if RPGs have done this plenty of times, then it’s not a new idea, and why are we talking about it in the context of the new ideas starfield had?
people replay games for the gameplay. bethesda wanted a game you could replay for the story, and then have it still work as a story when the player deliberately sequence breaks everything because of their omniscience
i know but i’m roleplaying a semi-informed fan
i think it’s fair to say that at least a portion of bethesda’s reputation is built off that game
I don’t even mean I wouldn’t trust Obsidian. I mean I wouldn’t trust the specific team they had working on New Vegas, which was an absurdly stacked deck that they seemingly haven’t been able to re-create since.
Films you can re-watch twice and have it be just as good the second time are rare. Bethesda wanted a film you could rewatch ten times while simultaneously larping as a cosmic god and trying to break everything you could.
Dark Souls lore seems deeper than it is because it’s less coherently presented than in TES.
All the new ideas in Starfield fall into one of two categories:
The Bethesda response to fans saying their main storyline was trash was to make a game where the main storyline is the primary focus and draw of the game? That’s a bold move.
The NG+ stuff is a cool idea, but again, Bethesda just fundamentally lacks the talent to implement it. You can’t hit what they were aiming for with a handful of gimmicks. I wouldn’t even trust the team behind New Vegas, or whoever writes at Larian, to do it justice.
It feels like Skyrim was the game they’d (and by they I mean Todd) always wanted to make, and Skyrim was the first time they had the resources and technology available to make it more or less exactly as they envisaged.
Fallout 4 probably would’ve been in the exact same situation of the technology finally catching up to their ideas, except they completely botched the landing by adding in voiced characters.
if you’re just going to take us back in circles again this discussion is a bit pointless, isn’t it?
if you aren’t refusing to acknowledge they’re ux problems, you’re saying it’s unhelpful to call them what they are, which is obviously nonsense
and again, sane defaults are ux
or i could argue that an issue 90% of people will run into is a higher priority than one 2% of people will run into
or i could argue than the risk of accidentally opening something you didn’t want to is higher than the risk of losing unsaved work
the reason foss sucks when it comes to ux is this attitude of insisting that ux problems are somehow some “other” category of problem, rather than an engineering constraint that needs to be designed around like every other one
case in point, for some reason you’re still refusing to acknowledge that they’re both ux problems. and if you do, your original reply ceases to even make sense.
yet very different
which is why my first words to you were “it is and it isn’t”
binning them into the same category is not helpful
both are caused by people in the foss space not paying enough attention to ux
increased attention to ux could solve both
personally i think categorising all work solely through the lens of severity is unhelpful
Single/double click behavior is a matter of preference.
And defaulting to the preference that most people prefer or are used to is a matter of UX.
Which is why I say they’re both UX decisions.
it is and it isn’t
they’re both bad UX, which FOSS is generally pretty bad at, probably because there’s not as much overlap between people who who are really into FOSS and people who are really into UX
linux-centric communities also tend to be plagued by elitism, which i expect stifles a lot of this kind of thing before proper conversations can take root
powerful isn’t the same as well-structured
it was written to be a language that anybody could read or write as well as english, which just like every other time that’s been tried, results in a language that’s exactly as anal about grammar as C or Python except now it’s impossible to remember what that structure is because adding anything to the language to make that easier is forbidden
when you write a language where its designers were so keen for it to remain human readable that they made deleting all rows in a table the default action, i don’t think “well structured” can be used to describe it
sql syntax doesn’t support even itself correctly i fail to see your point
if you don’t believe that adding more structure to the absolute maniacal catastrophe that is sql is a good thing then i’m going to start to have doubts about your authenticity as a human being
that’s a gibibyte
a gigabyte is 10^9
the point of the original post is that artificially fixing a bias in training data post-training is a bad idea because it ends up in weird scenarios like this one
your comment is saying that the original post is dumb and betrays a lack of knowledge because artificially fixing a bias in training data post-training would obviously only result in weird scenarios like this one
i don’t know what your aim is here
any AI person training their algorithms on AI generated data is liable to get fired
though this isn’t pertinent to the post in question, training AI (and by AI I presume you mean neural networks, since there’s a fairly important distinction) on AI-generated data is absolutely a part of machine learning.
some of the most famous neural networks out there are trained on data that they’ve generated themselves -> e.g., AlphaGo Zero
how would your reputation carry over when nobody in the universe knows who you are? it sounds like you’re just inventing a new thing you have to grind