安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
You use people. You use games. You use fans. You use forums. You use relationships.
All for you.
Not for them.
Unless they help you, somehow.
My bad, I'll edit a response into this one.
Yelling that the game is bad but being unable to offer first-hand experience of how isn't going to make the argument any more productive.
Proper critical argumentation must deal with first-hand sources, or else it's trash that could easily be 100% fiction. You can't judge a book you haven't read, you can only steal other people's judgements about it and claim them as your own.
You CAN support your argument with second-hand accounts, but you need those first-hands to carry or you're just going to get wiped by the first person to make the effort to show you how wrong you and your supporting arguments are.
So in order to draw out an opposing argument you perpetuate the circumstances within which one cannot happen. Nice, thought control. Really 'you.'
Here, let me try: "Air is poison. Because chemtrails. Prove me wrong."
I'm implying the fans don't give a ♥♥♥♥ about your approval, and it's inane to think that they would. What are you, the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Emperor of Man? Tough, because nobody listens to him either.
Done.
What data? The only available numbers come from a misrepresentation of the UK console release sales as being indicative of wider sales. Which if you accept as true, despite resulting from a basic failure to properly represent a statistic within the hyper-limited context it is true, can easily be countered by pointing to the Steam release charts where Survive topped the month of February.
Neither data set is particularly relevant. Nobody really knows how well the game sold.
If you were capable of even basic research and critical reasoning you would know that, unless you were going around intentionally misrepresenting arguments.
I think this goes back to an argument we had last year: Would you rather look weak, or would you rather be a bad person? Because your attempts to project strength always wind up making you look like a conniving ♥♥♥♥, just like mine make me look like a bully. GEE I WONDER WHY WE THINK THESE IMAGES ARE 'STRONG'. MAYBE WE EXPERIENCED THEM WHEN WE FELT WEAK?
It doesn't matter whether your first post was honest, people just remember the time you cried wolf for an entire year and assume you're doing it again. Manipulating them to get what you want anyway just proves their point, especially if you're trying to 'do what they say but not what they mean.' It's just going to blow up in your face.
Life isn't a popularity contest. People enjoy what they enjoy, and the less you reflect on what you enjoy or why the more monolithic your opinion becomes. Just another faceless nerfherder.
People thought E.Y.E. was trash, and still do because they don't really get it. Even if Kojima mentions having played it, and that it was likely the inspiration for many of the thematic plot elements in V. Doesn't matter; low sales, meaningless. Unless you create an imaginary class of 'non-AAA' games to compare it within, devoid of any other games or creators it may have influenced or interacted with. You know, the indiesphere. The kid's table of game development, such as it is presented.
Conversely, the more you reflect the more everything seems to be a part of the same monolith of mediocrity. You're free to perpetually seek out 'the ultimate,' which I think is an inherently imaginary concept you could apply to literally any game for any reason, but ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on mediocrity doesn't do anything.
Taking a flawed product and championing its positive aspects does more to promote those aspects than critiquing the negatives does. In fact, critiquing the negatives usually leads to a myopic focus on just avoiding those negative aspects and skipping the development of any positive ones. So a game that isn't bad, but isn't good: the definition of mediocrity.
that said, this game has a lot going for it simply because it takes actions to critique that mediocrity, and also offers a fair amount of polish and interesting decisions in game-design on top of that. I'm also genuinely convinced that the AI uses machine learning to decide its strategies between and during waves, which is ab absolutely incredible gem of a system if true and was likely planned for V but cut for time and covering it up only works to serve Konami's corporate greed, but w/e.
...well, I just hope your connections perceive the moral issues they're fostering within you, and that they do not choose to take harsh actions to resolve them. since that usually just causes more damage and tumult for everyone involved.
plus it's not just pushing the wrong buttons, it's reading my last paragraph and then instead of asking "why?" or trying to get me to tell you more, you couch it in telling me I'm an idiot and that I'm wrong. Who would want to respond to that? Like, who would want to engage and receive more of that?
yeah, let me get right on answering that there master. *throws keyboard out the window* oops.
see, this is just lazy. I'm supposed to say "NO YOU!"?
blah blah projection
you haven't proved you aren't a turd either, so let's just agree to disagree.
also you should probably reread some of these posts, because I called you a buttface and you ddin't even realize LOOOOL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~
~~~~~~~~b.
I'll be the more mature one for a minute. I answered all your other questions, and if you feel that there are some I missed please point them out.
I've mentioned that discussing sales is meaningless because there just isn't any relevant data available. Player populations don't mean anything, because they don't actually generate income from people just playing the game. What matters is how many copies they sold; that's their primary nut. That's what covers their costs and sets their margins. MTX is just speculative gravy. It's bonus cash, meant to eke out a bit of income while the servers are turned on.
I don't think the game failed anywhere near as spectacularly as you think, but again there's just not any ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ data. If you can show me some data, go for it. But if you show me a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ gamasutra article where they're just aping the false statistic the dumbass in UKGamer shat out of his ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥-fingers I'm going to be annoyed and assume you did it because you have nothing worthwhile to say and nothing better to do.
Now, as for the zombies. The AI has a single overarching 'director' which controls wormhole positioning, the route the units take, where units spawn from, and in what numbers/grouping. It sets the wormholes and the routes inbetween waves, after crunching the data it gathers from people playing to determine the statistically-optimal setup to get through the defenses . If you don't actively beef your defenses every round you'll find the AI sending optimized groups to push through weak areas it detected in previous rounds.
In addition, the 'director' adjusts the formation and spawnpoint of units during the wave in order to adapt to new placements. In larger swarms you'll actually see them assigning one or two zombies to far-flung routes as 'scouts,' and as soon as they find a fence in their way and get killed the next spawn will target that set of defenses. Again, with a numerically-superior statistically-derived strategy gathered by brute force slamming a machine-learning profile against everyone who is playing simultaneously. This is literally how political parties derive modern voting preferences, so don't give me that 'muh impossible' crap.
That style of AI is incredibly processor-intensive though, so they just stream the results of the calculations their servercluster makes for you between waves and leaves the in-wave stuff to the local. If you pay attention you can see subtle ways they cover the lag from this, such as the digger occasionally spinning up a few seconds too fast or hanging before it lets its pulse out, and if you're following its decisionmaking pattern you can see that it's way, way smarter in its wormhole placement and route selection than it is second-to-second formation adjustments.
Assigning conscious thought to this process is tricky, since humans just don't work this way. Ants do though, along with other collective intelligences where their primary advantage is numbers, precise coordination, and a lack of individual identity. So you're fighting against a surprisingly-well-modeled Hivemind intelligence. The individuals are dumb, but the whole is capable of strategy.
They'll even set up ambushes calibrated to take advantage of your own personal faults. Like, if spawning in one gunner ten steps behind a lightning wanderer in a cluster gets you hurt it'll start doing that a lot. If sending single wanderers to your outskirts lets them reach the core, they'll keep doing that. If you regularly wipe every unit at a spawn as soon as it falls out it'll move them to another spawn and just drop bombers on you out of that one. If it finds you defending a chokepoint it'll gradually commit less troops, but will still send just enough to break that point if you leave.
It wasn't very good at this at launch, and large swarms of even basic wanderers would choke out the calculations on most low-midrange machines, but by the time it had crunched 4-6 months of data it was really starting to get a handle on things. Sometimes it was too good; certain daily missions would regularly wipe even the most experienced groups. They improved the individual AI for specials like Trackers a bit, but they're still having a hard time trying to find that line between 'invincible computer' and 'challenging opponent.' I've seen them tune the Trackers to the 'murdergodhead' end of the spectrum and it was not fun. Just getting your ass kicked by flip-ninjas with pyramid heads.
People aren't playing because the game is still too easy at max level. There just isn't much of a point to engage with the strategy very much because you can still brute-force your way through it. Which is why I'm absolutely certain they're still working on more content, nevermind that they say they are adding content updates every two weeks but nobody's been datamining out any new skins. And much of the datamined content hasn't been getting released, like they're plotting some sort of surprise for it or something. The Gray Fox suit in particular, as well as Raiden's sword (which is confirmed, but not in the files yet afaik.)
Now, did you actually read any of that?
please no, i was having so much fun reading one second ago
honestly no.
i love you guys
hi guys
hi~
you really think I care if he reads the lacanian diatribe I wrote for you?
https://youtu.be/aMjxbCotXNE
oh well.
Yo vagrant, have you played a game called "The Vagrant" ?
It's pretty good overall considering the price I got it for a buck or so. Major boobage too.