Greysun writes:
Nintendo is breaking barriers by adding online multiplayer to Super Mario Maker 2, but does it actually work as it was promised?
Naughty Dog has multiple single-player games planned.
I wonder what they are working on. But the prospect of multiple single player games from ND makes me giddy.
Me too, but I'm scared. The team is a shell of its former self, but fingers are crossed! I feel like he is just talking to stay relevant. The PlayStation showcase a few days ago was the time to show or say something.
Stanlittle shell of themselves? Says who you? You internet clowns are lost to reality. Naughty Dog has done nothing but gory titles.
They do a little lesbian stuff and now they are crap? You internet losers are ruining gaming.
I'd like something more lighthearted up next. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed The Last of Us, but I sure do miss the Naughty Dog games that didn't leave me feeling like someone just kicked my dog into traffic.
I honestly just want a new Uncharted.. i remember the first time they revealed gameplay trailer of U4.. blew my mind !!!
I'd love a new Uncharted game too. If they did, I'd want a return to the massive set pieces of the first three games. I felt U4 was missing that one set pieces like the train/cargo plane moment of the previous games.
I hope they have something ready for next year, last time they released a new game was TLoU part 2 4 years ago
I never felt anymore immersion from an FPV game. To me FPV feels more like a business decision.
Not many console exclusive PS games are 1st person. I can only think of Killzone back in 2013. So RaidenBlack has a point 1st person would be a nice change. 3rd person has always been less immersive to me than 1st person.
They have multiple single player games in development, so one of 'em can be a FPV project. All Sony titles currently are third person games, the few first person ones are live services.
Plus we dont know how a Naughty Dog FPV game can be. It might be really immersive. We can never know unless they try. Try something different other than the same old trope.
The Last of Us: Part III as a direct continuation from II. The series doesn't end until they have a cure.
The game didn’t even need a sequel after Part I
We don’t need Part III unless they want to do a spin off set in another country / state with a new cast
The story is pretty much done.
How is the story done? Ellie still has the ability to cure the world potentially. I mean that is pretty much the whole driving force of the first game.
I don't know how people can claim the story is done. The biggest question is still can Ellie really cure the infection. Now that she knows would she sacrifice herself? Will they try to figure out another way? Or do they try and it doesn't work and it was all a waste? I don't know, I think it would be cool to see the next one set in New York with a huge amount of infected roaming the city. Abby and Ellie reunited both with the same mission of figuring out how to make a cure! While the huge drama could be if it is possible to cure the world while keep Ellie alive. But at the end Abby has to kill ellie who is now her "best friend". I don't know. That's just one idea. The story is not over and could go in a bunch of directions.
Finally, the Vietnamese government has officially responded to Steam being blocked in the country.
VPN to buy games, fuck that if it's allowed or not, or just use a VPN and torrent what you can.
I just cannot believe we haven't had a game from them this generation nearly 4 years in.. crazy!
If the game is crap then yes there will always be negative feedback it comes with the territory. It's called word of mouth or welcome to the internet. Where the truth about a game comes out really fast whether the game is good or crap. If you can't handle the criticism because of a game then why publish the game. Why should people who never criticized or even played the game be punished? Vietnam has some really screwed up laws block Steam because they don't answer us rule. And going on a witch hunt with Steam please. Where's the proof, where's the evidence of this witch hunt. Somebody is butt hurt and has a Vietnamese Karen leading the witch hunt.
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick doesn't think AI will reduce employment or lower development costs, and calls it "stupidest thing" he's ever heard.
They already have AI trained to do coding.......
How he thinks it's stupid is beyond me, Especially since we see it happening in real time.
Company A has 300 employees and lays of 200 to replace them with AI to release the same quality game.
Company B has 300 employees and keeps all 300 but instead uses AI to release a game with dramatically larger scale, scope, complexity, short dev cycle etc.
Company B would release a dramatically better product by using humans + AI and consumers would buy the better game.
I actually agree with this concept.
This is key facet. Its how the AI is used. It's actually is impressive as is and really would make an amazing addition to alot of people in their jobs, not just tech. It also has the potential for businesses to use to lay off large amounts of people, as much as they could to save money on labor. I hope too many companies don't go with the latter. But since usually companies are worried about bottom line over people...we will see some try and hopefully fail. But yeah, if its to help workers like in your company B scenario I'm totally down...Just scared Company A may be too enticing to some ceos and businesses.
Value of AI and value of humans will both be increased with human-AI complex. Each, by themselves, will not be independently better than the other. Whether AI will ever be independent from humans is the fear question of humans, ironically because of our doing. At this stage, most of the doing is because of humans, not because of AI. AI is doing exactly that by our design, until we have failed ourselves with an AI development that went awry. The biggest take is that humans have only ourselves to blame when things become wrong, and we have to decide what is the ultimate goal with AI we want to accomplish. It would take a person with high morals and high ethics to make right of AI. I would not want businessman to decide what AI should do or what capabilities it can have. AI should be in the hands of people with high moral fiber, or those operating on love, kindness, and compassion.
AI is SUPPOSED to be used as a tool, not a replacement. It's designed to do two important things artists can take advantage of immediately.
- Make the ideation/reference imaging process much quicker and easier (basically using it as a google search)
- Make mundane and time consuming tasks faster and easier so more time is spent on creation.
Unfortunately, what many have done is used it as a way to replace rather than supplement.
CS7
In the ideal world yes.
In the real world where companies have shown little desire to innovate and spent every effort to maximize profits the end result will be the same quality games (if were lucky) made by less people and more AI.
Company Real World: Fires 200 people and makes the same game cheaper using AI and the executives get record bonuses.
Edit:
Lets look at history, specifically auto manufacturing.
In the 70's and 80's the auto unions tried to oppose automation of jobs (robots) stating that they would take peoples jobs. And the people in charge who wanted to make more money said the exact same types of things that are being said about AI. But we can look at history and see that countless types of jobs were in fact replaced by automation, that was of course even compounded upon by computers.
The net effect was that the rich got richer less jobs were needed so wages were forced down by competition for the jobs that were left.
that concept works in the initial beginning phase of AI but once AI learns and surpasses the knowledge and coding expertise of even the best human employee than this CEO will no longer need competent humans in that line of work.
@Hue_My£D_Long
Yes but that is a choice then by massively increased productivity and this greater income and wealth and stagnating with similar levels of productivity and output and not creating much wealth. Usually the option that creates wealth prevails because a rising tide raises all ships.
You can already make your own SFX with text prompts now as well, of course it will lower development cost and time
WARNING WARNING ‼️ SARCASM AHEAD
Sure Strauss and robots didn’t take jobs from car factories.
Edit:Sad thing is he believes it and unfortunately he won’t be replaced for a long time by AI
He doesn't, he's just lying. These people lay people off so they can get bonuses. If AI takes jobs, their bonus goes bigger and the workforce goes smaller.
Because he sees AI as a tool to aid development. He wants to use AI to help make bigger and better games in the same timeframe. Other CEOs want to replace devs with AI to cut costs and make lifeless games faster for a quick buck. Strauss has the right idea, this is how AI should be used. To extend and expand the capabilities of devs.
There will be few companies who will go overboard and try to replace their employees with AI tech. The ones that will make the most money will be the ones that utilize ai, along with their employee talent, to make the best product possible
AI could handle some of the most time consuming processes. To expediate the development, so in return, costing the publisher's last money end time.
Not reliably they haven't. Coding done by ai is generally abysmal for all but the most generic tasks.
I think maybe sometimes we give people in these positions too much credit when it comes to intelligence.
I think you mean candor, not intelligence.
If you take him to mean what he's saying at face value, sure.
I don't. And I think he's clearly lying.
As long as it doesn't effect his inflated executive salary or his ridiculous bonuses I'm sure he's fine with it.
Hahaha yeah trust the CEO suit over the actual developers making the games. Good one.
Its Nintendo and the switch is portable so it's ok. /s\
At least it's not 2 messes !
Nintendo continues to disappoint in the online arena
Nintendo should be ashamed of themselves for having an online service that can’t even compete with 2002 Xbox live.