesting to see how things progress in the coming years. The more menial tasks that can be assisted/eliminated, the better; More time spent on things that actually matter. My experience with generative AI is limited - I primarily use it to add rendering to hand-drawn designs, given that I'm slow as shit in 2D, and as a random idea generator within existing contexts. It already excels at that.
on the flip side we have games like Bodycam, made by two guys, one of whom was 17 at the time when they started, and it looks more realistic than any AAA shooter and most people are none the wiser to how it was made
Missed your edit. I think selling games on graphics will become less viable in subsequent generations, and as more and more "generic" looking titles release on the back of easy access to photogrammetry/asset libraries, gamers will likely become less forgiving of them. That's not to take anything away from Bodycam. Execution counts for more than most things, they did an excellent job and deserve every bit of success. Palworld is another interesting example.
It's possible to get creative, push boundaries and make use of these tools to build out fascinating, unique, or groundbreaking games using these tools and techniques, but as you stated, most studios do not do this.
I left AAA before the activism got out of hand, but not before it became a joyless, bureaucratic slog. AAA is too rigid, and more understandably, less willing to commit to untried approaches given the disproportionate cost of failure. The indie scene is a great incubator for new ideas and approaches. AA adopting the battle tested ones strikes me as the best of both worlds.
Fidelity and design are fundamentally different concepts. Films with memorable visual identity that are remembered decades after their release aren't a product of fidelity. The same is largely true for games or any other visual medium. Architectural styles, furniture, clothing, weapons, foliage and entire biomes where designed, with much thought by talented people, to maximize interest/appeal. Even in the case of realistic settings, set designers curate and build specialized props to maximize appeal. Scanning your immediate vicinity is the antithesis of this, which is why, at great expense, AAA studios combine externally sourced photogrammetry assets and scouting operations with a large number of custom assets.
Simply put, photogrammetry may provide a shortcut to fidelity. But fixation on fidelity over design is a shortcut to churning out a generic and visually uninteresting product. There are settings that get away with this. Most do not. And I'd rather play an interesting game than a realistic one.
The generative AI/photogrammetry approach is really interesting. I'd wager it's a poor substitute for coherent, deliberate design throughout a project though. Good design involves intent, understanding and consistency. AI, for the time being, lacks all of the above.
it's always cheaper to use photogrammetry
Yes. It's cheaper to build film sets and fly scouting teams to multiple exotic locations for months on end to capture approximations of your art direction, than hand author assets. But realism isn't costly... Look past the criticisms of dunning-kruger infused youtube videos man, and you'll see that asset creation is incomparable to the basic textures on primitive geometry of a couple generations ago. Production has changed in a way that not only stifles creativity, but lends itself to poorly polished and poorly performing games. All in the pursuit of "realism", where many prefer the aesthetics of last generation. That's the definition of diminishing returns.
which will give you 1:1 realistic topology
Photogrammetry doesn't produce "realistic topology" - there isn't such a thing. Topology refers to the mathematical structure of geometry, primarily in regards to how it deforms and renders. Outside of the handful of deforming meshes, the only concerns are 1) Density, 2) Correctness (manifold geometry, excessive concavity, micro-triangles introducing overdraw, incompatibility with the rest of your pipeline, etc.) By necessity, retopology sees heavy automation. LOD generation, with very few exceptions, is done parametrically, with engines providing the functionality in engine. Seen that Simplygon logo at startup? That's one middleware that provides such functionality. The entire retopology/unwrap/baking process can, and often is, entirely automated by the likes of Houdini TOPs for certain classes of photogrammetry assets. Again, by necessity given the sheer number of assets modern games require.
The time spent on photogrammetry is primarily clean up - whether it be removing objects from environments, filling areas not available for imaging or fixing the myriad artifacts that the process produces - it's far from perfect. That is IF you can find a 1:1 analogue for what you want in your game, which brings me to this notion:
Unless your game is a stylised Nintendo game
Because even half the assets released in a third of games in a year are viable candidates for photogrammetry? Sure. Overlooking that games are already criticized for looking generic, a by-product of excessive photogrammetry, art direction is still a thing, and is more important than fidelity in regards to appeal. One key concern is consistency - that the style and fidelity of assets is consistent throughout a scene. Introduce photogrammetry, and every hand authored asset now has to target that level of realism lest it stick out like a sore thumb. Even when utilising scanned materials as bases, maintaining that level of realism is time consuming and limiting.
Now consider how environments are actually constructed. The majority of game worlds rely on modularity - utilizing instanceable geometry along with trim textures/geometry, topped off with a small number of versatile tiling textures. This isn't just to speed up environment creation, it's to reduce required GPU bandwidth. Real world objects seldom conform to this approach, outside of surface scans used as tileables, and photogrammetry results in unique texture data per asset. Wonder why games have ballooned in size and constantly suffer from streaming hitches? Look no further.
a lot of studios are now bypassing the optimisation phase by using Nanite to do the work for them
Nanite is an alternative to traditional triangle rasterization as to allow more complex geometry than traditional LOD systems can practically provide. Better handling unoptimized scenes is a side-effect, not it's purpose or a recommendation. Outside of Unreal, mesh shaders are being used for the same reason, with similar results - additional overdraw. See Alan Wake 2. It's a new approach, with the associated growing pains, but "realism" demanded more geometry, so here we are.
Long term, it'll be resolved. That's not to say it's a substitute for optimisation, or was billed as such. It's just a convenient scapegoat. Ironically, Unreal does have some major architectural issues. The entire streaming system is built with Fornite in mind - with the idea of of a persistent server side world. The actor system/tick handling is poor for complex non-linear worlds, resulting in game thread congestion, and the actual streaming is far too course for large, dense worlds. The collaboration with CDPR is at least seeing some progress there - here's to hoping more games benefit from it moving forward.
I wouldn't say the diminishing returns argument is bullshit. The work required for marginally more fidelity, at an asset level, has been increasing exponentially with each generation. As scene density increases, the asset count also increases. Couple the two and either budgets balloon or significant comprises must be made. The compromises often result in more generic looking assets (owing to extensive outsourcing with minimal art director, the use of photogrammetry at some stage of the pipeline or parametric tools drawing on a common data set). The pursuit of realism is a matter of diminishing returns, and it reduces creative freedom.
Same with the computational cost of rendering techniques. Compare early stencil shadows with PCSS. Now compare PCSS to RT shadows. The former is a significant leap, the latter not so much. Same can said for AO, reflections and GI. The problem with a lot of approximations is they usually proved to be unstable or heavily constrained. Cryengine's SVOGI, for example, can impose substantial constraints on how you build environments, especially interiors, and still suffers from ghosting and artifacts.
Rasterization based approximations had decades to mature and still weren't great. Developer laziness is inexcusable, but the biggest sin was selling real-time raytracing, which is desirable for any number of reasons, as viable multiple hardware generations too early and doing so before the associated tech had matured. And it was done to sell GPUs, not games.
I don't even think this is a fair metric. Its hard to beat the point that graphics are already at in the last 5-7~ years short of going full body scans on everything.
Pretty much. Doing so also comes at the cost of design freedom. When pursuing realism at all cost one deviates as little as possible from the source scan, limiting the potential appeal and variety of character designs. The same is true for environments, made worse by the usage of outsourced photogrammetry. The whole modern content pipeline needs revaluation, with an emphasis on design, not realism.
"how is this one better than what came before?" and not enough time on "what make's this one worth playing *as well?"
Very much this, made worse by the culture of modern studios. Ultimately, ideas and execution dictate player experience. Studios being responsible to multiple external authorities while walking on egg shells internally precludes the spontaneity that resulted in some of the industries best ideas. It's not just a matter of priorities, but the ideas themselves not materialising because a creative process has been stripped of the creativity.
So call it what it is - corporatism, not capitalism. It's the former that underpins globalist influence, and by nature is antithetical to a free-market economy - something that in my experience is important to most of those on the right.
You might be interested in Metal: Hellsinger. Picked it up last night and in terms of gameplay loop, it's probably the most satisfying shooter I've played in recent memory. Essentially Doom: The rhythm game, with none of the rogue-like elements or jank found in BPM.
Immersive simulation, where simulation refers to the world, and usually AI, responding to player actions. Emphasis on player agency and interactivity; Levels are less linear and challenges have a lot more potential solutions owing to the number of exploitable systems.
Think Thief, System Shock, Prey, Dishonoured,
The Darkness 2, Nioh 1 and Serious Sam 4 where all a steal.
Played the Darkness 1 & 2 on console, so nice having that on PC. A mob/supernatural shooter based on the Dark Horse comic. Nioh 2 is easily one of the best ARPGs I've played, interested to see what 1 is like. Same with SS4 - 2 and 3 where good mindless shooter fun that you could drop into when you had a couple of minutes, hoping the 4th is much the same.
That, and they brought my unplayed titles to a nice round 100.
I has in-game pronouns.
The +Nigger license has you covered
Anachronistic samurai anime with a unique art style made me think of Drifters. It's Hellsings dark-isekai cousin from yesteryear.
Historic greats get snapped up at the moment of their deaths and enlisted to fight in a fantasy world war. Shimazu Toyohisa, Oda Nobunaga, Butch Cassidy and Hannibal to name a few. Fighting to save elves from Hitler (unironically).
Expedition 33 looks interesting - nice to see someone do something new with the turn-based format rather than replacing it with subpar hack 'n slash.
Doom: The Dark Ages has promise. I just hope they don't lean into the game design of Eternal.
Not sure how I feel about them repurposing the Doomguy player model for Joanna Dark though.
I don't have a perfect answer for how to solve the attrition issue, but I think its one that plagues the genre as a whole as the opposite (where healing/energy is showered upon you) often makes it far too easy at times if not limited.
Agreed. Ideally we'll include two difficulty options (focusing on AI behaviour and spawn number/type as opposed to just damage multipliers), but with designed encounters balance is especially time consuming. My thinking is if the moment to moment gameplay remains mechanically satisfying (not mindless, good game feel, decent variety) then one has some leeway.
Whereas most of the rest of the Action Genre makes you feel like a tiny ragdoll made of paper... Which creates a huge dissonance
I think it's just a matter of internal consistency, and that both the Souls games and NG actually do well on this front.
Dark Souls is an inversion of the traditional power fantasy, and perseverance in the face of powerlessness is thematically prominent throughout the series. That the game loop mirrors the cycle of hollowing is a nice flourish.
In NG, Ryu is an untested heir to a clan tasked with a mission of utmost importance. There's a "secret" difficulty mode that leans into this, in which a support character provides continued assistance - because regardless of your failings the mission comes first. Gameplay wise, cowardice is not an option. Enemies actively punish prolonged blocking with lethal grapples, so it's aggression or death - and few games make you feel like more of a badass when you get it right.
Letting the player define what is fun, whether its varied moves or tried n true, rather than cranking numbers around to force things to be "difficult."
Yeah, we're not going the scoring/combo-mad route and are instead treating movesets and weapon types, along with active abilities, as means of introducing meaningful alternatives - both to overcome contextual challenges and allow players to tailor their experience to some degree.
More than anything, I'm interested in ways of providing alternate avenues for the player to succeed - potentially easing mechanical difficulty beyond just a difficulty setting. The challenge is in designing something consistently available as to avoid difficulty spikes when it isn't applicable. Player knowledge as an advantage, in terms of obscure behaviours and enemy weaknesses, and battlefield control type abilities coupled with greater mobility seem the most viable to date.
Another idea is to move away from "in the moment" gameplay and offer a lot more "preparation."
This is something we thought about. Essentially treating stage challenges as combat puzzles, which the player could "solve" through secondary means. The problem again is balance. Designed encounters, in terms of enemy assortment and positioning generally provide more enjoyable and varied combat - which is a primary design goal. In practice, the two are quite hard to reconcile. We still intend to include this on a smaller scale - undermining area specific threats and constraints, easing certain difficulty factors and precluding some encounters, but it isn't prevalent enough to base a playthrough around unfortunately.
ability to specialize your playstyle to what feels most comfortable to you
Definitely. Our progression is classless and skill based. All builds have access to the most basic of mechanics from each route. How you play influences what you can enhance, and ultimately how your "power grid" ends up looking.
I still ended up rambling a lot there so hopefully its still coherent enough, and maybe useful to your goals.
It certainly is, thanks. Nuanced perspectives from someone mindful about mechanics and with a lot of gaming experience, but with different preferences, is never not useful. It's too easy to get locked into a single set of priorities/way of thinking when one is constantly iterating on a set design.
verb (dated, informal) - spoil or ruin
Seems on point tbh
Sure, but a good few studios up to ~2005 where the nerd-culture equivalent of fratty. Nerdy guys became rich and icons amongst their fandom; Strippers and blackjack inevitably followed.
The studios where fun to work in though, no-one walked on eggshells and great games where made as a result.
I wish idtech6 had better modding support. Model swapping the demons with predditors would be the perfect response.