Yeah, well... - eviltoast
  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    run your entire steam library concurrently.

    What’s hilarious about this assertion, is what the intersection of quantum computing and conventional gaming would look like. Quantum is, roughly, all about taking a vast array of possible outcomes for a system and collapsing all of that into a single, highly probable, result*. So running a game through a quantum computer would effectively “solve” it. So, enjoy watching the most statistically likely ending for every AAA game out there - no controller required.

    (* “In linear time.” Which is fancy computer science talk for “many orders of magnitude faster than the conventional way.” But you still have to stack the math to make this work, which isn’t always easy or possible.)

    • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s not what a “game” is. A “game” has interactivity and would not be solved by the computer automatically

      • pantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, I’m picturing 500 headless window processes that – if you connected to them with a display – would show a different game screen variation of “press any key to start “.

        • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s kind of where I was going with this. I suppose human input itself could be solved using some quantum function, but the statistical average of all human input would probably not yield a successfully completed game. At least, if achievement metrics on Steam are anything to go by.