Aressera said:
RDR2 actually does this AFAIK for the first-person view, at least for position if not rotation.

I've watched a gameplay video, but from that i conclude it's a classic FPS camera setup, including special first person arm and gun models mounted to the camera, so you can always see the gun ata static position in the camera frame.
But maybe they have extended the head bobbing idea so it feels more realistic, e.g. by including wobble from breathing.
They do more such stuff when regular gameplay is interrupted, e.g. when hit down from enemy melee attacks or grenades.

Aressera said:
This way the animations never do anything physically incorrect, and allows physical interaction to affect animations.

That's not possible at all. You can take an animation and then drive a simulated ragdoll with it. If you allow momentum to alter the animation, it can become more realistic on some detail, but this does not generate an overall impression of physical correctness.
Your characters will still look like puppets on magic strings, because the overall momentum still comes from animation data and AI trajectories. They will turn and move too quickly, and in situations where they should loose balance and fall due to those (realistically impossible) movements, you will notice they keep upright still, held by some magic external force preventing the fall.

The problem is very noticeable in RDR2 and pretty much any game. As a result, the characters don't feel real, and i don't feel bad for killing them all without a reason. It's just NPCs made from some numbers.

I expect this to change with advanced character simulations (or advanced procedural animation).
We should be able to generate the impression characters are alive, similar to how FPS generated the impression you can navigate in a virtual world.
I expect the potential benefit here is much bigger than from photorealistic graphics or dynamic conversations with AI NPCs, which both is just a bait to make NV etc. happy by selling data center HW to consumers. Though, character simulation is hard, so i guess AI solutions learnign from mocap becomes the industry standard.

In any case - this is THE opportunity to innovate games in general. I have no doubt.
But if we want to control simulated characters in first person view, we have to use the same hacks as before: Detaching the camera from the character so it feels good to play, while minimizing the divergence to the game simulation.
This surely works. However, assuming our realistic avatar is interesting and fun to observe, that's just one more reason to show that and switching to third person camera.

JoeJ said:
I expect the potential benefit here is much bigger than from photorealistic graphics or dynamic conversations with AI NPCs, which both is just a bait to make NV etc. happy by selling data center HW to consumers.

Yes, lol. I think it is impossible to exhaustively simulate human emotion even with state of the art chatbots. As AI does not inherently feel anything, and there are always nuances and situations it has not been trained for. However, I think instead of making them realistic humans, they should be made meaningful. By this, I mean giving them meaningful goals in relation to the game world and interests they pursue (not just “hey, I need X carrots for absolutely nothing and also can you help me kill Y boars, here's money I printed as reward”). Computer games live off idealised and simplified representations of real things. If I meet a character in a game that wants to move to another city to train at a military academy or something, but is too poor to get there, that's cool. And helping a character out with achieving its goal should form some kind of loyalty or debt that can lead to subsequent adventures. It's important that NPCs are unique, so that if I lead the villager to the city to become a knight, other people can't do the same thing, because it will no longer be in the village. And it needs to remember me later on, and actually turn into a knight (or attempt to, lol). That stuff takes serious quality writing to design, but I think it is possible to make this so that you can design many small modules that a character will be assembled from. The things a character says must also be reflected in its actions and my options to interact with it. Which won't ever happen with a language model driven dialogue, since those models aren't trained on in-game dynamics, but on real-world conversation. In a medieval world, NPCs should NEVER talk about wanting to own flashy cars. I think the future of NPCs is handcrafted, procedurally assembled personalities and goals and questlines. It is probably at least twice as hard as good terrain generation. This makes more sense for single-player or MMORPG games, though, i.e. games with persistent worlds across gameplay sessions.

RmbRT said:
Yes, lol. I think it is impossible to exhaustively simulate human emotion even with state of the art chatbots. As AI does not inherently feel anything, and there are always nuances and situations it has not been trained for.

I have seen NVs initial demo with that AI guy in his noodles shop.
Then they have improved with sliders to control emotion in his response.
I guess this applies only to what he says, not to facial expression, which is still stiff and boring.
But i assume that's pretty easy to add. I mean, compared to the problem of solving dynamic conversation, really any other problem seems 'easy'.

RmbRT said:
I think the future of NPCs is handcrafted, procedurally assembled personalities and goals and questlines. It is probably at least twice as hard as good terrain generation.

I see no way. I fail to think of anything better than predefined branching dialogue. Generating dialogue dynamically feels completely impossible to me.

Personally i try to come up with game settings where the use of speech is minimized. E.g. you're on an alien planet and don't understand alien language. Then it's fine to communicate purely by actions, like in your example of doing an NPC a favor and he'll remember that.

As soon as verbal conversation becomes important for the game, and you want dynamics, then AI language models will do so much better than handmade and predefined, so we have no chance to compete their progress, i'm afraid.

RmbRT said:
In a medieval world, NPCs should NEVER talk about wanting to own flashy cars.

There are already companies offering AI solutions addressing such problems. You can tweak the models to your needs.

Do not underestimate those guys. They will outsmart us all, including themselves.
In the end, we humans will feel inferior and pointless facing the AI god. We'll stop reproducing, marrying AI robots instead other humans, and we will extinct peacefully to make place for the new AI species. As i like to joke.

It just isn't funny, and maybe i'm actually serious. And that's my personal reason why i don't want to use AI for anything, ideally.
But maybe i'm wrong, and AI will cure cancer and give us cold fusion reactors. Microsoft says so, and they should know better than i do.

RmbRT said:
However, I think instead of making them realistic humans, they should be made meaningful. By this, I mean giving them meaningful goals in relation to the game world and interests they pursue (not just “hey, I need X carrots for absolutely nothing and also can you help me kill Y boars, here's money I printed as reward”).

Yeah. I think the same. It's just very hard to turn this goal into actual game mechanics, but i think we should look for a way.

Interestingly, although disagreeing on details, it seems game devs still have a common goal and dream.
We should be able to get there without taking the bait offered by others with shady interests. ;D

JoeJ said:
I see no way. I fail to think of anything better than predefined branching dialogue. Generating dialogue dynamically feels completely impossible to me.

I think it should be a branching dialogue or something equivalent. But you don't have to hand-craft every NPC. You can craft patterns and have them be selected into the NPC based on his personality traits. You will have parts that repeat themselves across NPCs, but each NPC is a unique mix of scenarios. And each scenario could have multiple flavours etc. It's not the holy grail, but you would have characters that each have goals and problems that are hand-crafted to perfectly fit the setting of the world. NPCs also need to have goals and problems related to other NPCs, so they aren't just existing as isolated entities. All you need to achieve is that the world feels interesting and meaningful and alive, not that it actually is alive. Meanwhile, AI will always be great at creating a very realistic facade of being alive, emulating ways of speech or facial expressions, but it cannot achieve deeper interconnected meaning.

JoeJ said:
In the end, we humans will feel inferior and pointless facing the AI god. We'll stop reproducing, marrying AI robots instead other humans, and we will extinct peacefully to make place for the new AI species. As i like to joke.

It just isn't funny, and maybe i'm actually serious. And that's my personal reason why i don't want to use AI for anything, ideally.
But maybe i'm wrong, and AI will cure cancer and give us cold fusion reactors. Microsoft says so, and they should know better than i do.

I'm Christian, so I don't believe in the AI hype or all the other “science” stuff out there like spacetime being a bendable object, or all that garbage about quantum theory and something as high level as “observers” being part of the most fundamental particle mechanics. After all, they say that the observer is also made of particles. So how can you have a complex emergent construct be required to make its building block's fundamental mechanics work? I also don't use AI for anything. I prefer the old school version of AI: expert systems, which are actual intelligence, codified.

JoeJ said:
Interestingly, although disagreeing on details, it seems game devs still have a common goal and dream. We should be able to get there without taking the bait offered by others with shady interests. ;D

Yeah. This is why I completely ignore AI and all that raytracing hardware and 64GiB RAM and 24 cores and whatever became “cool” recently. I do my own stuff, I want to make software that runs on 2GiB–4GiB machines with GPUs from 15 years ago. That was sufficient for Skyrim. I don't “need” any of their “improvements”, and all the trends and categories they're coming up with are just distracting me from what I wanted to do from the beginning. And it's your initial dreams that become trail blazers, not the thing everyone is hyping up. I think most people fall into a trap of looking too much at other's interests and other's opinions.

RmbRT said:
but it cannot achieve deeper interconnected meaning.

It can.
What i don't know is what results can be expected from running it on a client CPU or GPU, but ChatGPT can empathize to some characters you describe to it, and it can spin the story further from some given situation. That's all we need.
Describing characters and their situation obtained from the game is easier than developing your proposed dialogue system.

RmbRT said:
I'm Christian, so I don't believe in the AI hype or all the other “science” stuff out there like spacetime being a bendable object, or all that garbage about quantum theory and something as high level as “observers” being part of the most fundamental particle mechanics. After all, they say that the observer is also made of particles. So how can you have a complex emergent construct be required to make its building block's fundamental mechanics work?

I often joke such science is just another religion, but there is a difference: Science tries to answer difficult questions, religion tries to answer unpleasant questions. : )

Idk much about quantum physics either, but i don't think there is some ‘high level observer’ needed for its paradox entanglement mechanics. They say the state of entangled particles is set in the moment anything depends on this state. It's not necessarily humans with a microscope, it could be something simple such particle collisions as well, i guess.
Relating this to topics covered by religion or philosophy, i interpret this simply as ‘The future can be anything, but a decision affects it.’ Which makes simple sense and thus resolves the paradox for me in this entanglement case, but not yet in others.

In the same way you can integrate ‘quantum truths’ to your own ideology, instead putting quotes around the word science.

But i fail myself on doing such integration when it comes to AI.
My former philosophy about AI was like: ‘Humans can not build machines to outsmart humanity. Because to do this, humans would need to be smarter than themselves. Thus we don't have to worry. There will never be any AI smarter than us.’

And i still believe this. It's like ‘you can't get more energy out than you put in.’ when talking about laws of physics. It feels like a law of nature.

But they found a way to dodge this law. AI researchers do not know themselves how their stuff works. They try to figure it out, but progress on that is slower than progress on making smarter AI.
Thus the evolution AI is not hindered or capped by human intelligence. It can get even with us, it can surpass us. It can code itself, controlling its own evolution, becoming 10 times smarter every day.

So i'm afraid it's just matter of time until we no longer are the smartest species on earth.
Notice all my anxiety is based on this subtle little fact: They don't know how it works.
That's what makes it possible, and eventually unpredictable. We might loose much more than just our jobs. We might loose our self-confidence, facing the new superior.

That's my personal reason to not use AI. Fear of the unknown… ; )

RmbRT said:
Yeah. This is why I completely ignore AI and all that raytracing hardware and 64GiB RAM and 24 cores and whatever became “cool” recently. I do my own stuff, I want to make software that runs on 2GiB–4GiB machines with GPUs from 15 years ago. That was sufficient for Skyrim. I don't “need” any of their “improvements”, and all the trends and categories they're coming up with are just distracting me from what I wanted to do from the beginning. And it's your initial dreams that become trail blazers, not the thing everyone is hyping up. I think most people fall into a trap of looking too much at other's interests and other's opinions.

Haha, yeah.
But notice: The number of people who don't buy made up tech trends anymore is increasing, i think.
And i'm using prev gen HW actually, but so far the games industry has not left me behind. I can still play anything.
I think they know they can't rely on free improvements from expecting hardware upgrades anymore. HW progress slows down, so the partnership with the hardware industry will end es well. Farewell, guys. It was nice at the beginning.

But if we don't watch out, they will sell their HW to US instead, in form of AI cloud servers. /:O\

@GeneralJist I'm not aware of many FPSes which use a Lost Vikings style mechanic where you need to juggle between characters with different abilities located on different sections of a map to solve puzzles or progress through different areas. I'm sure they probably exist, but most FPS I'm familiar with tend to either be focused on upgrading a singular player character via new weapons or abilities, or else you control a party of characters that exist in a singular location together.

JoeJ said:
But they found a way to dodge this law. AI researchers do not know themselves how their stuff works. They try to figure it out, but progress on that is slower than progress on making smarter AI. Thus the evolution AI is not hindered or capped by human intelligence. It can get even with us, it can surpass us. It can code itself, controlling its own evolution, becoming 10 times smarter every day.

The funny thing is that an AI needs to learn from millions of peoples' code, or more, in order to be able to produce satisfactory code, and even then, it is bad at outputting things where details in one place depend on details of another place it either has already output, or will later have to output. The learning process of real intelligence is through understanding concepts once, and then being able to apply them everywhere. An AI would probably have to touch a hot stove a million or a billion times, lol. Even a toddler learns after his second time or so.

And since AI is fundamentally not based on reason, but on massive amounts of data that it doesn't naturally encounter unless specifically fed into it, the impressiveness of AI is capped at the amount of data we humans generate. Since humans rarely generate anything of quality, AI can mostly only access data that is garbage, like social media content. AI never even learned to reason. ChatGPT often lies to you, and will make up fake reasons to support its claim, until you ask it about details of its claims and really dig in, then it answers with the complete opposite, sometimes even “apologising”, lol.

JoeJ said:
But notice: The number of people who don't buy made up tech trends anymore is increasing, i think. And i'm using prev gen HW actually, but so far the games industry has not left me behind. I can still play anything. I think they know they can't rely on free improvements from expecting hardware upgrades anymore. HW progress slows down, so the partnership with the hardware industry will end es well. Farewell, guys. It was nice at the beginning.

I think besides the raytracing meme, it already ended a while ago. GPU vendors now care about TEE GPUs for ML, AI accelerator hardware, etc. CPU vendors produce server CPUs and sell those to gamers. I'm using a thinkpad e15 (16GiB RAM, i5-10210U (4×2)×0.4–4GHz, integrated intel graphics) as my personal computer, getting a tower is not worth it since I sometimes have to travel and then having a good enough laptop for everything I do is required anyway. So I just got a good laptop and skipped out on the tower. I can play stuff like battlebit just fine, but even for Path of Exile I need to set it to lowest settings to get a playable framerate. So I'm basically already left behind for anything that isn't 2D indie or really simple 3D stuff. PoE actually needs resolution downscaling even in the beginner town on my machine, lol. They massively messed up something, not sure what (probably too many render passes or something). Because there aren't many elements to be drawn and there aren't many entities to be updated. Interestingly enough, outside of the towns, it seems to fare much better. Anyway, even my old E450 from like 10 years ago could play titan quest with nice graphics.

I think that any consumer software that requires more than 4GiB of RAM is just an indication of the developer's mental incontinence: it is perfectly possible to have any game or other piece of consumer software run within the 4GiB budget, and the developer just splurged all the memory inefficiently. And anything that needs more than 2×3GHz to run smoothly is also just bad design IMO. Now, scientific simulation stuff is an entirely different matter. Of course, you can offer the player an ultra-high resolution textures and ultra-high-polygon models version of your game, where you easily exceed 4GiB of RAM with all your assets, but that is not actually part of the game's essential state or presentation. I would only ever be satisfied with a game I made that ran at maybe 180FPS even on my laptop on lowest settings, and >30FPS on normie laptops. I know this may sound pretentious, but I think it's perfectly possible to achieve that even for fully featured 3D games, but most programmers nowadays think it's fine if it runs well on their machine. I sometimes think people are deliberately putting bitcoin miners into their games. I once actually played a F2P 2D turn-based game that maxed out all my 8 cores and still stuttered and lagged. But the cash shop was already functional.

When I started watching Casey Muratori's or Jonathan Blow's videos on software performance, it really sank in how ridiculously inefficient software is nowadays. All the architectural abstractions that sit between the work to be done and what the user's commands are, and memory fragmentation and cache misses, etc., are massively slowing everything down probably on multiple orders of magnitude. Especially OOP and inheritance-based polymorphism and virtualisation. Now, those things do not inherently have to be slow if a language came along and for example offered a way for breaking the black box at the call site, or to have abstract class type instances implicitly be a union of all its possible concretisations (which I plan to implement soon in my compiler), but the whole way that people are taught to write code nowadays makes efficiency almost impossible. I assume that this is also increasingly present in post-early-2000s-era games.

What I think could innovate games in general is the ability to down-scale any game. Like an option to decrease the polygon density of models arbitrarily based on the user's hardware capabilities. A game shouldn't require over a hundred GiB of disk storage. Most games could be easily made to fit on a DVD. Because most people have either multi-thousand dollar PCs, or just some office type laptop. And I simply refuse to spend many months of surplus income on a PC just because the devs didn't give a shit about people who haven't already invested a lot of money into hardware. I can easily think of techniques that allow you to play tricks to have highly detailed graphics in large open worlds without having to fully re-render everything each frame, for example. You just have to really want it, and a way will open up itself. But it certainly isn't convenient to implement. (Hint: distant regions of terrain do not move or animate erratically, usually, and are hardly affected by camera movement, perspectivically.)

lol, I'm getting super rambly. But I'm glad to have found a place on the internet where I can actually have a conversation about games and programming. This forum seems pretty dead, though, if you disregard low-quality/low-effort discourse.

JoeJ said:
In the same way you can integrate ‘quantum truths’ to your own ideology, instead putting quotes around the word science.

My ideology is not even compatible with modern mathematics. I reject “real” numbers, I think everything in mathematics derives from counting and fractions. Now, to clarify, I do acknowledge that pi is not a number in my system, but but a value instead. Values can be computed on, but aren't necessarily expressible as a number, which in my definition is always a finite integer or a fraction of finite integers. And thus I define division via integers, not “reals”, and division of X by 0 is 0, remainder X in my book. Think of handing out cookies or sweets from grade school. If you have no friends, you hand out 0 cookies, and keep all of them. Rational division then works accordingly. And I also reject the distinction between “elementary” functions such as sine and cosine and square root, and “non-elementary” functions. It's completely arbitrary convention. And you can't even actually compute a square root anyway. If we're making the concession of purely working on approximations, anyway, there is no reason to make a distinction between elementary and non-elementary (some integrals or derivations simply produce no writeable formula in mainstream mathematics because it cannot be destructured into a combination of “elementaries”, yet they themselves often have infinite formulas).

krumpet291 said:

@GeneralJist I'm not aware of many FPSes which use a Lost Vikings style mechanic where you need to juggle between characters with different abilities located on different sections of a map to solve puzzles or progress through different areas. I'm sure they probably exist, but most FPS I'm familiar with tend to either be focused on upgrading a singular player character via new weapons or abilities, or else you control a party of characters that exist in a singular location together.

I think that's a cool idea. It could either be realised as effectively turn-based (only one of your characters does anything at any moment) or even in real time, where you give general commands to your troops, but always (or sometimes) directly control any one of them in FPS view. Basically you command your units like in an RTS, either from first person view or bird's eye view, but you still have to take control of specific characters in specific moments to get the overall performance you need to beat a challenge. I think that kind of mechanic is severely under-explored. Some new RTSs have been coming up with more intuitive gesture based squad commands, though. But if it's an FPS action game with multiple player-owned characters, you definitely need very low-friction gestures for movements, positioning, formations, maneuvers, etc. Basically you should be able to configure your characters' AI with one gesture in well under a second. Of course if they are in totally different locations, it becomes hard to manage them efficiently unless it's okay for them to be mostly idle or have infrequent updates to their orders.

JoeJ said:
the main limitation of FPS: Jumping lacks accuracy and we can't get back what we've lost from 2D platformers. You can't see your feet and the ground, so it's hard to time your jump from the edge. And worse: FP lacks oversight, hindering not only tactics but also distance estimation needed for advanced platforming.

I feel this is a problem that was partially solved as far back as 1995 with Jumping Flash, a popular and praised FPS-platformer released at the start of the PS1's lifespan. This game showed the player character's feet plus a clear circular indicator over the precise spot the player will land. As for it being hard to time jumping from edges, I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing per se. Guess there's a point where it's too hard. But it's kind of like knowing how to park your car, at some point you develop an intuition for how far you can go.

krumpet291 said:
As for it being hard to time jumping from edges, I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing per se. Guess there's a point where it's too hard. But it's kind of like knowing how to park your car, at some point you develop an intuition for how far you can go.

That's a good example, because parking a car remains a unpleasant task through our entire life. It never becomes second nature, it never feels convenient to do it. It becomes easier with time, but it remains a bad thing to do.

It can't be solved for first person to work as well as in 2D sidescrollers.
In 2D you can predict the trajectories of jumping characters or even bouncing projectiles (Super Mario fireballs).
But in 3D this becomes a rough estimate at best. Due to perspective projection, you can no longer predict simple curves such as parabola or arcs. The only thing that works is lines. That's really a big sacrifice we did when moving to 3D.

Btw, jumping is also the perfect example to show why realistic physics are usually not ideal for games.
To make jumping a good mechanic, we usually give the player air control. We may even alter gravity with the jump button so the player can set peak hight while already in air.

If we use realistic physics, nothing of this would be possible. The player can't do anything while in air, and likely he'll neither reach desired height nor will he land at the desired target. It will feel like an uncontrollable mess.

So, to me realism is something that i won't to be able to do out of ambition, but then when working on an actual game i would not hesitate to cheat and apply external forces to bodies to make it fun.

A related limitation we face here is bad input controllers. Imo, all controllers designed for games are bad.
The only controller that works great is the mouse, which was not designed with games in mind. That's really curious.
In this sense i would love to see eye trackers on every monitor. This would give us a second mouse. We could detach aiming from movement, opening up the path to new games.

krumpet291 said:
I'm not aware of many FPSes which use a Lost Vikings style mechanic

Ha, this game always keeps in my mind too. With all that character centrism in modern games, sadly they mostly miss out on actual character interactions. Reason surely is the inflexibility and limitations from working with static animation data.

RmbRT said:
An AI would probably have to touch a hot stove a million or a billion times, lol.

You're way too optimistic. It will eat us for breakfast. : )

RmbRT said:
And since AI is fundamentally not based on reason, but on massive amounts of data that it doesn't naturally encounter unless specifically fed into it, the impressiveness of AI is capped at the amount of data we humans generate.

Same applies to toddlers.

RmbRT said:
Since humans rarely generate anything of quality, AI can mostly only access data that is garbage, like social media content.

It's not true that all other humans are dumb, and just you are the exception.
That's a very common misinterpretation of reality. I suffer from it too. : )

RmbRT said:
AI never even learned to reason. ChatGPT often lies to you, and will make up fake reasons to support its claim, until you ask it about details of its claims and really dig in, then it answers with the complete opposite, sometimes even “apologising”, lol.

Yes, but notice: The ability to realize and admit a mistake, beside the ability to communicate all this in natural language, is already more than impressive.

Usually humans build up an imagination of safety by stating: 'AI lacks consciousness. It's not alive.'
I put your argument of ‘AI can not reason’ in the same folder.
But nothing of this matters. All that matters is what AI can actually do.
Currently it passes university exams and it also competes humans in programming exercises.
Altman claims current ChatGPT wip has the general intelligence of a 4 years old.
A 4 year old who passes university exams.
Where will we be in 5 years?

This is not like bitcoin, NFTs, or metaverse. This is no made up crap from desperate tech CEOs. This is real and serious, and it will change the world, maybe much more than the internet did.

RmbRT said:
PoE actually needs resolution downscaling even in the beginner town on my machine, lol. They massively messed up something, not sure what

Have not played it, but i doubt they mess things up. Their gfx lead dev is one of the best across the whole industry, it seems.

… you have to upgrade … :D

RmbRT said:
I think that any consumer software that requires more than 4GiB of RAM is just an indication of the developer's mental incontinence:

Wut? Fucking Windows already eats those 4GB just to run AI copilot, Cortana, tracking and spyware, sniffing while tickling trojans, indexing HD, breaking out of infinite loops caused from security patches, and saying ‘Hello! we have great things to do while setting up our - oops, YOUr computer!’ with screen filling letters.

I've already downloaded some Linux isos to see if that's better…

But to be serious, my requested minimum specs are higher than yours. At least PS4, and Series S feels ideal.
I believe the future is APUs, dGPUs are EOL to consumers.
We won't have a job, we won't own much, so a little box with compute power exceeding phones is all we'll can hope for.
That's the ideal case. The worst case is no more boxes for the masses at all - just plug your phone to the cloud to enjoy the same one and only server side path traced MMO everybody else is playing too.

RmbRT said:
When I started watching Casey Muratori's or Jonathan Blow's videos on software performance, it really sank in how ridiculously inefficient software is nowadays. All the architectural abstractions that sit between the work to be done and what the user's commands are, and memory fragmentation and cache misses, etc., are massively slowing everything down probably on multiple orders of magnitude.

Multiple orders of magnitude? How much exactly? No one knows?

The reason of why nobody knows is simple: Modern software is much more complex than PacMan. To get it done at all, we have to sacrifice some performance for progress and maintainability. Do you code in Assembly or C++? It's C++? Then don't point with fingers at others.
(Usually it's me doing all the rant, but if innocent people need some help, i can't resist) :D

Currently there's a lot of critique on games and their performance. But when i try them, they mostly run well for what they do. I'm impressed. It's not fair to call them out lazy devs or greedy CEOs. Back in the 90s games were more exciting than now, yes. But back then everything was new. The rise of 3D, cheap consoles having batter gfx than Arcade games, etc. They don't have any of this today.
And if i compare games technically, character controllers, physics, etc., modern games are actually much better. They know what they do.

I really think the only problem is that they all target the same player, which is an statistical average. But the average does not fit anyone. So nobody is really happy with the averaged games we get.

But see, they already react: There are lay offs, studios close entirely. They are in a process to reformulate themselves, hopefully making smaller studios and smaller games, but targeting only a specific niche of players. This way, in the end every niche will be happy again. I'm optimistic.

RmbRT said:
My ideology is not even compatible with modern mathematics. I reject “real” numbers, I think everything in mathematics derives from counting and fractions.

But that's wrong. Once upon a time it has turned out rational numbers are not enough to describe what we see, and the introduction of real numbers has helped a lot. Later, complex numbers turned out useful too.
You can have them all for free. And i'm sure you use them already.

RmbRT said:
Now, to clarify, I do acknowledge that pi is not a number in my system, but but a value instead. Values can be computed on, but aren't necessarily expressible as a number, which in my definition is always a finite integer or a fraction of finite integers.

I see you work very hard on not admitting that you use them. You could become friends with those alien numbers instead.

RmbRT said:
division of X by 0 is 0, remainder X in my book. Think of handing out cookies or sweets from grade school. If you have no friends, you hand out 0 cookies, and keep all of them.

Oh, you introduce a ‘yourself’ to the problem of distributing cookies to zero kids to dodge the paradox?
But this is cheating. Example:
12 cookies, 3 kids. No problem.
12 cookies, one kid (which is eventually you). No problem.
12 cookies, no kids in class. ummm…. yes! The teacher eats all the cookies! Problem solved! \:D/

I prefer simple sense again also here:
If there are no kids in my class, i can not distribute X cookies to them.
There is not even a need to worry about every kid getting the same number of cookies, since there are no kids.
I can not divide the number of X by the number of no kids, because there are no kids to receive the non-existing result.

Thus: No kids, no division.

Not even AGI will figure out how to divide by zero. :D