In my 2 minutes of testing I liked the gameplay elements from Fable 5.2 much better. I think Opus 5.5 sound effects may have been a bit better but that's it.

yeah same, the Fable 5.2 version was so fun I was actually playing thru the lives!

That's so interesting, shows how subjective the game experience is.

In my eyes, the pacing and combos in the Fable version was off - original DX ball had this great feeling where if you got the right power-ups, you'd just blast through a level really quickly.

Though after playing it a bit more, I guess if I was creating my own breakout game I could easily see some of the Fable power "ups" being there.

> Fable 5.2 changed some game mechanics despite my prompt asking for them to be the same as original game.

Couldn't you have been downgraded to 4.8, since direct reproduction of existing games classifies as unsafe?

I don't think so. Quality seems much higher than what I remember 4.8 being capable of, there was no message about it and /usage reports Fable. IIRC they dropped the idea of shadow downgrades without users knowing about it.

I am kinda new to this -- how is this deployed in claude website?

Claude artifacts are standalone outputs, like docs, slide decks, spreadsheets, dashboards, designs or small web apps, that Claude publishes as hosted pages with their own link. They start private to you, and you can keep editing them, export them, or share them.

Just ask Claude to create an artifact. Sometimes, it does it by itself depending on what you ask for.

I think there is an important difference here.

It can create something like DX ball easy, because its already there, the AI already knows what it is

It can not create a game on the same level as DX ball, something new i mean, not a mechanic added on top, a real new game that feels like a game that would have come out the same year as DX ball

AI is great at executing the task, but it can not for its life (or for the anthropic reputation, it seems to care more about that) create something new from scratch, it can not do game design thats not just change the speed of the ball or the paddle color. Probably a limitation thats there from the start

How do you define new though? The game from OP never existed before although components are common in other games.

On a spectrum of course, granted that could mean a 3D paddle is new, but hey we know we are not talking about that right? We know we are talking about a game with enough differences not to say this is 3D X, but this is OOT the direction zelda will be taking

This is like saying an AI will never create a new math proof.

An AI certainly can and will create a new fun game in a target period. It may require some instruction to brainstorm, or a source of statistical noise, but I am certain it can do it.

How do you define never? How do you define component? How do you define common? Can you define what a game is?

Why can't we have normal conversations without getting questioned in this weird way?

It's a really effective tactic for promoting a position without ever having to stand by it.

opus 5.5 version seems to never time out powerups like fire ball. this is wrong and obvious.

> Fable 5.2 changed some game mechanics despite my prompt asking for them to be the same as original game.

I couldn't care less about AI-generated games, but such restrictions are just destroying the value of proprietary models. Even more frustrating is that it so far hasn't been considered illegal to steal all the information for training the models, but now it's becoming illegal to ask for these same models to output this information back.