Dr. Wilkinson
Member
You know this is ridiculous. But *yawn* here we go again.This is complete bullshit.
Nintendo is out here making PS3/360 games.
The rest of the industry is not, nor does their audience want them to.
You know this is ridiculous. But *yawn* here we go again.This is complete bullshit.
Nintendo is out here making PS3/360 games.
The rest of the industry is not, nor does their audience want them to.
Nothing aggravates me more than people who only think in terms of technology. As if nothing else was important at all..This is complete bullshit.
Nintendo is out here making PS3/360 games.
The rest of the industry is not, nor does their audience want them to.
This is complete bullshit.
Nintendo is out here making PS3/360 games.
The rest of the industry is not, nor does their audience want them to.
I still feel like that is a horrible implementation of AI that favors quantity over quality. Trico's AI from The Last Guardian is still a lot more impressive than all of these tech demos that feel more like glorified AI chatbots than actual games.This feels like a bit of a straw man, using generative AI to create a game is a completely different thing that few were really talking about for major AAA games, but using AI in integrated ways in games such as the smarter NPC demos we've already seen where you could have an actual vocal conversation with them could be a next gen game changer among other uses, that I fully expect Nintendo to be another generation behind on.
What five games?Why use AI when they make the same 5 games for 20 years.
Back in the days, SEGA would have made an awesome arcade game out of this idea.
Sick of this nonsense.
There are plenty of games with good, modern visuals AND good gameplay. In fact, Nintendo's gameplay systems and designs are very basic. Nothing wrong with simple and clean, but let's not pretend like they're breaking new ground in design or some shit.
They just get this false pretense of "creativity" despite repackaging the same IP they've used since the early 90s because of religiously devoted fanboys and cartoony visuals.
When you create IP as timeless and brilliant as Mario Zelda and pokemon you don’t need AI.Who needs AI when you can reuse the same characters, location and plots over and over again?
Sick of this nonsense.
There are plenty of games with good, modern visuals AND good gameplay.
Off the top of my head....Name three.
Name three.
Off the top of my head....
Resident Evil 4 Remake, Grim Dawn and Hitman 3.
These games are fine. Most people grow out of the idea that things that aren't targeted at them as an audience are bad by the time they're in their late teens. Honestly, I don't get why people in hobbies/fandoms feel the need to act like everything they don't personally like is bad. If every game was exactly like you wanted it to be, we'd have a bunch of games that play exactly the same with no real choice in what we want to play. Just ignore the games that aren't for you and play the shit that interests you, it requires literally less effort than whining about everything.Id rather shitty graphics over shitty gameplay any day of the week, people like you are why we have fucking shit games like hell blade 2 and horizon forbidden west
If you can tell me another game with a physics engine as comprehensive as botw/totk I’ll tip my hat to you,
wow all of the games here are on saleHe was talking about generative AI specifically btw.
I appreciate some of the things TotK does, especially in terms of scale, but this circlejerk around it with people pretending the game invented physics and crafting is ridiculous
I agree that Nintendo gets too much praise for their gameplay, but also you have to consider their biggest competitor is the cutscene heavy, walk and talk section, handholdy gameplay Sony (that you are also a shill for LOL). And much of the western AAA industry also have issues making functioning and fun games at launch- so Nintendo in comparison is like an oasis in a desert.Sick of this nonsense.
There are plenty of games with good, modern visuals AND good gameplay. In fact, Nintendo's gameplay systems and designs are very basic. Nothing wrong with simple and clean, but let's not pretend like they're breaking new ground in design or some shit.
They just get this false pretense of "creativity" despite repackaging the same IP they've used since the early 90s because of religiously devoted fanboys and cartoony visuals.
The day that Nintendo of all companies uses AI for game development, is the day the industry's soul dies. I hope I am not around for that.AI is not the boon to game development that people think it is, Nintendo is right. The company that actually continues to invest in talent and make content that is not, quite literally, soulless, will stand out.
In the game industry, AI-like technology has long been used to control enemy character movements, so game development and AI technology have always been closely related.
Generative AI, which has been a hot topic in recent years, can be more creative, but we also recognize that it has issues with intellectual property rights.
We have decades of know-how in creating optimal gaming experiences for our customers, and while we remain flexible in responding to technological developments, we hope to continue to deliver value that is unique to us and cannot be achieved through technology alone.
Batman Arkham Knight, Dead Island 2, Monster Hunter World, Control, The Last of Us 2, Horizon, GoW '18. Arguably Cyberpunk, even if the game design is not what I thought it should've been, and DMC5, even if I dislike hack n slashers.Name three.
Batman Arkham Knight, Dead Island 2, Monster Hunter World, Control, The Last of Us 2, Horizon, GoW '18. Arguably Cyberpunk, even if the game design is not what I thought it should've been, and DMC5, even if I dislike hack n slashers.
Some people, specially in this place, still think Switch is "only PS3/X360 level" in its graphic capabilitiesIs this a joke or what?
Zelda, Mario, Smash, Donkey Kong, Pokemon, Animal Crossing. Sorry 6.What five games?
Ok, this is weird, kinda like you're proving his point because those are games that clearly use simulation as their primary focus, so you're saying BOTW/TOTK physics, which are "just one of the things" those Zelda games have and which main focus is adventure and exploration, are comparable to those of games which physics and simulations are the bread and butter of their design? LOL.He was talking about generative AI specifically btw.
I appreciate some of the things TotK does, especially in terms of scale, but this circlejerk around it with people pretending the game invented physics and crafting is ridiculous
Nintendo is out there outprofiting SIE by a big margin.This is complete bullshit.
Nintendo is out here making PS3/360 games.
The rest of the industry is not, nor does their audience want them to.
Seems like you are an idiotZelda, Mario, Smash, Donkey Kong, Pokemon, Animal Crossing. Sorry 6.
Kind of misses the point of the utility of AI in games development. It's not about AI designing the games for you. It's about AI generating asset content more efficiently. If Nintendo wants to pay for armies of artists and animators working tirelessly to make art asset and animation frame content, then that's their prerogative... but it's kinda dumb and leaving money on the table, when you can have a small team of senior artists and animators auto-generating all their required assets with AI and then manually authoring said content in a fraction of the time.
Not only will it result in more efficient development, but also more consistent quality in asset generation, because you have less people with inherently different competencies and styles working on the game.
They could have maybe used some AI on that Donkey Kong 3DS / Switch port. Shine it up a little bit.
Actually, it's the actual oposite, most Nintendo fans care a lot about Nintendo graphics, what they don't care too much about is tech behind those graphics, so for example Nintendo using AI to generate assets would more probably give their games generic, inconsistent, unpolished and very much non-cohesive look/feel because those things are very perceivable, specially for a company which main selling point graphically are their art styles, and as I said previously, generative AI is a trade off of control/quality for speed.His phrasing is wrong but the sentiment is correct.
They don’t need to, because they never really fully embraced the HD era, they use low powered devices and their audience don’t really care about graphics. They sell their games at £70, prices rarely drop, and people eat them up.
That means their games are cheap to make with high profits.
Companies are turning to ai in part from necessity, budgets have exploded to unsustainable levels that are killing the industry. It’s now crazy high risk, with massive multi hundred million dollar losses all too common. There’s really very few ways to get that under control for AAA, and ai is probably the only way to do that….whilst also offering innovations in and of itself
There are people who would argue with you on that first one.Off the top of my head....
Resident Evil 4 Remake, Grim Dawn and Hitman 3.
OK, let me try again then.There are people who would argue with you on that first one.
He asked for a "game with a physics engine as comprehensive", i gave him that and more. These not only have physics system way more advanced than TotK, some of them also do more than just being a open-ended sandbox.Ok, this is weird, kinda like you're proving his point because those are games that clearly use simulation as their primary focus, so you're saying BOTW/TOTK physics, which are "just one of the things" those Zelda games have and which main focus is adventure and exploration, are comparable to those of games which physics and simulations are the bread and butter of their design? LOL.