Urprobablyright
Banned
Well both videos are satisfyingly fallible so I'm all for it
Well seeing as your opinion does not matter, why should I listen to you?
The difference is streamlined user interface and how tightly coupled each aspect is to the other parts. Same tools you use in creating music is same tools you'll use to create a sculpt and program using the visual programming rather than scripting. It is not as flexible because of how easy it is to pick up but it still has depth to it.Can anyone tell me the difference between Dreams and normal game making tools? Because from what i've read from people and reviewers who played it, they're really not that much different in terms of complexity.
So, i suppose something along the lines of "Friendly for first timers, but not much for people used to normal tools?"The difference is streamlined user interface and how tightly coupled each aspect is to the other parts. Same tools you use in creating music is same tools you'll use to create a sculpt and program using the visual programming rather than scripting. It is not as flexible because of how easy it is to pick up but it still has depth to it.
Its easy to pick up for those who have used other tools. But friendly to pick up for first timers. I've mostly just been messing with the audio part which quite frankly puts a lot of DAWs on blast with how easy and deep the audio engine is.So, i suppose something along the lines of "Friendly for first timers, but not much for people used to normal tools?"
Seems pretty interesting. I'd really prefered they made this into a full blown tool that can be worked with on pcs. The limitations of being tied to a specific platform and the fact you can't create projects to be sold inevitably bind the potential of this thing.Its easy to pick up for those who have used other tools. But friendly to pick up for first timers. I've mostly just been messing with the audio part which quite frankly puts a lot of DAWs on blast with how easy and deep the audio engine is.
I can't argue with that. We'll have to wait and see how their future goals for the platform shapes out.Seems pretty interesting. I'd really prefered they made this into a full blown tool that can be worked with on pcs. The limitations of being tied to a specific platform and the fact you can't create projects to be sold inevitably bind the potential of this thing.
What I'm wondering is these volumetric engines with exponentially more voxels, that were thought to be impossible to make(atomontage, euclideon), how would they affect voxel global illumination? One of the issues with voxel global illumination seemed to be that you had too few voxels being used.Yes, of course the main thing will be on PS5, PS4 is just the testing ground, the console will be dead in 2 or 3 years.
To be fair didn't they say these demos were running even on very old laptops. It would be interesting to see the tech being tailored to high end h/w, and more ram.Dreams does not use voxels but splats, and Unlimited Detail did in fact get voxelated when you moved closer, I tried their web demo while it was available.
You serious?They are working. This is their job. We are just members of a forum. We can have an opinion about astrophysics too.
Only your own should matter to you when playing games. You're the one playing, not them.LOL, ok big timer. Your opinion has no value, no weight other than to yourself.
The actual game reviewers/critiques from established sites, their opinions are what matters to people.
Please run along now.
YesYou serious?
this is the case when you discussing about a game with yourself. When you discuss with others you have to think objectively even if you don't like a game.Only your own should matter to you when playing games. You're the one playing, not them.
Not when you are recommending games to others.Only your own should matter to you when playing games. You're the one playing, not them.
You can recommend all the games you think are great, but it still won't mean they'll like it too.Not when you are recommending games to others.
Exactly. That's why it's good to have informed objective criterias on what makes a good game - the stuff that reviewers are paid to have.You can recommend all the games you think are great, but it still won't mean they'll like it too.
It'll always be subjective though.Exactly. That's why it's good to have informed objective criterias on what makes a good game - the stuff that reviewers are paid to have.
There are obviously both subjective and objective aspects to a (good or bad) game. The reviewers' job is to value those objective aspects and a good reviewer is someone who is able to analyze the objective parts of the gameplay, level design, story etc. (the parts that make it a game) and be able to explain what works and what doesn't.It'll always be subjective though.
There are obviously both subjective and objective aspects to a (good or bad) game. The reviewers' job is to value those objective aspects and a good reviewer is someone who is able to analyze the objective parts of the gameplay, level design, story etc. (the parts that make it a game) and be able to explain what works and what doesn't.
Just because you have a personal experience when you play doesn't mean that you cannot judge a game objectively. There is a reason why some games are considered better than others.
You will need to explain to me why that renders any objective valuation invaluable. The components of what makes a game are objective, not subjective. If you have been gaming for a lot of years you know what mechanics works well and what doesn't. The sleazy methods from the publishers doesn't change that.if you ask actual critics, they will tell you that their work is subjective. Sure they try to minimise bias, nostalgia, what mood they are in; while giving recognition to technical,achievments. but at the end of the day, their evaluation is based on how they feel about a game, nothing more.
Publishers know this is how reviews work, so they have systems in place for those games that they believe need good reviews to help sales. This involves hiring reviewers that represent the tastes of typical reviewers to help with game development through consultation and faux reviews. It also helps review scores when reviewers know company X hires reviewers for 10 times their normal pay to help with this stuff. You are less likely to slam a company that might hire you in the future.
so yeah, with the exception of some low budget games, critic loved games are loved because they are tailored to the tastes of critics. Not because critics are highly trained and educated specialists conducting lab analysis, giving you objective truth.
High metacritic means little unless you have the same subjective tastes as an aggregate group of reviewers (so, 20-30 year old middle class, American dilettantes who play waaay too many fucking videogames and probably have a useless english degree).
Knowing this will free you from fomo and the hype cycle, and give you confidence to like what you like, and hate what you hate.
There are obviously both subjective and objective aspects to a (good or bad) game. The reviewers' job is to value those objective aspects and a good reviewer is someone who is able to analyze the objective parts of the gameplay, level design, story etc. (the parts that make it a game) and be able to explain what works and what doesn't.
No it's not, whether or not you like it is subjective. Good or bad will always be an objective assessment that is ususally based on some kind of justified analysis. For example, it is an objective fact that From Software games are universally praised for its level design, and there are objective reasons why that is. Its not like From Software rolls the dice and just gets lucky every time they make a game, they know what works and what doesn't through lots of years of experience. Another example is how people love The Room (movie), simply because it is a downright objectively bad movie. As long as there is a certain level of craftmanship (be it in art, movies, games, music etc.), and i guess a certain level of 'tapping into the time spirit', there will always be an inherent objective value. I respect your opinion, but when you have been studying philosophy for 4 years it kinda irks when people can't differentiate between the basic concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.That's all subjective though.
Like, the fact that a game has level design is objective. Whether it is good or not is subjective.
For dreams you'd need playstation move controllers for serious projects as regular controllers aren't at all ideal for creating.Can anyone tell me the difference between Dreams and normal game making tools? Because from what i've read from people and reviewers who played it, they're really not that much different in terms of complexity.
No it's not, whether or not you like it is subjective. Good or bad will always be an objective assessment that is ususally based on some kind of justified analysis. For example, it is an objective fact that From Software games are universally praised for its level design, and there are objective reasons why that is. Its not like From Software rolls the dice and just gets lucky every time they make a game, they know what works and what doesn't through lots of years of experience. Another example is how people love The Room (movie), simply because it is a downright objectively bad movie. As long as there is a certain level of craftmanship (be it in art, movies, games, music etc.), and i guess a certain level of 'tapping into the time spirit', there will always be an inherent objective value. I respect your opinion, but when you have been studying philosophy for 4 years it kinda irks when people can't differentiate between the basic concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.
I don't think that people who claim that you can only understand the world subjectivity realize how controversial and unjustified that statement is. I get why people would like their personal experiences to be some kind of sacrosanct and untouchable free space, and that if they like something it means that it is good, were it not for a commercial industry that has specialised in successfully capitalizing on peoples emotions for a century, or at least since Freud.
Videogames are usually the least subjective compared to other creative media, since a videogame is built upon a lot of more or less tangible systems.
Indeed they have, but no, I am arguing that craftmanship and how the product relates to its time and space (spirit, if you will), has perfectly assessable objective attributes. That is merely an observation (a fairly common one at that), and not necessarily relying on Platos' absolute forms, although even he argued that these forms were never fully attainable.I mean, people have been talking about this stuff since Plato, right. You're essentially arguing that there is an ideal form of good level design and the question is whether or not game X gets closer to it than game Y.
Can you not imagine a world where From Software games are actually out of style and not in vogue? I can think of many, many games, concepts, and styles that were popular and even thought to be a new beginning only to fall out of favor. And sometimes, the stuff falls out of favor and comes back (there was once a time when 2D was considered kind of fuddy-duddy). I mean, Dark Souls is a game that is only about 10 years old. Or do you think this stuff is always going to be considered brilliant and 1000 years from now people will still be looking at Dark Souls like some ideal form of a videogame?
I think getting out there and saying, I *know* that game XYZ is objectively brilliant, 10/10 is more arrogant than anything. What you are saying may be true theoretically but I don't presume that we can know what is "objectively good" particularly for such a young medium. There are certainly elements in certain genres we find appealing, like you don't want a fighting game with shit collision or something like that, but as to whether or not that turns into an objective valuation, I don't think it is that.
You will need to explain to me why that renders any objective valuation invaluable. The components of what makes a game are objective, not subjective. If you have been gaming for a lot of years you know what mechanics works well and what doesn't. The sleazy methods from the publishers doesn't change that.
I agree, however what you just wrote is an objective statement, meaning that you can understand the game objectively.It went against almost ALL standards, yet it was one of the greatest made games of that generation.
I agree, however what you just wrote is an objective statement, meaning that you can understand the game objectively.
Isn't making stuff in Dreams also gameplay? it's a game about making games, so playing the creations and making them are both part of the gameplay loop.It’s everything that was promised to creators, to players it’s not a good game and even then it’s questionable.
Imagine the amount of time that went into those 2 screenshots, and then think there is still nothing playable to the people that buy it to play it.
Think they said they are working to support Dreams for VR.MM are very talented. I wonder what their next project is going to be.
why can’t you just enjoy things? Why do you need to trash Xbox games along the way?Dreams is the most amazing thing on a console. It is perfect to make games. It’s takes alot of time but worth it. Xbox has Project Sparks, but that was garbage compared to this. Seen a college dude make a keyboard with lots of instrument sounds.. vst’s. It was magical.
Think they said they are working to support Dreams for VR.
Never said it did, so again I agree. I just made an argument that everything subjective can be understood objectively, which basically means that comments like 'it's all subjective, though' are incorrect.But a review's bottom line doesn't come down to what it does or doesn't do objectively.
If this is accurate, Dreams is doing a lot better than the 50k some people seem to keep saying.