Ah yeah, must be one of the rare cases where regional prices are really favorable.

Speaking of Forza Horizon, they’re really cheap on Steam currently. FH4 is only 4 dollars.

For a second I thought palworld was getting cancelled. They really need to make less suspicious titles for these posts.

I guess this means it won’t work on older cards. I wonder if this will work on Nvidia cards too or if it’ll be AMD-only tech.

Works fine on my end, could’ve been a temporary outage.

as well as adding a lot of extra work for modders to keep things up to date.

This is my big takeaway too… More frequent updates means more version mismatches and more trouble to modders and server hosters to have to constantly update. Not sure what’s the goal here because I don’t think people are clamoring for tiny updates.

Definitely not a bad thing, I’d love more competition in the mid-range because so far AMD GPUs recently have basically been slightly worse than Nvidia at slightly lower prices. I still think GPUs like the 4060 are way too expensive, so if AMD actually undercuts them it could be nice for everyone.

Definitely a lot of oddballs here. Why is Grow Home on the list when Grow Up, the sequel, is literally the same game but so much better?

Also pokemon go being in a top 100 list. Hilarious.

And am I reading this right, there isn’t a single Bioshock game here? Kinda expected more from Eurogamer.

That’s one way to admit they couldn’t catch up to Nvidia.

What an overreaction. Also FYI the free file limit was 8MB two years ago before they raised the limit to 25MB, so if anything it’s gotten better.

Countless games have had successful remakes, and crazy profits.

The vast majority of remakes, even the bigger budget ones tend to be of smaller games. Games that are easier to recreate or port. Bethesda games are huge, and it’d need to be ported to another engine and redo everything from voice acting to the open world visuals. Even if they’ll bother with all that, I don’t think there’s a demand to remake Bethesda’s older, clunkier games.

OP would enjoy Watchmen

I guess you missed the part where he said “Oh you said X but you’re actually implying Y? Did you mean Y? Please confirm you actually meant Y.”

Little Nightmares 1 & 2 get my vote. Also, Alan Wake 2 is a lot of fun and not exactly a horror game since it doesn’t take itself seriously, but it has a fantastic spooky vibe.

These reviews are insane. I expected Astro Bot to be a fun platformer ala Sackboy’s Adventure, but the reviews claim it rivals Mario and is a fantastic game all around.

The switch 2 is basically confirmed, a lot of journalists claimed there was a behind-doors showcase of it to people in the industry showing Zelda running a lot smoother.

I think everyone will be happy if it’s just the Switch again with higher specs. Backwards compatibility sounds great.

They failed spectacularly with Fallout 4

Eh, not really. Fallout 4 has its share of fans and while the roleplaying and story was weak, I thought the world was well laid out and fun to explore. But yeah, none of their games are as good as Skyrim which says a lot because that game has a ton of issues itself.

I think ES6 can still be good but it needs a lot of change from Bethesda’s side. For one, they should either trash the engine or fix its issues. It’s unbelievable that everything in Starfield has a loading screen between it, ran poorly, and was still a buggy mess. The enemy AI was apparently unchanged for the last 20 years or so, because every NPC is still clunky and has trouble moving from A to B.

If anything I think starfield was exactly the kick in the nuts that Bethesda needed. Hopefully it motivates them to do better next time.

Can you confirm that you think with L3, the result would look completely opposite and the summaries of the AI would always beat the human summaries? Because it sounds like you are implying that.

Lemmy users try not to make a strawman argument (impossible challenge)

No, that’s not what I said, and not even close to what I was implying. If Llama 2 scored a 47% then 3.1 would score significantly better, easily over 60% at least. No doubt humans can be better at summarizing but A) It needs someone that’s very familiar with the work and has great English skills and B) It needs a lot of time and effort.

The claim was never that AI can summarize better than people, it was that it can do it in 10 seconds and the result would be “good enough”. People are already doing AI summaries of longer articles without much complaints.

I read the article. I’m aware it’s an older study. Point still stands.

The most promising model, Meta’s open source model Llama2-70B, was prompted to summarise the submissions

Llama 2 is insanely outdated and significantly worse than Llama3.1, so this article doesn’t mean much.