www.dsogaming.com
Yes, and it's awful. These people are the reason we don't have innovations in A.I and gameplay.
I feel like people who just play games for the graphics would be better off watching a film.
Why are you guys acting like graphics and gameplay are mutually exclusive? It's possible to appreciate a game for its technical achievements all the while enjoying the gameplay. One doesn't preclude the other from existing. Nanite being one of the best features is obviously in reference to the technical side of things.
There aren't innovations in AI and gameplay because too realistic AI makes the games too difficult and frustrating, and there aren't gameplay innovations because people almost allways know familiar stuff they already know that they like, and reject new ideas. This is the reason of why all top seller and best rated games have very little innovation and the most innovative games almost always tank hard in sales and reviews.
There is a whole world of difference between impossibly realistic ai and the brain-dead puppets we see in games that frustrate in an entirely different way. Devs can absolutely improve. There's a lotta room.
A big portion of the fun is to predict how to beat the challenges and achieve it. And to do that they have to be predictable, accessible and not too difficult. Also, for testing and balance purposes they also must be predictable and reproducible.
I don't know. Ai has been a downgrade ever since fear. Devs just seem lazy. They still can't do basic things like flanking and not hide behind explosives.
I mean in this particular case, the guy said that a visual issue was a "deal breaker" so...
Lol, every generation they get way more complex, but you just don't notice it.
Every generation games get way bigger, detailed and complex. They require much more work than before. In all areas, not just AI or level design.
It's fun to kill enemies with explosives, so sometimes 'explosive barrels' are placed next to them/they aren't told to avoid them to have fun with these things.
It works but they are not magic and are being hit hard aswell. There's a reason the assault on pc performance/resolution has gone quiet.
Im still not sure how? Whatever they did non nanite using devs should take notes.
I also feel like people who don't care about graphics have shit tvs or need to quickly check their eyesight. Games are a visual medium therefore graphics are important.
But who cares about a "stable image" when you'll be focusing your attention on fighting enemies 90% of the time. Not to mention that most of this game is spent exploring cramped bunkers or running around narrow streets, which isn't the best way to showcase this feature either. Where it would really make a difference is in a game like GTA where you're constantly surrounded with huge open spaces and actually pay attention to these surroundings while driving or flying.
You do notice that the geometric detail is very high and yet you do not notice pop-in or weird detail level transitions. The two together seems easier said that done without Nanite or equivalent.
After playing TLOU Part 2, I disagree. I thought the game had impressive A.I. while still offering a myriad of difficulty and accessibility options. It isn't about AI making the entire hard but acting more natural. The game also sold really well.
Yeah, I didn’t really understand the comment about realistic being difficult either. It’s not about being difficult, it’s about them acting more like they should. Throwing grenades when in cover rather than rushing, planning with their team, suppression tactics, flanking etc.
Maybe they mean its best technical feature.
