Then you should probably be a little more explicit about that, because I have never, not once in my life, heard someone say "well you know wearing a seatbelt doesn't guarantee you'll survive a car crash" and not follow it up with "that's why seatbelts are stupid and I'm not going to wear one".
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 340
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 340
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
I want you to imagine that your comments in this thread were written by an engineer or a surgeon instead of a programmer.
Imagine an engineer saying "Sure, you can calculate the strength of a bridge design based on known material properties and prove that it can hold the design weight, it that doesn't automatically mean that the design will be safer than one where you don't do that". Or "why should I have to prove that my design is safe when the materials could be defective and cause a collapse anyway?"
Or a surgeon saying "just because you can use a checklist to prove that all your tools are accounted for and you didn't leave anything inside the patient's body doesn't mean that you're going to automatically leave something in there if you don't have a checklist". Or "washing your hands isn't a guarantee that the patient isn't going to get an infection, they could get infected some other way too".
A doctor or engineer acting like this would get them fired, sued, and maybe even criminally prosecuted, in that order. This is not the mentality of a professional, and it is something that programming as a profession needs to grow out of.
This is an example of how appearance-based and feeling-based a lot of the activities of businesses are.
If you look at previous social orders its very obvious how much activity served a social function vs a real physical need related to survival. The pyramids, for instance. While there's a bunch of things you could say about their role in the ancient Egyptian religion, and the effect of the make-work on Egypt's economy/society, I don't think anyone could argue that a giant pile of stones could physically help anyone put food in their belies or keep them warm at night; and when you get right down to it it seems pretty clear to me that the root cause of the pyramids is the ego of the guy in charge.
And yet there are many people who will tell you that everything a modern business does is maximally efficient. I would argue that this is pretty clearly not the case. One of the most blatant examples is dress codes and air conditioning. Cooling a large office building is not a small expense, and yet many businesses opt to have their employees wear hot suits (even their non-public facing employees) and turn down the temperature lower than it otherwise would need to be. You could extend that idea to the design of the building itself: a glass box is not the easiest thing to heat and cool. You could even extend it to the existence of the office building in general: while larger buildings are easier to heat and cool per unit area than a bunch of small ones (because of the square cube law), and there are certainly benefits to agglomeration, many office buildings are enormously tall and therefore enormously expensive (as construction costs do not grow linearly with height). Additionally, a lot of these buildings are built on some of the most expensive land that exists, which balloons their cost even more. I'm not saying that I think high rises are completely useless, but I do wonder if they need to be as common as they are, especially now that the internet exists (but lots of other people have talked about that).
Its interesting to note though that because businesses are supposed to be efficient, and the more efficient they are the better they are (more powerful, cunning, brutal, manly, etc) businesses adopt an aesthetic of efficiency. The use of LLMs is one example of this (using a new technology has the aesthetic of efficiency even if it measurably makes productivity worse) but it extends to a lot of the things businesses do. Even a lot of their architecture and industrial design fetishizes efficiency without actually being efficient, IMO.
I think they meant to say superfluid helium.
This + the way raid difficulty ramps proportionally to the value of your settlement and has nothing to do with where you're located or anything else.
It sorta makes sense as you're a more attractive target, but it feels way too artificial and gamey, at least when i played. You can be out on an ice sheet in the middle of nowhere and get raided by a bunch of shirtless guys that all freeze to death as soon as they spawn on the map. Or how you can feed valuable objects into an incinerator and that sends out a telepathic signal that your base value is lower. Aside from the immersion issues ("immersion" is not exactly the right word for it, as I think this kind of artificiality actually kills systems based gameplay, not just the atmosphere of the game) this is also auto-scaling difficulty, which has never felt good in any game ever.
To be honest I dislike a lot of the design of rim world, which presents itself as a sandbox game but actually has all kinds of heavy handed difficulty ramps and guardrails built into it. You can make it somewhat better by switching to Randy Random, but the whole game is riddled with that design philosophy, not just the event timing system.
I remember the days when bugs in x86 CPUs were almost unheard of. The Pentium FDIV bug and the F00F bug were considered these unicorn things.
This is the case for a lot of inventions.
Because, as a reaction to generative AI, so much emphasis is now placed on authorial intent, and the interplay of that intent and the process by which the artist realizes it. Such as being able to recognize a specific artist's mannerisms and read emotions into the shape of their individual brush strokes. Like in your previous comment:
I am creating what I see with my mind’s eye, using the sensibility and the motor control that I’ve developed through years of practice.
I feel as if 10 years ago the conversation was very different. I think back then if someone said "the most important thing about art is being able to see the imprints of the artist's will flowing from their mind, through their hand, and into the workpiece" people would immediately bring up something like Fountain and say that art can also lie in selection and the creation of context, not just in the creation of the object itself.
What does that mean for Jackson Pollock style paintings, where the content of the painting is at least partly determined by chance?
Or algorithmic art, where the artist writes code for a computer to execute (such as a fractal renderer or cellular automata) but doesn't necessarily know what the final result will look like?
Or Duchamp's Fountain, or photography in general, where you're just adding a frame to a thing you didn't create.
I feel like 10 years ago it would be very uncontroversial to say something like "art is as much discovery and the act of selection as it is creation", but not so much now.
Distributed computing would eliminate the water usage, since the heat output wouldn't be so highly concentrated, but it would probably somewhat increase power consumption.
In an ideal world I think data center waste heat would be captured for use in a district thermal grid / seasonal thermal energy store like the one in Vantaa.
Of course that isn't to say that we shouldn't be thinking about whether we're using software efficiently and for good reasons. Plenty of computations that take place in datacenters serve to make a company money but don't actually make anyone's lives better.
Okay, now imagine the city spending a billion dollars a year on preventing shark attacks, and elections being decided based on the candidates shark policy.
I used to think the same thing, but the thing is we don't care about the energy that goes into the sunscreen, we care about the remaining percent that goes into the skin. If you go from a sunscreen that absorbs 98% of the sun's energy to one that absorbs 99% you are halving the amount of energy your skin is exposed to.
If you're still getting burned with 98% absorption, then increasing that number by 1% would actually make a huge difference. And that's without even considering things like having a safety margin for improper application.
Its kinda funny to me, its like you can talk about how shitting is necessary for humans to live but don't you dare say you're gonna go take a dump.
Goddamn
I previously kinda liked Hertzog (he was amusing to listen to if nothing else), not any more.
How do you boil 11,000 rats alive and then go on and make 10 minute long thinkpieces about the profound sadness of the death of a single penguin that leaves its flock? What a fucking masturbatory asshat.
I remember reading a pre-release article about Far Cry 2 in a game magazine, where were all hyped about the many different ways a player could take out an enemy camp, e.g. go in guns blazing, or set a fire that would spread to the camp, or startle wild animals which then would stampede through the camp.
So, that's the thing, that's interesting emergent gameplay.
Compare that to Just Cause (2006) or Just Cause 2 (2010). It has neat traversal mechanics (paragliding, and in the second one the grappling hook), but it has neither the emergent gameplay of Far Cry or the carefully crafted level design of a less open game.
Or compare Far Cry to Red Faction: Guerrilla. That has cool destructible buildings, but otherwise it just falls within the triangle. In my opinion they didn't do enough with the building destruction (compare it to how destruction is used in a tactical way in the multiplayer game Rainbow Six Siege, or how its used as the basis for a puzzle game in the indie game Teardown), but the real ugliness of the game design rears its head in the driving missions. I remember being able to flick my mouse back and fourth and see vehicles appear in a space in the split second it was off screen. That wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that these were timed missions, and a vehicle could literally spawn directly in front of you, or directly to your side off camera and plow right into you.
But beyond being really annoying and goofy looking, I have to ask if that sort of system even fit the concept they were going for. The GTA games were satire games, if the spawning system and the wild car chases were a little bit goofy that was part of the joke. And while Red Faction was not the most brutally serious game I've ever played, it was one of the most political, especially for the era that it came out. In the first Red Faction you are part of an armed labor uprising very reminiscent of the Battle of Blair Mountain (the workers are miners). In Guerilla you basically fight in a SciFi version of a middle eastern war, on the side of the middle east. So where is this goofiness coming from?
Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent, but I think game design and narrative/themes are intertwined, and IMO this is another instance of taking the open world formula and leaving elements behind while not doing anything to replace them or transform the things you took to make it work in the new context.
When you say “dumbed-down”, I understand you mean that the difficulty was too low, is that correct?
Not really, no. Certainly a lot of people complained about games getting easier and easier, but in regards to Bioshock in particular I mean that its level design and gameplay mechanics were literally more mindless for the player to interact with, conceptually simpler, and less intellectually interesting, than its predecessor System Shock 2. This doesn't really have anything to do with how mechanically difficult it is to execute an action in either game (although SS2 was more difficult, in a bad way, it was enormously more clunky than Bioshock).
Its kinda hard to explain what I mean by this without writing a giant essay on the game's designs and the philosophy of the immersive Sim design ethos. The most succinct way I could describe it would be to say that an immersive sim tries to merge an action game and an open ended puzzle game (as in a puzzle game where the player can come up with their own solution) into a seamless whole. Another way to describe is as a game that tries to maximize the potential for emergent gameplay while still having finely crafted encounter design (something that in most games is antithetical to one another). Another way to describe it would be a game that has those sorts of finely designed encounters, but with systems that are intentionally made to be exploitable in a way that many games do on accident. Or in other words the encounters are intentionally made to be cheesed and broken, and and the act of figuring out how to do this was made to be fun, and because of that the games were still usually fun even of you broke them in a way the developers didn't anticipate.
So, to put it simply Bioshock just did these things much less than its predecessor (the places where it still did was the enemy ecosystem, and to some degree the way you had to plan to take down a Big Daddy). Unless I can dig up some really old YouTube videos you'll have to take my word for it that there was a sentiment among certain circles, at least in the early 2010s, that was lamenting the death of games like System Shock 2, Thief, Arx Fatalis, and Deus Ex, and Bioshock was held up as an example of that.
At the same time there was a less niche complaint about the death of what we would call "boomer shooters" today. Specifically how they had keys, secrets, and nonlinear levels. The sentiment was that without these elements the player was much less likely to explore of their own volition (not just because its the opposite direction of a waypoint) and think about the level design. Speaking of waypoints I remember the first group of people really complaining that the arrow in Bioshock is even more egregious than waypoints, though IMO the way it encourages you to unthinkingly follow it is actually quite thematic.
Forgive me for saying that, but it’s quite harsh to call a whole decade of games uncreative if you haven’t played a lot of the greatest and most creative games of that time.
I have actually played Portal. I had a section where I mentioned that Valve games were an exception to this sentiment, then I deleted it and forgot when I wrote the last part of my previous comment.
But anyway, I'll admit that I was really thinking more about the time period from 2005 to 2015.
There are actually some fossils of dinosaur mummies, a rare preservation of a rare preservation. For some species these give us direct evidence of their physical appearance beyond their bone structure.
So, when I mention the Assassin's Creed / Far Cry / GTA triangle I really mean to say the poor imitators of those games. They did do some very innovative things when they first came out, but just like modern military shooters took regenerating health and the two weapon limit from Halo while leaving behind all the other gameplay mechanics that made that work, so too did many games adopt the open world and the general way you interact with it, while removing anything interesting. By "the way you interact with it" I'm referring specifically to the map unlocking, the collectables, the village / territory faction control, and the "heat" system that spawns enemies depending on how much attention you are generating.
IMO those sorts of games were very much the other side of the coin from CoD-likes, and the problem was that while the extremely linear levels of CoD-likes were too restrictive, these open world games had no structure at all. In games like Blood, Quake, or what have you, encounters are designed to flow in a certain way, with each one having its own flavor and favoring certain approaches over others. In some games you can even think of enemy encounters as a puzzle you need to solve. Level design and enemy placement of course form the two halves of encounter design. In good games this sort of thing extends to the structure of the game as a whole, with the ebs and flows in the action, and different gameplay happening in different sections so the formula keeps getting changed up. But in games where the level design is an open world that let's you approach from any angle, and where enemy placement is determined on the fly by a mindless algorithm, there is no encounter design. At the same time the way enemy spawning works is actually too orchestrated to have interesting emergent gameplay. For example, if an algorithm made an enemy patrol spawn an hour ago, and the player can see it from across the map, they can come up with their own plan on how to deal with this unique situation. If the player gets one bar of heat and the algorithm makes an enemy spawn around a corner they can't anticipate that at all, its just mindless. This has implications for the gameplay itself (no enemy can be very tough or require very much thinking or planning if you're just going to spawn them around a corner) but also, as previously stated, the entire structure of the game.
As for the other games you mention, I want to bring up Bioshock in particular. Its true, that game is a master class in presentation and aesthetics, and a game I would highly recommend, but its actually one of the games that I remember people complaining about when they said gaming was better in the 90s. Specifically the way Bioshock is very dumbed down compared to its predecessor System Shock, both from a general game and level design standpoint, but also because of the inclusion of vita chambers and the compass pointer that leads you around by the nose. (One place I will give Bioshock points though is that it has way more of an ecosystem than most imm-sims with the way enemies interact with each other; it even beats out imm-sim darling Prey 2017 in this regard).
This is admittedly a way more niche complaint than people complaining about QTEs or games being piss/brown, but it was definitely a smaller part of the much larger "games are getting dumbed down" discourse.
I could talk about Crysis and Spore too, but this comment is already really long. I haven't played the rest of the games you list, so I can't offer an opinion on them, though I have heard that KOTOR was very good.
You're right, as is so often the case when people talk about a decade I'm thinking more of its latter half and the beginning half of the next one.
But in my defense I did say "the mid to late 2000s".
I have a few more thoughts, but I'll have to make another reply in a bit.
I understand your frustration and I apologize for reading into your comments something you didn't mean. I, too, wish people would say what they mean and mean what they say, and that when you say something its taken to mean what you said.
Unfortunately very often people will make a very reasonable (even factually true) point as a preamble to support something very unreasonable. If you agree with the reasonable point the person will then act like you agree with the unreasonable one. This is not only more time consuming and tiring to argue against, it also lends a great deal more credibility to the unreasonable point than it is really owed. To the uninformed reader to looks like the two sides of the argument partially agree, when nothing could be further from the truth. Its immensely frustrating to have your words used against you like this, so many people try and preempt it by jumping straight to (what they assume to be) the unreasonable point and arguing against it directly.
This is toxic for actual discussion. It means that good faith actors have to add all sorts of qualifications and clarifications about where they stand before they say anything about anything, which is tiring in itself. But its the world that we live in. If someone makes an unqualified comment about the CO2 emissions of volcanoes in a thread about anthropogenic climate change people are going to assume that they don't think climate change is real. And, operating that way, those people will be right more often than they're wrong.