Doesnt the article state that its over IP-related concerns?

Yes. That's the crux of the issue - ownership of generative AI outputs is still iffy. No company wants to deal with iffy.

And no company is going to ignore any tool that promises an advantage. Outwardly, they'll decry and distance themselves. Internally, they are exploring how to use these tools, especially because their rivals are doing the same thing.

The reality is, Nintendo won't claim to use AI tools and like many companies, will do everything they can to publically distance themselves from the technology, because currently the law around who owns what where generative AI outputs are concerned are iffy. No company wants to deal with iffy.

Internally, ideation and other applications? Sure. I can name three big UK games companies that carefully manage public perception of their connection to the technology, while they explore its application internally.

Medical practioners - and those the technology is already helping, via cancer screening and other applications - would strongly disagree.

I've seen people believe a variety of animals love them (scorpions, lizards etc). We're wired to project.

I think the only people fooled are those not bothering to do even some casual research on the technology. If they did, they'd realise they're powerful tools best used by proficient, educated users and not magical machines that are going to do everything for us*. Artists are the best users of generative AI tools for art use-cases, as an example.

*Yet..

I mean..

Spellcasters exist.

Balrog for me. After playing Ed, I've realised I appreciate boxing style characters. And while Ed has his charms, there's only one real SF boxer.

Don't care, don't judge, don't hate.

OP only has their word there was no effort. I believe there was effort.

The first is a fairly flat rendering of an eye, which includes some narrative elements that are not particularly balanced and quite bland.

The second I find far more pleasing on a number of levels. The mix of color, the suggestion of horse heads in some areas, and the overall balance make it more interesting, as it lets the viewer find something, invites them to discover something. In contrast, the first image tries to tell the viewer to see something quite specific and does not generate nearly as much discussion.

That's a bit more than 10 mins of effort.

Blanka. It looks like a chaotic mess of madness, yet you know that a competent player is piloting the mad lad with skill and precision.

Yup, I had the pleasure of sharing a drink with some of the Larian team. The spell slot system of D&D was a headache, presenting issues with encounter design and curating the game experience (despite WoTC giving them carte blanche to tweak things as needed). Which, I get - it's a weird system and doesn't readily translate into a video game format.

How often are people fighting tiamat? And if they do, I would really hope the DM is handing out bespoke items and the like, as part of a campaign.

Yeah, that scans. On the plus side, great life lesson.

This reads like a late teen drama - what are the ages involved?

Just don't climb on anything, ever.

What is he doing to poor Vega in the last panel? o_o

Wizarwarlmonk.. something, something.

Who am I kidding? I'll DM.

Be good if she could hit a target amongst the new forest/tree biome..

Yup, the game is a gem. HD1 was a fantastic co-op experience, and HD2 is a testament to the developer's skill, having iterated upon the core experience and successfully translating the challenge and reward into glorious third-person play.

Sadly, for good business reasons, a number of games follow the opposite philosophy, where they are designed to be as accessibile as possible, in order to capture as wide a playerbase as possible

It's why we end up with Ubisofts waypoint guides. Folks were having trouble navigating to objectives - reading maps and exploring. From a UX perspective, the solution is obvious - make it clearer. And now we just need to blindly follow the dot/glowing trail. Also a good example of how UX can undermine game design philosophy, if it doesn't account for the core experience of the game system.

Keeping a game difficult, while maintaining perceptions of fairness, and promoting skill expression, is surpisingly difficult, especially once market forces come into play. Thankfully, AH have retained control, though I wouldn't hold it against them if they sold up and cashed out, especially with the amount of insufferable moaning thrown their way.

There's a saying that is applied to 'modern' gamers: Most gamers don't want to play a game, they want to win a game. This thread has many, many up votes over a buff that isn't needed. The JP is fine as is, providing useful mobility that can be applied in a variety of important, meaningful ways. But it takes practice and skill to utilise. Rather than invest the time needed to get the most out of the JP, we have people wanting it to be stronger/faster/''better''. If AH caved into this any many of the other loudly shouted demands, we'd have a far easier - and less challenging - core experience.

They're keen to keep the game as designed, a difficult game - but one where players who invest their time practicing, can master/express their skill.

Everyone turning up, on time, according to schedule, having read the rules and learnt their class abilities.

That's the meta.