Well I’m guessing they actually did testing on local AI using a 4GB and 8GB RAM laptop and realized it would be an awful user experience. It’s just too slow.

I wish they rolled it in as an option though.

I see. Well without a command line, I wouldn’t call it a terminal. I think you just want tooling to be available on an Android? It would probably look like a button or series of buttons on an app. Maybe you could connect the dots between them to insinuate a pipe? E.g., you have a “mv” button and a “file” button. When you drag from mv -> file you could maybe kick off a process that moves the file. Maybe it would prompt you for other arguments like destination? I suppose this theoretical app could allow people to install additional tooling and make their own custom commands.

But I just feel like a button UI for these kinds of things will always be awkward. If you don’t have a keyboard/terminal interface, it’s hard to implement anything that would even behave like terminals in terms of functionality.

Great examples are already in the thread, but generally speaking the answer should be “no”. Smart phones are just slow at typing. In the case of a smart phone, hitting a button is far faster than typing a command. Not to mention our devices aren’t really being used for file management, tooling, complex work, etc. So it doesn’t even make sense to have a command line unless you’re a huge unix fan or if you are doing something quite niche. And in that case, I recommend just connecting via adb.

I feel like that would be a great idea!

500+ people for a videogame is insane. That’s kind of cool - despite the problems they faced. I feel like these games don’t reflect the number of people being hired for them. I’m not sure it should linearly scale (probably not), but they seem like they scale down rather than up with an increase in staff.

I feel like modern producers are missing the forest for the trees. Games are not successful for being infinitely large. Skyrim is small by today’s standards. So is Oblivion. So are hundreds of other contemporary indie games that have captured the hearts of thousands.

It’s not about more content. It’s about content that feels deeper. Depth over breadth. Baldurs Gate 3 proves that out. I don’t think you can expect these large groups of 500 people to all work towards a deeper game without major changes in roles. I’m no expert by any means, but I am a software engineer with some side-hobby game development experience. I think games are flat because mechanics aren’t growing with the power. We’re getting graphics, dialogue, and places. But the places aren’t any more “deep” than 5 years ago. The dialogue isn’t more interesting. The graphics are nice - but hardly why people buy games. I want to capture the “anything is possible” feeling when I hop into a game. BG3 recaptured that illusion for me for a long time.

/Rant

TL;Dr developers can’t throw more bodies at this problem. It’s an artistic and structural problem. They need to reframe how they create the art. It can’t be mass produced without ending up flat.

Lol that’s fair. I really wish we could manage things into chests. I want an armor chest, weapons chest, quest chest, etc. but I feel like the way it works right now isn’t too bad but maybe I’m a glutton for pain.

I disagree. The number of “stuff” is important for RPGs. If you could only pick up “important” things, the game would have no real balance of mystery. Every meaningful item would obviously be useful in some mission or goal. I like it better where the stuff is plentiful and the mystery/puzzle is: can I use this? Can I use this generic poison in this giant pot of booze? Can I use this person’s hand?

I feel like the puzzle is sort of beneficial by hiding important items or clever usages of boring items in the midst of all the guff.

I get why it’s annoying but I think it adds to the games charm.

Ok but, regardless, they can just turn back the clock to when it performed better right? Use the parameters that were set two months ago? Or is it impossible to roll that back?

I don’t get it. I thought these models were “locked”. Shouldn’t the same input produce near-identical output? I know the algorithm has some fuzzing to help produce variation. But ultimately it shouldn’t degrade, right?