"When Tech Bros Build Motorcycles in UE5 Because They Can't Use Google"
Let me start by saying: if your solution to "how do motorcycles balance?" in UE5 is "build a custom physics system from scratch while aggressively thumbing my nose at Unreal’s built-in tools," you’re either a pioneer or a glorified intern at a VC-funded blop. Ihor Fridman’s motorcycle system article is the tech bro equivalent of painting your nails while ignoring that 90% of the job is done by existing blueprints. "Physics of stability"? Buddy, that’s like a teenager writing a thesis on why gravity isn’t a thing. If your game’s core mechanics require a PhD in differential equations, maybe your target audience is 12-year-olds and your budget is a typo.
Sure, balancing a bike-based game is hard, but why pretend the engine doesn’t have components literally named "vehicle"? Fridman’s workflow reads like a tech bro’s LinkedIn post: "I’m building this from the ground up! Legacy systems are for losers!" It’s the same logic as using Unity to make a 2D platformer because "you don’t want to deal with Godot’s’ve". The worst part? He’s not even saving time-UE5’s physics is fine for most games. Unless you’re making a hyper-realistic dirt bike sim where every wheel spin matters, which you obviously are, since you’re spending 200 hours on a system that could’ve been a blueprint. Classic move. Kor aus Inc. is just outsourcing their laziness to UE5, while Fridman gets a pat on the back for "innovation." Boring.
"I treated the bike and rider as one system." - Yeah, because grabbing a handlebar is literally that simple. If only PCs worked that way.Link to the goddamn article so we can all mock it together.
"AAA Games Are Still Bonding Over Physics Engines Like They’re Having A ’97 Build Your Own Revolution"
"Bloodfall’s" combat isn’t a bold choice-it’s a cry for help from a studio that hired a solo dev with a degree in "Why This Engine Is Better For Me Even Though It’s Frozen in 2008." Physics-based melee is like saying "I’ll solve traffic by inventing the wheel again." The article’s bragging about collision models that "lock, deflect, interact with the environment." Dude, every first-person shooter since 1998 has had weapon collision. Unless "Bloodfall" is a mod for Quake III, this is just hipsterism. Unreal Engine’s physics is already capable of this. If you’re building your own, you’re either a visionary or bloated with imposter syndrome.
Also, "direct mouse control"? Congrats, you made a game where players feel like they’re wrestling a raccoon with a spiked collar. Real immersion, huh? The article calls it "100% physics-based," but that’s like calling a wooden spoon fight "combat." It sounds like the developer’s resume is 80% "built this from scratch" and 20% "cried into a breadbox." If your game’s excitement factor hinges on how satisfyingly a sword *can* clank against a wall, you’re not making a game-you’re writing a stress ball ad.
"molten metal deflecting in real time." - Cool. I’ll bring a fire extinguisher to the demo.Here’s why no one wants this.
"HTML5 Tools: When Your Job Is to Make a Demo, Not a Game"
Playgama Wrap is the kind of "service" that makes me want to punch a studio exec. It turns HTML5 games into "standalone websites" with "built-in payments, analytics, SEO"-because, of course, whatever makes developers hate their lives is a pitch. This stuff is for tech bros who think "distribution" means avoiding app store fees. Let me break it down: why not just use Steam? Unless you’re avoiding their 30% cut because you’re a predatory scammer targeting grassroots developers. Or, like, a EA subsidiary trying to kill off rival stores. Either way, Playgama’s free service is a Trojan horse wrapped in "easy deployment." It’s not a tool-it’s a hustle. Developers get nothing but a hosted front-end and a million pop-up ads. A win-win for studios that value monetization over creativity.
And the SEO? For a *game*? This tool is aimed at companies that treat player engagement like a casino slot machine. No culture. No art. Just "how do we funnel more money through this slot machine?" It’s not a distribution channel-it’s a data vacuum. Playgama probably has a boardroom where they high-five while nodding at "market diversification." Bro, if your goal is to sell games, why not sell them? This is the digital equivalent of selling cigar lighters at a health food store. Call me a luddite, but I’d rather a developer deal with Steam’s 30% than this play gaslighting nonsense.
"embedding user acquisition tools." - Congrats, you just made every game feel like a spy movie. Asking for a friend.Link to the cringe.
"AI Is Just Grimes’ Baby Because He Thinks Everyone’s Stupid"
David "Rez" Graham and Luke Dicken’s AI chat isn’t a revolution-it’s the digital equivalent of a toddler presenting a stick as a "light saber." The conversation is all grandstanding about "the nature of work" and "inherent value of AI," but let’s be real: if you need to lecture developers about how AI isn’t a threat, you’re the threat. This is the tech bro playbook: act like you’re the moral authority while pushing tools that’ll replace humans. It’s not about progress; it’s about disposability. Graham’s arguments are the digital version of a car commercial where the presenter says, "This thing doesn’t need a driver!" as they float over a cliff in a jetpack.Meanwhile, studios will slap "AI-powered" on every project label while outsourcing QA to a bot that still trips over its own code. It’s Grimes 2.0.
They talk about AI "enhancing creativity," but what if the creativity comes from a human? Dicken’s deep dive into "AI techniques" reads like a tech bro quoting a Wikipedia page. The worst part? They’re not even questioning whether AI should exist. They’re just farming buzzwords to sound credible. It’s the digital equivalent of a startup pitch deck that ends with "synergy." If you care about this conversation, ask yourself: are you building with AI, or are you just performing for a Twitter clout?"
"the inherent value of AI." - Yeah, like the inherent value of a used car salesman.Link to the circus.