Okay? Again, who are you serving by choosing this specific forum to shout that messaging? I know you aren’t OP, so consider that the royal “you”.

It’s just tiresome is all, and I’m on the “boo, capitalism” side of things. It’s like the folks who turn every thread tangentially related to Microsoft into a Linux advertisement. Or the involuntary ejaculation of a vegetarian when the subject of diet comes up. Like, yes, these folks are probably correct about the things they are saying; you’re never going to be wrong to consider the angle being worked by a corp. However, it’s infantilizing to suggest that people are unaware that a corporation wants their money. That’s a given, and without additional commentary, it’s a positively useless statement that only serves to make people tune out the messaging, even in contexts where it IS desirable to bring it up (such as when a company is doing shady shit in pursuit of your money). Releasing a mediocre graphical remaster of a title that people have nostalgia for hardly qualifies as “shady shit” in my book. Lazy, sure, but not shady.

Meanwhile, I loathe in-article links to the store page which are disguised as links to other, earlier coverage on the subject the article is discussing. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I really wish there was a companion piece to this article in which all of the alluded to “higher-ups”, who are pushing the technology, were afforded the same anonymity and freedom to speak candidly as these employees. The most insightful passage of this article, to me, was the individual who theorized that proponents of AI view game development as a problem to be solved, rather than a valuable process of iteration. Given the opportunity to speak freely, I’m curious if the pro-AI devs/execs would agree with that characterization.

Higher fidelity for sure, as one would expect when comparing games released 10 years apart, but idk if it’s “better” per se. Of course this is totally subjective, but I feel like there’s no style to inZoi, unless we define “generic AI output” as a style.

Which part of that makes the analysts idiots? Sounds like their analysis was spot on.

Secure the bag.

Now, if only EA would put the damn game on PC…

There is a distinct lack of “If You Must” on this track list and I gotta say, that smells pretty FUNKAAAAY…

This video series sounds like it might be up your alley. Guy documents his attempts to simulate a goblin society and ecosystem.

He sucks, but it was such a good set-up for a shitty Dice Man style joke, I couldn’t resist.

An emotional box? Enough about my wife!

OH!

Hopefully someone with better info than me will chime in (my algorithm occasionally coughs up LOTRO vids, but I haven’t played seriously in some time). I believe that there are two stated reasons for the situation, both relating to the age of the game. The first is that the remaining player base is not big enough to support the number of servers currently offered, and so consolidation will help the game feel more alive at any given moment. The second reason is that the legacy servers are 32 bit, and they want to modernize to a 64 bit architecture. So, two birds, one (standing) stone.

To your parenthetical, is that not what the Producers Guild of America is?

Just came from another thread detailing them walking back the skin=class change. Glad to that’s being fixed, as that’s definitely the most egregious issue, but I’m very disappointed to hear the gunplay is less impactful. That was KF2’s biggest strength imo, esp as a Commando main when I played it frequently. Popping domes in slo Mo was art.

Titus Andronicus?

4 was something of a departure from the formula, wasn’t it?

HoMM2 was my game from the series. For whatever reason, I never really progressed past that one, even though I had heard 3 was the consensus favorite.

Yes. The United States Board on Geographic Names is the group within the Department of the Interior which handles these matters. They are a part of the executive branch. I suspect that you can follow a chain of delegated authorities through that board, up the civil service hierarchy, landing on the desk of the President.

This is an example of the system not accounting for, or being ambivalent about, the election of someone to that office with a fascist ideology.

I’m speculating, and certainly not a business expert, so heaping handfuls of salt comes with this statement: I think part of the problem that led to this is that each game was published by a different entity. Square published 2016, then put the devs up for sale the following year, citing underperformance. IO buys itself out and becomes independent, but needs capital to get Hitman 2 across the finish line. Enter a publishing deal with Warner Bros. That game proves successful enough that Hitman 3 is able to be self-published.

Considering IO’s concept of this World of Assassination trilogy was always that it would have certain online-only or live servicey features, and I assume that publishers often provide the necessary infrastructure for these things, I wonder if the rotating chair of publishers is to blame for making this process so much more obtuse than it needs to be.

Please do not connect multiplayer shenanigans into my Doom campaign. It seems vanishingly rare nowadays to get a AAA shooter with as much, if not more, love put into its campaign mode, if it has one at all. Have your death match LAN parties all you like, keep the dream of the 90s alive and all, but I’m not too proud to beg that it stay its own disconnected thing.

Cause it doesn’t matter if they are still profitable. If you aren’t MORE profitable than your last outing, then you aren’t growing, and if your business isn’t growing, it’s dying.

However, I wonder if the premise is flawed here. In 1999, you could probably get a somewhat accurate idea of a game’s profitablity by comparing dev cost vs units sold. However, with live service being the AAA fascination du jour, and Call of Duty in particular having a whole game mode siloed off into the free to play space, I question if “units sold” is indicative of financial success anymore.

How are you defining “soft” in this case? It seems you and I have very different ideas of what that term means, and I’m curious about your perspective.