Hmmm, I don't think this one will be for me.
I generally loathe puzzles in combat games, and in tactical combat games, the line between doing a battle and solving a puzzle can be very thin, especially if deterministic.
Also didn't like Into The Breach at all.

And this developer has a reputation for puzzles, obviously.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14

Quoting: minfaer

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: minfaerBtw, the article confuses me. It sounds like Hutchinson tweeted this by himself, but then keeps using 'they' as if it was his studio's (or some groups) stance. Which is it?

Hutchinson did tweet directly, not from a studio account. Perhaps you're tripping up on singular they [External Link]? Don't know, hard to tell, as you didn't point out the parts confusing you. When talking about a person, using "they" is just pretty normal here.

Thanks for claryfing, that was indeed what tripped me up. Non-native speaker here :huh:

You were understandably confused. Using the pronoun they for a singular person is a new trend and not what anyone was taught in English.

Language "rant" incoming...

"they" is generally used if the gender of a person is unknown, which can happen with a name like Alex that fits both male and female. Languages can also have a generic masculine (actually, English used to, but that came out of practice since the 60s or so) or a generic feminine (which is what I was taught in school for English).
So nowadays it is drifting towards "they" and who knows, in 40 years we're probably back to "he"...

German, for example, generally uses the generic masculine, but of course the modern extremist variant of feminism has caused a movement to appear with the goal to replace it with the generic feminine as if that wouldn't be exactly the same thing - if you feel a generic masculine is exclusive (which is rubbish, but nvm), how is the generic feminine not exclusive (but I guess it's okay if it excludes men?).
Just to be clear, I'd be fine with either, but the idea that one would be better than the other... one can only shake their head at these people.

Other languages don't have a grammatical gender to begin with, like Finnish. When you read a sentence about a person in Finnish, you simply don't know their gender. You can read entire books without knowing if the protagonist is male or female (if it isn't relevant for the story or obvious from the name, etc.) - and nobody minds, because really, it shouldn't matter.
And trust me, they know how good they have it when they look at these absurd discussions going on right now ;)

Anyway, in this case, Liam could've looked it up to see it's a guy or just write they and save himself the trouble.
Both seem fine to me, really.
English has the advantage of being able to use "they" so people can save themselves the trouble of having to look up the gender of every person they write about. I get how it can confuse people not fluent, though. It's just one of the many oddities to learn about a language.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I really liked the first game, so I'll also keep a watch on this one.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: X6205It's like uploading full a movie.

Games are not movies.
Games are played.
If you just watch a game, you are not playing it.
If you watch someone playing it, you are still not playing it. That would be like saying watching sports and doing sports is the same thing (lol, I wish...).

Sure, there are a few games that really only have their story and not much else.
It might be imaginable that those actually lose a few sales from people watching instead of playing.
But how many more sales do they get from people becoming interested in the game due to the coverage? Tenfold? Hundredfold? Thousandfold?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's like he's being paid to make Stadia more unpopular. :whistle:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: setzer22There's hundreds of tutorials out there that will become outdated. How many of them will be fixed by their original developers? Because otherwise, they're as good as gone.

Then let them be gone.

A clean API that is easier to learn and understand is worth more than having old tutorials or plugins that haven't been updated in three years still be valid.
Every programmer worth their salt knows that they have to take old, unofficial (!!) tutorials with a grain of salt.
Everyone who writes tutorials knows this, too.
This is software development. Things can change rapidly, and so do APIs.

It isn't possible to create middleware API (which Godot is) and never change it for its entire lifetime if you also strive to improve it. That would require an amount of foreknowledge that nobody has.
At best, you can offer long-term support for older versions, which is the standard method most use, including Godot.

Also, you are mistaken about the Node->Node3D thing.
The current situation is that there is the base class, Node.
Then there is the 2D class deriving from it, Node2D.
Then there is the 3D class deriving from it, Spatial.
Wait, what - Spatial? That doesn't fit with the rest. And it has confused new users since the beginning of Godot.
Renaming it to Node3D will make it easier for everyone.
And I don't really doubt that people finding "Spatial" in some old tutorial will manage - if they aren't directly told by the editor "Hey, you typed Spatial. Did you know that Spatial is now Node3D?".

Quoting: setzer22https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk And let me tell you this guy is no charlatan, he's the main designer of a programming language used by thousands of developers, and he managed to do so for 10+ years while never breaking an API :)

That's nice and all, but not comparable. First of all, programming languages are way more static than middleware.
A lot more thinking goes into designing their API than what is done or even possible for most middleware.
They change very slowly, if at all. Just look at the snail-pace of changes in C++.

Also look at PHP for a language that everyone knows is in dire need of a redesign with all its myriad of different styles and paradigms all mixed together (hell, not even function names follow a singular naming pattern).
Yet it isn't changed - why? Because it would almost literally break half the internet. It can't do that redesign anymore. It's too late.

Changing Godot API would only "break" some old, unofficial tutorials and require some small effort if you are porting from 3.X to 4.X - that's it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

That website is just beautiful.
It's like something I'd have done in the late 90s or early 2000s.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: setzer22This is the one thing I'll never understand about godot (and Blender has the exact same problem). Why do they have so little care for backwards compatibility? :sad:

Because backwards compatibility drags every project down with additional maintenance cost.
Windows STILL has to carry legacy code and support around that is by now ~20 years old.

Godot is in the position that they don't have to do that - and so they don't.
They already limit themselves to changes for major versions (and even backport improvements where possible) - that's more than reasonable.

If you think that doing a global find/replace for Node -> Node3D is a real problem, then I don't know what to tell you.
Though 4.0 will break a lot more than that. Porting a larger 3.2 project to 4.0 will probably take the better part of a week with API changes that go beyond renaming stuff.
I do hope they'll provide an extensive porting guide.

And that's still better than carrying legacy code around because it means Godot will actually be able to shed or replace old code instead of having to maintain it, making a much better use of their limited resources.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

In the category "Headlines you won't see about Unreal Engine".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: LinasDo we have any details on how they make these Windows-only DirectX 12 games work on Stadia? I mean, is it actually running on Linux? [Conspiracy theory intensifies]

Stadia is Linux, Debian Linux, just running in the cloud. Games need to run on Linux + Vulkan to work on Stadia. Games are ported to Stadia, just like they are for any other platform.

It frustrates me somewhat that this is true, but somehow doesn't seem to lead to more Linux releases of titles supporting Stadia.

It should be such a small step from Stadia to generic Linux release, shouldn't it?

View this comment - View article - View full comments