Share your Status / What's on your mind?

[STiFU 728]

I know there are a few VR fans here, so:

https://www.ign.com/videos/hitman-3-sandbox-vr-trailer?sf135661317=1

[jaxa 253]

On 1/6/2021 at 11:56 AM, nbohr1more said:

Ha ha! Linus Torvalds never fails to impress with his ability to brutalize hardware manufacturers for their poor practices:

https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=198497&curpostid=198647

Linus needs to teach Carmack how to properly insult IHV's so they can go on an angry comic tour together.

 

Is DDR5 with on-die ECC the fix?

[chakkman 380]

6 hours ago, Kurshok said:

I always wanted to see the wonders they promised in Pandyssia

That would be awesome.

 

[chakkman 380]

5 hours ago, demagogue said:

Since Arkane already made a spiritual successor to Thief (Dishonored) and System Shock (Prey), they should be due for one for Deus Ex to complete the gaming golden age's Gaming Trinity hat trick.

And that would be awesome too. Actually, it's what I was thinking as well, when I read about their new game. Especially as they have been acquired by Microsoft, it makes sense for MS to cover a lot of ground in terms of game franchises. Who knows?

[Destined 614]

I have played most of Arkanes Studios' games and have not been disappointed so far. I am not sure about Deathloop, but on the other hand I was also not sure if Prey was really for me (I am not really a great Survival Horror fan and also prefer fantasy settings to SciFi). Then it was praised here, I tried it and am loving it So, right now I have high hopes for any game, they may provide.

[chakkman 380]

Deathloop is definitely not my cup of tea. I doubt that I will even try it. It's just not my thing.

Dishonored and Prey on the other hand, yep, that's exactly my cup of tea.  And, if they do a Deus Ex like game, or an Arx Fatalis 2, then I'd be all for it as well.

[peter_spy 1529]

It seems like Deathloop follows the path set in the Prey: Mooncrash DLC, which is marrying systemic design with frantic rogue-like gameplay. I struggled with it at first, but then it grew on me and I loved it in the end. But that is kind of at odds with some major aspects im-sim fans like, e.g. slow and careful exploration, or "what happened here" environmental storytelling style. There's a lot to be explored and experienced in Mooncrash, but you have to sort of "waste" a few runs, if you want to enjoy it without rushing through.

[Destined 614]

I have not yet played Mooncrash, but know this type of gameplay from Zelda: Majora's Mask. It takes some getting used to, but at least for Zelda, you had options that made it bearable. I hope it will be the same for Deathloop, but it is very likely that I will get this game, when it is a bit cheaper and/or on sale (like I have done with most current games). Still, I will most likely try it at some point.

[chakkman 380]

I absolutely hated Mooncrash.  Loved Prey, but, Mooncrash wasn't for me at all. Strongly dislike that kind of gameplay. To each their own.

[Xolvix 47]

I didn't hate Mooncrash, I just felt a profound sense of indifference. I could see what they were trying to do but it didn't click for me because it was trying to force Prey into a style of gameplay that I wasn't interested in. I got bored and distracted because I wasn't finding things engaging enough, so I stopped. Maybe I'll try it again someday, give it a fair chance once I've dealt with other games I want to get through first.

Edited January 9 by Xolvix

[chakkman 380]

I think peter_spy is spot on with his assessment about that kind of gameplay being at odds with what an immersive sim (dislike that label, BTW) represents. Prey was a typical Arkane exploration game. That just doesn't fit that survival run stuff.

[peter_spy 1529]

6 hours ago, chakkman said:

I think peter_spy is spot on with his assessment about that kind of gameplay being at odds with what an immersive sim (dislike that label, BTW) represents.

I didn't say that. I wrote: "That is kind of at odds with some major aspects im-sim fans like". Not that it's at odds with the im-sim design goals or philosophy. Actually I think it's on the contrary.

It's very much in line with the philosophy of a non-scripted world that reacts systemically to different approaches and play styles. The thing is, most of us have one favorite playstyle defined ages ago, and we're simply unwilling to change that. So, we never really see how the system reacts to different approaches. E.g. I always play as a careful explorer, so I never see any kind of major mayhem or exploit game systems aggressively.

What I first hated, and then loved about Mooncrash, is that it forced me to use all kinds of playstyles that come with preset characters, and it showed me how much diverse the game was in reacting to that. I guess this is just devs and designers wanting to see players utilize game systems to full extent. So, while I was initially angry at the game for pulling me out of my "im-sim comfort zone", I ended up loving it for all the insane emergent stories it made me go through.

Edited January 10 by peter_spy

[chakkman 380]

46 minutes ago, peter_spy said:

I didn't say that. I wrote: "That is kind of at odds with some major aspects im-sim fans like". Not that it's at odds with the im-sim design goals or philosophy. Actually I think it's on the contrary.

It's very much in line with the philosophy of a non-scripted world that reacts systemically to different approaches and play styles. The thing is, most of us have one favorite playstyle defined ages ago, and we're simply unwilling to change that. So, we never really see how the system reacts to different approaches. E.g. I always play as a careful explorer, so I never see any kind of major mayhem or exploit  systems aggressively.

That's true. That's why I like the games how they are: Letting YOU, the player, decide how you want to approach the game. Mooncrash breaks with that. As simple as that.

[peter_spy 1529]

43 minutes ago, chakkman said:

That's true. That's why I like the games how they are: Letting YOU, the player, decide how you want to approach the game. Mooncrash breaks with that. As simple as that.

It does, but IMO it was actually a bold move from the devs. The game almost feels aimed at careful explorers and save scummers, with quite clear message: "Your playstyle is boring, the real fun is elsewhere. Let us put you through some paces, so you can see for yourself."

Well, noone likes being told something like this But I sort of agree; while I still like my careful explorer style, it is rather conservative, and I might have missed tons of immersive fun because of that.

I sure do respect the devs for having balls to make such a (design) statement, especially since it probably made them lose some audience, in a genre that is already fairly niche.

[woah 71]

On 12/21/2020 at 4:26 PM, STiFU said:

...Yes, you would still need a pupil detection, but that is extremely more robust than eye-tracking...

Quick question, because I'm having trouble finding more information on this: What is the difference between eye tracking and pupil detection?  Is one just trying to determine direction, while the other is trying to determine the complex deformation of the eye?

[STiFU 728]

2 hours ago, woah said:

Quick question, because I'm having trouble finding more information on this: What is the difference between eye tracking and pupil detection?  Is one just trying to determine direction, while the other is trying to determine the complex deformation of the eye?

A more descriptive term for pupil detection is probably pupil localization: You have a calibrated camera setup and try to locate the pupils in 3d space with that. This task can usually be performed fairly accurately.

Eye-tracking on the other hand usually refers to detecting what you are looking at, so you can control the mouse with your gaze for example. Pupil detection is actually one of the required steps in optical eye tracking. After the pupil center has been detected, the eye ball center also has to be estimated. Then, a ray is shot from the eye ball center through the pupil center and intersected with the display plane to get the display coordinates you look at. As you can imagine, estimation errors add up in these various steps, which makes eye-tracking a rather inaccurate technology, especially when free head movement and uncalibrated scenarious are involved.

 

[woah 71]

1 hour ago, STiFU said:

A more descriptive term for pupil detection is probably pupil localization: You have a calibrated camera setup and try to locate the pupils in 3d space with that. This task can usually be performed fairly accurately.

Eye-tracking on the other hand usually refers to detecting what you are looking at, so you can control the mouse with your gaze for example. Pupil detection is actually one of the required steps in optical eye tracking. After the pupil center has been detected, the eye ball center also has to be estimated. Then, a ray is shot from the eye ball center through the pupil center and intersected with the display plane to get the display coordinates you look at. As you can imagine, estimation errors add up in these various steps, which makes eye-tracking a rather inaccurate technology, especially when free head movement and uncalibrated scenarious are involved.

 

Thanks that makes a lot of sense.  I imagine determining the eye ball center is a very difficult problem with the eye not being a rigid body.

[woah 71]

By the way, here is another company working on the VAC problem but using lightfields and it looks like they have some neat prototypes https://www.roadtovr.com/creal-light-field-ar-vr-headset-prototype/

I guess coincidentally the company, "CREAL", is also pronounced "See Real"

Edited Monday at 11:18 PM by woah