3 ms·
Being downvoted? 0 points doesn’t seem like a largely unpopular opinion. I’m making a high level point. I am aware of the details that contribute to user exp
by willis936 7y ago
Being downvoted? 0 points doesn’t seem like a largely unpopular opinion. I’m making a high level point. I am aware of the details that contribute to user experience, and latency specifically, but most of them are unnecessary, and even detract from a conversation at this level.
Why do you mention google’s implementation as if it was something I was suggesting would be suitable for competitive gaming? I am suggesting that total player-to-player latency is reduced if all clients and the server are combined into one system.
- tmpz22 7y agoI find the HN silent-downvote frustrating (when the comment was adding to the discussion), so I tried to offer an explanation for it. I didn't know if you had 0 points or -10. To the point though, I still think it's unrealistic to completely change game architectures in order for the client to be entirely "dumb". We need client logic for latency interpolation for most multiplayer games (and most games do have a strong multiplayer component even traditionally single player games like GTA). And I think we've arrived at the elephant in the room: Google wants studios to rewrite their games for Stadia's latency models and that just ain't gonna happen for 100 different reasons, not least of which being that most studios are still on 10+ year old game engines.