• 0 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023
  • William@lemmy.worldtoGaming@lemmy.zip•Fallout creator asks why triple-A RPGs focus on violence, doesn't provide very hopeful answerEnglish
    8·
    4 days ago

    I have another answer: It’s because true innovation is hard.

    We have a ton of super-popular violent games to source ideas from for new games. We take an idea and modify it a little, and it’s fun.

    We don’t have nearly as many super-popular non-violent games to source from. They exist, but there just aren’t as many of them, and they’re generally pretty “cozy” instead of pumping the adrenaline. Sports/racing games are an exception, but “non-violent” still depends on the exact sport and implementation. Many of them aren’t non-violent.

    It’s the same reason that fantasy often still uses elves, trolls, and dwarves. They’re really easy to source from, and coming up with compelling new races that aren’t essentially the same as the tropes is hard.

    Indies are into innovation. AAAs are into money.

  • William@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world•There’s No Dancing Around It: Apple’s Vision Pro Was An Ugly DudEnglish
    1·
    5 days ago

    Right, hence I said “greatly reduces the chances”. I know some people are still affected.

    I think with careful, controlled exposure, they could greatly lessen this feeling (or maybe even eliminate it), but it’d be a long road and I question how important it actually would be to them, so I don’t actually suggest it.

    Personally, I love VR. I’ve always been an avid fan of 3D TV/Games and VR, and I always will be. I long for the day that AR is properly implemented.

    But I also understand that others don’t share that love, for personal or even physiological reasons.

  • William@lemmy.worldtoProgramming@programming.dev•Don't DRY Your Code Prematurely
    174·
    21 days ago

    First off, I generally don’t worry about DRY until there are 3 instances, not 2. With only 2, it’s really easy to over-generalize or have a bad structure for the abstraction.

    But otherwise, I disagree with the article. If it’s complicated enough to bother abstracting the logic, the worst that can happen in the above situation is that you just duplicate that whole class once you discover that it’s not the same. And if that never happens, you only have 1 copy to maintain.

    The code in the article isn’t complicated enough that I’d bother. It even ends up with about the same number of lines of code, hinting that you probably haven’t simplified things much.