Hm, I actually found the voice acting pretty not great. Some line reads were odd, and the different voices felt like they were recorded on different mics.

I made it to one ending, and really didn’t feel any desire to do another go around.

I know what you mean about ‘perfect’ though, I have my own small list of odd games that, to me, feel like they’re ‘perfect’ in what they’re trying to do.

Eh, apples to oranges.

A 60$ game today is so unlike a 60$ two or three decades ago.

No physical medium. Much larger market and (potential at least) sales volume.

Proliferation of game engines; games don’t need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ each time, or write machine code anymore.

On top of that, there’s many other revenue streams. Not that I think this model is ‘fair and good’, but look at the mobile market, where a sale cost of $0 is king.

Something to be said about ‘lower cost incentivizing bad practices’ (as the article discusses), and yeah, some games could raise their price. But it’s far fron 1-1, as ‘sales volume’ trumps ‘sale price’ in importance.

I never gave it a chance, as theit practice of paying for exclusivity is infuriating to me.

Make your shit better. Hell, make it comparable, and charge a lower cit (so devs make more), and I’d support then.

Paying to make the market more closed off sucks.

I’m talking about the stuttering, caused primarily not recalculating shaders. Something I just dealt with the entirety of my first playthrough of ER. But the fact that it still isn’t fixed really makes me not want to play, or to pay them money.

Yeah, I’m holding off for a sale on this one. I liked Elden Ring well enough, but the performance issues are infuriating. Baffling that it still isn’t fixed.

I don’t care for it. It does some interesting things, in base building. But having played it a lot mostly because my friend group likes it, it’s very janky. It does not feel close to 1.0. And, while there’s some fun to be had, everything outside the horde nights just feels like busywork in a way I didn’t feel with Valheim or Grounded.

I fully agree. If you read my first comment, I pretty clearly as much as the new ones are pretty bad (story wise), the two Jaffe worked on are even worse in that regard.

I mean, I too would be unhappy with the new games’ stories. They’re not very good stories overall.

But, they’re better than the vast majority of video game plots, because that’s a low bar.

Still, Jaffe seems to imply the old stories in GoW were any better, when they were pure drivel. I might still be very underwhelmed by the story in the two new God of War’s, but I at least like that they’re trying (even if I think the direction of relying heavily on animation and visual flair is the wrong one, as far as telling good stories goes).

Why is it “schizo edition”? Is that like, a real thing, or is sseth doing that abelist ‘schizoposting’ stuff?

Edit: man, y’all really hate people with schizophrenia, huh?

I got through the tutorial, and into the ‘hub world’ or w/e it’s called, and it just felt very ‘MMO’ to me. Which, on top of the monetization already putting a bad taste in my mouth, I just refunded there. I hate games that shove ‘multiplayer stuff’ into single player games. Like, I played through Elden Ring in forced offline: I don’t want to interact with others, even through little stuff like bloodstains.

Good. This is a game I played and immediately refunded when I saw all the monetization stuff.

I just want a single player TBS, in the style of their other game, Monster Train. But I got immediately turned off by the FTP MMO type design choices in Inkbound.

BG3 was basically unplayable for us for about 2 weeks post 1.0

But also, we really wanted to only play co-op, and the bugs were mostly online related, which is arguably more forgivable.

But still, hard crashing or freezing every 15 minutes for one of the three of us sucked, and looking at support forums, wasn’t uncommon either.

Consuming content illegally is by definition a crime, yes. It also has no effect on your output. A summary or review of that content will not be infringing, it will still be fair use.

That their use is infringing and a crime is your opinion.

“My opinion”? have you read the headline? Its not my opinion that matters, its that of the prosecution in this lawsuit. And this lawsuit indeed alleges that copyright infringement has occurred; it’ll be up to the courts to see if the claim holds water.

I’m definitely not sure that GPT4 or other AI models are copyright infringing or otherwise illegal. But, I think that there’s enough that seems questionable that a lawsuit is valid to do some fact-finding, and honestly, I feel like the law is a few years behind on AI anyway.

But it seem plausible that the AI could be found to be ‘illegally distributing works’, or otherwise have broken IP laws at some point during their training or operation. A lot depends on what kind of agreements were signed over the contents of the training packages, something I frankly know nothing about, and would like to see come to light.

I mean, you can do that, but that’s a crime.

Which is exactly what Sarah Silverman is claiming ChatGPT is doing.

And, beyond a individual crime of a person reading a pirated book, again, we’re talking about ChatGPT and other AI magnifying reach and speed, beyond what an individual person ever could do even if they did nothing but read pirated material all day, not unlike websites like The Pirate Bay. Y’know, how those website constantly get taken down and have to move around the globe to areas where they’re beyond the reach of the law, due to the crimes they’re doing.

I’m not like, anti-piracy or anything. But also, I don’t think companies should be using pirated software, and my big concern about LLMs aren’t really for private use, but for corporate use.

The issue isn’t that people are using others works for ‘derivative’ content.

The issue is that, for a person to ‘derive’ comedy from Sarah Silverman the ‘analogue’ way, you have to get her works legally, be that streaming her comedy specials, or watching movies/shows she’s written for.

With chat GPT and other AI, its been ‘trained’ on her work (and, presumably as many other’s works as possible) once, and now there’s no ‘views’, or even sources given, to those properties.

And like a lot of digital work, its reach and speed is unprecedented. Like, previously, yeah, of course you could still ‘derive’ from people’s works indirectly, like from a friend that watched it and recounted the ‘good bits’, or through general ‘cultural osmosis’. But that was still limited by the speed of humans, and of culture. With AI, it can happen a functionally infinite number of times, nearly instantly.

Is all that to say Silverman is 100% right here? Probably not. But I do think that, the legality of ChatGPT, and other AI that can ‘copy’ artist’s work, is worth questioning. But its a sticky enough issue that I’m genuinely not sure what the best route is. Certainly, I think current AI writing and image generation ought to be ineligible for commercial use until the issue has at least been addressed.

Yeah, both claims can be true (about it being a hostile takeover, and Kurvitz being a bad boss), but I feel like one of those things is radically worse (and more illegal) than the other.

(and also, I question PMG’s interview process, where it felt like the spent equal time on both claims, and more attention and interviews on the ‘Kurvitz is a bad boss/employee’ claim, when I feel like more time should have been spent cross-interviewing Kompus for the discrepancies, and the bias the employee’s have to cater to their current boss rather than their former boss.)