|
haveblue posted:One thing that took me by surprise is that actor likenesses are licensed as their own separate thing and not necessarily included in a license for an IP that featured them, even one that's defined by that likeness in the cultural imagination.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:There are games that have managed to get the same actor to do VO but still couldn't use their face. One of the Gamecube James Bond games has Pierce Brosnan, and you can absolutely tell that he was contractually obligated to provide voice acting, because his delivery is just dripping with boredom and "can I please be done now".
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 03:08
|
|
|
Disney Infinity was a minefield of likeness issues. We had Captain Barbosa but it couldn't look like Geoffrey Rush. Johnny Depp was in the game 3 times and had to personally approve his likeness each time. Etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:One of the Gamecube James Bond games has Pierce Brosnan, and you can absolutely tell that he was contractually obligated to provide voice acting, because his delivery is just dripping with boredom and "can I please be done now". To be fair that's also how his dialogue is in his movies after Goldeneye, he's..not good at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
mutata posted:Disney Infinity was a minefield of likeness issues. We had Captain Barbosa but it couldn't look like Geoffrey Rush. Johnny Depp was in the game 3 times and had to personally approve his likeness each time. Etc etc So do you know Johnny V?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 09:25
|
|
|
more falafel please posted:So do you know Johnny V? I knew him while I worked there, but I never knew him to the level where we would've kept in touch. He once got very drunk at Pixar one night, convinced a Burger King manager to reopen the restaurant and make us all dinner, and then pushed me down the streets of Emeryville in a shopping cart at 2 in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
mutata posted:I knew him while I worked there, but I never knew him to the level where we would've kept in touch. He once got very drunk at Pixar one night, convinced a Burger King manager to reopen the restaurant and make us all dinner, and then pushed me down the streets of Emeryville in a shopping cart at 2 in the morning. Sounds like Johnny. I worked with him at Midway and he's from the area, so I see him when he's back in town sometimes. Weird dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
All I can think of anymore is him saying "cumsluts" into his lapel mic on the giant bomb e3 couch
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
more falafel please posted:Sounds like Johnny. I worked with him at Midway and he's from the area, so I see him when he's back in town sometimes. Weird dude. He's definitely exactly who he is, lol. https://www.instagram.com/p/6_J0JTJ77O/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= Here's his Instagram post from the aforementioned night. It was actually an AWESOME day, one I'll likely remember for life. (I'm the one on the floor in the white and blue raglan shirt)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
I have a weird subject I'm trying to pull some threads on, and I'm absolutely stonewalling on net searches and poo poo, so I thought maybe there'd be some insight ITT. Basically, I've been playing video games since I was 4 in the late 80's, I love 'em, my main hobby, etc. Over the last, say, ten years or so I've sensed and slowly have felt inundated by what I'm trying to term as "finesse mechanics" if there no such term available for the phenomenon. Just to give a quick example that'll illustrate what I mean: playing some rock hard NES game in the late 80's, you'd get to a boss. The boss would have a pattern of attacks, probably determined by an RNG seed that has been ticking away the entire time you've been playing, and when you enter the lair on whatever frame, boom, the boss is going to do X, Y, Z, more or less. Rushing slash 40% chance, flying attack 40%, special attack 20%, or they'll have a pattern that ticks off over and over. You hit the challenge, you either meet it or die, and then try again, and barring any type of manipulation by the player, it's random. Newer games largely still operate on these simple premises, but a lot of games build in hard luck mechanics for if you get defeated multiple times in a row, you'll take less damage from a hit, the boss will do easy patterns more often, etc. Sometimes these are transparent to you and you can disable them, a lot of times they're not. I don't like these sorts of things really at all, especially the opaque ones. Another arena where these types of mechanics are evident is mobile gaming, anything with RNG, and -especially- if there are microtransactions involved for cash. The app may or may not (depending on your laws lol!) display your "odds" at acquiring something or whatever, but it often feels like there's more going on behind the scenes. If a loot box or some poo poo has a 5% chance to get the Epic Butt Guard, what I want is a hard 1:20 chance to get it every time I open one, what I don't want are bars and poo poo filling up on my profile behind the scenes that say "okay, this player has fed the machine enough money, give them the Butt Guard now" or the types of 'bad luck' mechanics that'll reward you for loving up a lot. If you drop into a new freemium game, you'll often be showered with lucky hits that trigger various rewards and abilities to cash in on things until your pool of Gems or whatever dwindles and requires you to then start feeding the machine. The last thing that has been on mind regarding this is the humble slot machine. Either free or for real money, any digital version now seems swamped with extra poo poo going that is not just "these various outcomes have these odds whenever you pull the lever", you might win a lot up front to keep you pulling until you go broke, you might chase a bonus beyond reasonable odds to hit. I don't gamble real money myself, but I play a dinky slot app sometimes on the can just to watch the colors and sounds, and it's just another vector I've felt these things. Basically, I've felt myself becoming completely disenchanted with anything digital at this point because of how easy it is to manipulate and mask the rules of the game, whether it's an action game, a freemium arena battler, or whatever, and it feels like as more things go digital, there are more vectors opening for manipulations. I'd love, -LOVE- for something liiiiike Pragmatic Gaming to get hacked or have a "whistleblower" leak a bunch of slot source codes for how the machines really work in practice, to understand where we're at in this development. If anyone has any thoughts about this or terms I should know or sources I can read up on, I'd love to hear them. I feel like I have some kind of essay itching in my fingers about it all. A lot of this may sound like either advancements or maturity in coding function or design paradigms, but considering how easily and apparently they're being used as predatory functions, I'm not so sure, everything just feels less real as more things go digital. Anyone else notice/feel all this? Am I nuts? LOL.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
A lot of these "pity mechanics" are there to protect players from the downside risk of pure raw RNG shafting them every time. Especially relevant when the randomness is on the order of "1% chance of success every time you attempt it", which would otherwise have a very significant long tail of people who never win. Someone who gives you $100 for every event is more profitable than someone who drops $200 without getting the thing they want and then quits for a competitor's game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
The standard term for the "the game gets a little easier after you die too many times" is "adaptive difficulty". The standard term for "the dice roll in your favor until the game thinks you'll start paying to keep it going" is "the cancer that is eating gaming"
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
And adaptive difficulty has been a thing for a long time. Rubberbanding in racing games, for example: early racing games didn't even simulate the other racers on the track, they'd just periodically have one attempt to pass you, or give you a chance to pass a racer, and your place would be updated accordingly. "Adjusting" the RNG for bosses has also been a thing for a long time; I know for example that Yamato Man from Mega Man 6 cannot do the same attack three times in a row, because the game will force him to do something else regardless of what the RNG says. And I've seen developer commentary for Ratchet & Clank 2 (which came out in 2003) talking about how they implemented adaptive difficulty, because ultimately the game needed to be accessible to little kids. (They also did a neat thing where if you kill an enemy and then fail to grab all the money it drops, that money is silently added to future drops, to make sure you don't fall behind the money curve) I don't know when adjusting RNG for drops in (non-microtransaction-based) games first started happening. But e.g. in Diablo II, the first time you clear a dungeon or beat a boss, the drops are a lot better than on future runs. I seem to recall that people figured out that a particular boss's first kill on Hell difficulty was your best chance to get certain rare runes, so they'd run the entire game twice (you have to clear Normal and Nightmare to access Hell) to get to that particular encounter for the "first" time. Ultimately this is all meant to create a more consistent play experience, where the devs can be pretty confident that every player will face the same degree of challenge. And I get that you don't want consistency: you want unpredictability. But you're also replaying games, and most devs mostly only care about the first playthrough. When the player is seeing everything for the first time, the fact that numbers are being twiddled behind the scenes matters less. It's only as you prune away more and more of the facade and strip the game down to bare mechanics that that stuff starts to matter more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:And adaptive difficulty has been a thing for a long time. Rubberbanding in racing games, for example: early racing games didn't even simulate the other racers on the track, they'd just periodically have one attempt to pass you, or give you a chance to pass a racer, and your place would be updated accordingly. I didn't know what this was called back in the day when I played Mario Kart on the SNES, but the effect was obvious. It also meant that the only way I could beat some of the 150cc stages was by playing it with someone else, since the AI couldn't rubberband past the person in the first place position if the other person was in the second place position a good distance behind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 14:59
|
|
|
Yeah, for the non-money involved types of these elements, I can definitely see the desire to create a very consistent experience, but personally I just find it too smoothed out and lacking the draw of when that super rare spawn hits, or object drops, or whatever. I'm someone who was absolutely enchanted with games like EverQuest and PSO, I'd be curious to know what the behind the scenes looked like for poo poo like spawning a Hildablue in PSO. EverQuest never got really datamined like later MMOs but people worked hard to suss out how things worked and it was interesting with lots of ways to randomize and frustrate player manipulation, like secret placeholder spawns that prevented rare spawns as long as they were alive, or rolling windows of spawn times that could miss. Some camps were just straight timers, but the more rare / powerful stuff was very cleverly arranged. To me THE go to example of a game that has kinda ran the gamut on this is World of Warcraft. Early WoW had way more hard coded randomness, and even things like rare spawns (SM:Graveyard had tons, it was neat), now everything feels way more smoothed out and on rails, even if it's very transparent. Bosses don't drop one pool of random loot, players individually draw a loot roll, and can reroll, there are various currencies to purchase powerful objects rather than acquire them in some fashion, so you can grind simple tasks rather than investing time or resources into snagging something cool. There are a few kind of marquee uber rares that are very random with no guarantee, just for the hell of it (mostly thinking of mount dropping rare spawns), but most of the game is very consistently plotted. I'm probably slipping way out of the demo for gaming in general now being in my 30's, so the money demos will only have ever really known these types of experiences and probably won't care, so I'm sure this is a weird gripe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
smarxist posted:Basically, I've felt myself becoming completely disenchanted with anything digital at this point because of how easy it is to manipulate and mask the rules of the game, whether it's an action game, a freemium arena battler, or whatever, and it feels like as more things go digital, there are more vectors opening for manipulations. I'd love, -LOVE- for something liiiiike Pragmatic Gaming to get hacked or have a "whistleblower" leak a bunch of slot source codes for how the machines really work in practice, to understand where we're at in this development. Can't speak for Pragmatic Gaming specifically, but I've worked on a mobile slot game and interviewed with real money slot orgs. The mechanics of how they work aren't exactly secret. And physical slots are way loving slimier than digital. They use virtual reel stops, so even if you calculate the odds of stops by looking at the physical reels, you're wrong and each stop location has non-uniform probability. They are barred from changing things dynamically in real money (tables are fixed and verified by the state) -- but there are no rules in play money! Often for real money there's also a bingo card system running behind the scenes with the slot interface as a cover on your bingo performance because slots and bingo laws are different. Coldest truths in real money gaming book I can recommend is Addiction By Design; a book which coins the term "Machine Zone" which is incidentally the name of an organization derived from that term. smarxist posted:I'm probably slipping way out of the demo for gaming in general now being in my 30's, so the money demos will only have ever really known these types of experiences and probably won't care, so I'm sure this is a weird gripe. You're almost certainly not outside the target demo for games. Someone will always want money from the Nintendo generation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
IIRC it's not like the machines are like, "less" slimy but one reason you don't see the big pay tables that slots have in video poker is that by some old law, anything which simulates a table game has to operate on "true" odds. There are technically rules against misrepresenting the odds of winning but enough friendly judges have ruled that multiple methods slot machines use to make big wins seem more likely are fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Not really related to the original question, but I also worked in physical slots for a while. The probability thing is funky, since lots (most of them in the US, IIRC) are a skin over a bingo game to work within gambling regulations. As I recall, some places - Vegas, maybe? - are required to use actual random stops though, so the probabilities on the wheel are what you’d expect. Could be misremembering the details on that, though, absolutely hated that job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
i think you're allowed to do stuff like intentionally cause near misses where you get 7-7-blank with the last reel missing by a single stop you aren't generally allowed to misrepresent odds in casino games but with industry friendly judges there are all kinds of creative interpretations of those laws
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
chglcu posted:Not really related to the original question, but I also worked in physical slots for a while. The probability thing is funky, since lots (most of them in the US, IIRC) are a skin over a bingo game to work within gambling regulations. As I recall, some places - Vegas, maybe? - are required to use actual random stops though, so the probabilities on the wheel are what you’d expect. Could be misremembering the details on that, though, absolutely hated that job. Yeah, a real gambling place like Vegas has a lot of regulation and integrity verification. Something like Stake.com or some fly by night casino in the Maldives that uses only virtualized slots is probably cooked to hell and back. Less about offering a wager with concrete odds and more about pipelining people into emptying their bank accounts because there's no real verification that they're hitting their RTP targets. Another thing I had a question about : games like Candy Crush or whatever... any "seeds" for individual levels/games that generate a microtransaction to complete are marked and shipped off to other players, and performance tracked in some manner, or something, to maximize money generation, right? That's my theory, and just another possible example of how you think you're playing a game with some sort of ruleset and are being fed an experience instead that you're not allowed to know the rules of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:i think you're allowed to do stuff like intentionally cause near misses where you get 7-7-blank with the last reel missing by a single stop You're allowed to make that likely to happen through manipulating probabilities of stops, but you're not allowed to make that happen by determining a loss and making that loss fit that stop pattern. I don't want to know this please help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
smarxist posted:Yeah, a real gambling place like Vegas has a lot of regulation and integrity verification. Something like Stake.com or some fly by night casino in the Maldives that uses only virtualized slots is probably cooked to hell and back. For match 3, it's usually calibrated against a measure of expected number of moves to complete the level. You can then configure how many moves you give the player to create a cadence of easy levels leading into a hard level giving way to a bunch of easy levels. It's not a mistake that you're stuck on some level then immediately clear half a dozen more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
smarxist posted:I'm probably slipping way out of the demo for gaming in general now being in my 30's, so the money demos will only have ever really known these types of experiences and probably won't care, so I'm sure this is a weird gripe. Counterpoint: You are 100% the target demo. Someone with more disposable income and less time than earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
On the topic of random game mechanics (rather than digital slot machines which are an abomination), in SteamWorld Quest, enemies originally targeted players completely randomly. It sucked. It didn't actually feel random at all, somehow. It felt like the AI was bullying your weakest characters over and over again, even though it provably wasn't. In the end, we had to implement all sorts of special targeting rules just to make the enemies feel more random even though everything we did only made them less random. In the final version, player characters are weighted and repeatedly targeting the same character causes their targeting weight to temporarily go down - enemies could still end up bullying the same character sometimes, but it didn't feel like that all the time. Pretty much everyone we asked said this design felt much better and thus we shipped with it. The point here is that randomness doesn't always feel like randomness, and vice versa. And if your game design has a particularly bad outcome somewhere in its problem space, it doesn't help to say "well, it's pretty unlikely to happen" - because with enough players, it's all but guaranteed someone will have that incredibly lovely experience. Evening out randomness thus has a lot of benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 17:46
|
|
|
People also suck at determining what is happening to themselves. They only remember the information that confirms their biases. I have a couple of web/mobile card games that have been untouched since before 2010. They are as random as I can make them, using system clock milliseconds to seed pseudo random code that does a fake shuffle on the cards, I even tested 100 random draws is some stats thing over a decade ago, and it was good enough. yet without fail, a few times a year we get a mostly caps rant about how the latest update* has changed the rules and we now cheat, it's not fair, either they win all games now or it's too easy, etc. You cant win. *occasionally we recompile with latest libs else we get kicked off the store.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
Yep, that's a good point. In particular, people are way more inclined to notice random events that go against them, vs. random events that fall out in their favor. You'll see this a lot with tactical games, like XCOM or Fire Emblem, where sloppy players will often set things up such that they absolutely need a 90% event to fall their way, or they'll suffer bad consequences. Most of the time this works great! But inevitably it'll go against them some of the time, and that's when the "RNG is rigged" complaints come out. Or conversely, say that you go into a fight that statistically, you really shouldn't win. A spearman vs. a tank in Civilization, say, and your guy is the spearman. If you win, you'll probably think "Oh, sweet! That's a nice bonus!" and then proceed to more or less forget about it. Whereas if you had the tank and the other guy had the spearman, and you lost, you'd be mad as hell. I seem to recall that recent Fire Emblem games have taken to cheating the displayed odds to better align with player expectations, to combat this issue. And then in Mario vs. Rabbids, the devs did something that I think is pretty clever: all odds are either 100% or 50/50. Enemy is in full cover? You can't hit them. Enemy is in the open? You will always hit them. They have partial cover? It's 50/50. It makes it very clear to the player that they're gambling if they go for the not-a-sure-thing shots (or if they stick their units behind partial cover).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
The games that use a pity timer on gambling MTXes are terrible, and I have little to say about that other then that you shouldn't play them anyway. As mentioned previously, games that use adaptive difficulty are best when you don't notice it. Even kids in the 90s were figuring out that Mario Kart was a rigged experience - that's sub-optimal. There was a game I played a lot where I didn't feel adaptive difficulty at all even though I played it a lot: Resident Evil 4. The triumph here is driven largely by the fact that RE4 has a lot of 'Proactive' knobs they turn instead of strictly reactive ones (they have a few reactive ones too). Scenarios have fewer enemies in them if you've struggled previously. I think recovery items are more common as well if memory serves. It was only my 3rd or 4th play-through where I noticed that encounters had more mobs that I kinda put the pieces together. RE4 is a bit of a case study in adaptive difficulty today IMO. Regardless, there are still a lot of games in that are very honest and pull no punches. The AAA space is a little busted in that regard (but adaptive difficulty is hardly the biggest concern there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Personally dislike adaptive difficulty even when I don't "notice" it because generally I enjoy learning a game's mechanics and having to come to the game on its terms vs. having the game come to me. On the other hand it can be great for players who don't want to play that way. I think adaptive difficulty is great as an option! but bad luck prevention has different purposes in different situations. Like Hyper Crab was saying, actually random can subjectively feel extremely not-random, and law of large numbers mean for games like World of Warcraft, if you have tens of millions of players doing a quest, someone is going to have a player experience where the 10% drop on a quest takes 30 or 40 kills. you probably don't ACTUALLY want anyone to have that experience. I don't think this is problematic. Honestly I think we tend to think of "random" as dice rolls or drawing cards as a holdover from physical games, but in reality the player experience you want may not actually be a roll of the dice at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
OzyMandrill posted:People also suck at determining what is happening to themselves. They only remember the information that confirms their biases. on a d&d game one of testers wrote up a bug that essentially was "this spell that does 20d10 damage NEVER does more than 150 damage or so, the RNG is broken" and we had to give an impromptu statistics lesson to the qa team lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
djkillingspree posted:on a d&d game one of testers wrote up a bug that essentially was "this spell that does 20d10 damage NEVER does more than 150 damage or so, the RNG is broken" and we had to give an impromptu statistics lesson to the qa team lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
mastermind2004 posted:You do have to actually pay attention to the RNG implementation you're using, on one project I worked on, the random implementation just routed through to the C Runtime RNG, which had a known bias towards low numbers, which caused the game to roll epic drops way more often than it was supposed to. We switched it out for a Mersenne twister and started seeing much better results. i always forget how difficult and subjective it is to make a computer do something randomly. i could probably read a whole book about it
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
You have to be especially careful about seed management. Resetting it at the wrong time or not resetting it when it should be can make both playing and debugging the game much easier or harder
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
mastermind2004 posted:You do have to actually pay attention to the RNG implementation you're using, on one project I worked on, the random implementation just routed through to the C Runtime RNG, which had a known bias towards low numbers, which caused the game to roll epic drops way more often than it was supposed to. We switched it out for a Mersenne twister and started seeing much better results. oh absolutely, just in this case the chance of getting anything higher than like 170 out of 20d10 is so astronomically low that it trips up people who don't think about the effect of law of large numbers when you're rolling a lot of dice. also worked on a project where designers could accidentally call the scripting languages built in rand() function (which was just seeded with a default value and so generated the same stream of numbers every instance of the game) instead of the correct game engine exposed Random() function, so yeah definitely a thing you do actually have to test lol djkillingspree fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
djkillingspree posted:Honestly I think we tend to think of "random" as dice rolls or drawing cards as a holdover from physical games, but in reality the player experience you want may not actually be a roll of the dice at all. It's also interesting that a roll of the dice vs. drawing a card might be the same initially, but becomes different when you're doing it repeatedly. And I think people's intuition for probability is more closely aligned to the drawing a card model. Meanwhile, the roll of a die model is far easier to implement in a computer, so tends to be what gets used unless there's an explicit choice otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
why is alt-tab behavior on PC games so inconsistent? a large portion of games are Unreal- or Unity-based, and it seems like this would be engine-level functionality, but it seems like it's a crapshoot if: - audio pauses - the entire game pauses - the entire game minimizes i think the last of these is simply not supporting borderless windowed at all, but that also seems like something the engine would handle and that nobody in their right mind would not offer as an option, but there are still games that don't. the other two are maybe just whatever the dev chooses--i can certainly see pausing or cutting audio as a reasonable choice (you don't want players to miss something critical or expect that they don't want game audio when the game is focused), but i can't recall ever seeing these as actual options, you're just stuck with whatever the game does are there actual technical hurdles that incline people to implement one or the other, or is mostly just "we think this is the best option or we at least don't care enough to add settings for it"? is this not something that most engines just have turnkey support for?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:are there actual technical hurdles that incline people to implement one or the other, or is mostly just "we think this is the best option or we at least don't care enough to add settings for it"? is this not something that most engines just have turnkey support for? It's "we think this is the best option". Generally speaking, devs don't want to have to support a bunch of different options. Each one is more code to support, more UI to write, and increases the potential for bugs that only happen if certain combinations of options are set. So if the devs feel that there is a clear best option, they'll just implement that, and won't bother letting anyone change it unless enough people complain. And to be clear, in Unity at least, by default the game simply won't run if it's backgrounded -- everything gets paused (at a very low level that regular game code can't detect). As a developer, you can change that, but it's a setting you change in the build. So if you want to be able to change it at runtime, you have to mark your game as running in the background, and then you have to write the code to pause/unpause the game depending on focus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
Handling it in the d3d9 days was something of a pain in the rear end - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3d9/lost-devices I believe it is saner nowadays, though I haven’t done low level graphics programming in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 05:07
|
|
|
What happens when you alt-tab a game is a complete crapshoot and varies wildly based on renderer, driver, Windows version, etc. Engines usually just make sure it doesn't explode (which is the default behaviour). Pausing the game is just a convenience decided by the developers though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 05:42
|
|
|
Why are games released with a default of infinite fps? I spent a couple weeks worried about some sort of hardware fault on my new PC because several games I'd just gotten and could finally play would cause my system to overheat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Actually timing frames on PC without the help of vsync is a surprisingly more complex programming issue than you'd believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 10:47
|
|