Fuck you, Unity.

Japan would rather die. Microsoft, I don’t know what their shit deal is.

I hope so, but frankly we’ll just have to see. The people with the money and power usually win.

You keep saying SPD and I keep wondering how Space Patrol Delta sunk so low. It’s no wonder the top of the force turned evil and the B-team Power Rangers became the heroes we needed to stop them.

What?

Thanks for this. Might give it a watch later. ^^

This is not what I want to see on World News.

I agree with you completely. I just wasn’t about to write an essay on potential contributing factors that can help one succeed, plus luck. I just wanted to say that these days, there are a lot of indie smash hits out there that succeed in part because people saw a whole lot of love in them, when a lot of the more cynical corporate creators would never have made such things in such ways. Hell, it’s not just indies. It’s why many Nintendo games are so beloved, even “forgotten” ones like Earthbound. ^^

I know that stupid rich CEOs and shareholders don’t understand this, but… “heart”. You make a game with heart, and it’s immediately apparent to the audience. You can try to break down what it is that gives it away, but that’s unnecessary.

If a work of art has heart, it will probably sell well. As long as people can clearly see what it is, and as long as it doesn’t do anything alienating.

How is that fucking legal?

There are a lot of jokes to be made about Twitter referencing the disasterpiece movie “Foodfight!” and its villains fighting for “Brand X”.

That is not what “the Tetris Effect” means. :P

Fuck the rich.

God I’m so glad I’m not the only one. I thought everyone likes embarrassment humor and maybe I was getting a little cynical about “how bad taste is getting” or something. So good to know that others call it “cringe” (in one way, not in the other) and can’t watch it either.

That’s because they’re fake.

The moment you done effed up while everyone’s watching.

Yes, technically, just like “everything is subjective”. But only ignorant people remove all context like that.

Most of these clearly have no proper etymology and root/suffix/prefix structure, and therefore are clearly made up.

You almost had a good argument until you started trying to tell us that it’s not just a parrot. It absolutely is a parrot. In order to have creativity, it needs to have knowledge. Not sapience, not consciousness, not even “intelligence” as we know it— just knowledge. But it doesn’t know anything. If it did, it wouldn’t put 7 fingers on a damn character. It doesn’t know that it’s looking at and creating fingers, they’re just fucking pixels to it. It saw pixel patterns, it created pixel patterns. It doesn’t know context to know when the patterns don’t add up. You have to understand this.

So in the end, it turns out that if you draw something unique and purposeful, with unique context and meaning— and that is preeeetty easy— then you’ll still have a drawing job. If you’re drawing the same thing everyone else already did a million times, AI may be able to do that. If it can figure out how to not add 7 fingers and three feet.

If you haven’t noticed, the people we’re arguing with— including the pope and James Cameron— are people who think this generative pseudo-AI and a Terminator are the same thing. But they’re not even remotely similar, or remotely-similarly capable. That’s the problem. If you want to call them both “AI”, that’s technically semantics. But as far as pragmatics goes, generative AI is not intelligent in any capacity; and calling it “AI” is one of the most confusion-causing things we’ve done in the last few decades, and it can eff off.