Oh, and Ultima Underworld 1 and 2! Those are some of my favorite games of all time.
Right, because commenting on wow articles is cooler than playing the game... you must enjoy embarrassing yourself.
Interestingly, Steam Spy paints a picture of Doom having 900,000~ total users (generously rounding up) versus Fallout 4's 3,000,000~. Hm.
And I do wonder how many sales are lost on people who don't like overbearing DRM, which is another thought. I'd even wager they lose more sales that way than if they'd gone with Steam alone.
Yeah I can't speak for everybody but my personal experience the ones who download games illegally for free. Most of them are just usually unable to buy the game in the first place and another part to it is there is alot of people like me who would download a game to try it out and if I like it I buy it or I wait for it to come on sale. Depending on how much I like the game or not. If a game has a decent demo than there is no reason to need to do this but not every game has a demo. So if I don't know if I am going to like the game or not and I can't download it and there is no demo I sadly won't be buying it to try it out.
Sigh. I know what quantum computing is. Good grief. I was talking about the better AI provided over the long term by fuzzy logic that would lead to better tools. Do you feel you need to make yourself look superior by patronising people? What do you get out of that? Is it a desire to win? I can feel your hate radiating from here and it's bizarre to me.
Those driven by biological imperatives are baffling to me.
And your point is moot. You're pushing up against the limitations of the human brain with things like enemies on screen. We can already have more than we can realistically deal with, but it's AI that makes those enemies interesting. And that AI is CPU-bound.
What you want is a high number of high-fideilty enemies on screen. Which brings us back to what I said about hardware being focused on fidelity and the costs of being able to produce the kind of experience you'd want.
I wish people would think before they chose to attack. I'd rather not be put in a position where I have to defend myself by explaining clearly simple concepts.
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, I just moved and was without internet.
I don't know how you feel hate coming from my relatively bland speech, I assure you there was none there. I am explaining my view on things, just as everyone else in any comment section is. I have in no way attacked you, I have disagreed, and that is a pretty important difference. Whatever imperative is driving that clearly drives you as well. I am assuming you are not actually some advanced bot, so I would hazard a guess that you are driven by biological imperatives the same way every other organism on the planet is.
Please do not act condescending, if you wish to debate my points then feel free to debate them, don't make weird assumptions about my motives, that is just rude. You language about "explaining clearly simple concepts" is equally unnecessary and doesn't do anything to advance the conversation.
I don't really know that quantum logic (not technically the same as fuzzy logic, but close enough) has potential advantages in design and art automation, I suppose it could. I am by no means on expert on those sorts of tools, quantum computing or even fuzzy logic. However, it is sort of immaterial to this discussion, I guess I just misunderstood your point in the first post.
You claim we are bound by budget and the throughput of artists. That is true for some aspects of some games, but that is not the whole story. There are many aspects of games that still bump up against GPU limitations. I was very specific about 'unique enemies'. Yes, some games can get many copies of the same (or generated from the same pool) objects on screen, but to have many unique models and textures on screen at once is a different challenge. There are many other tasks GPUs limit, multiple light sources casting shadows and reflections are both good examples. Graphics programmers for a whole host of games have expressed the limits they run into.
As an example, right now FFXV's developers are having a hard time getting the game to run on consoles and admitted to developing the game above spec and having to then cut fidelity in the form of lower res textures, low render resolution, and a locked framerate. Their bounds were clearly not in the art budget. They have a game that could perform and look better on better hardware.
There are many tasks in a game that are more reliant on processing than sheer art throughput. You have graphics programmers as well as artists. Many of the aspects they are involved in developing could be done more exactly or on a larger scale if they weren't being bound by computer restrictions. The same is true with models as well, there are plenty of approximations we use that could be better. There are boundaries besides the ones you describe.
We have been told for years and years that we are basically at the limits for graphics hardware and it just has not come to be. I still see plenty of developers complaining about restrictions though.