A Simple Yet Gripping Concept

“Death’s Doorstep” strips down the gaming experience to its bare essentials, offering a minimalist approach that focuses on core gameplay mechanics. Players assume the role of a lone adventurer navigating through a perilous world filled with traps, monsters, and other deadly hazards. The objective is clear: survive as long as possible while uncovering the secrets of a mysterious realm.

The game’s simplicity is its greatest strength. With intuitive controls and a clear mission, players can dive straight into the action without the need for lengthy tutorials or convoluted backstories. This accessibility has made “Death’s Doorstep” appealing to both hardcore gamers and newcomers alike.

Death Around Every Corner

What sets “Death’s Doorstep” apart is its relentless difficulty. The game is unforgiving, with danger lurking at every corner. Each step forward is fraught with peril, and players must remain constantly vigilant to avoid sudden death. Whether it’s a hidden spike trap, a ferocious beast, or a seemingly innocuous object that transforms into a lethal threat, the game keeps players guessing and on high alert.

This ever-present threat of death creates an intense and immersive experience. The stakes are always high, and the fear of losing progress pushes players to hone their skills and strategize carefully. It’s a game where every decision counts and a single mistake can lead to a swift demise.

Stellar Reception on Steam

The community response to “Death’s Doorstep” has been overwhelmingly positive. With a 95% rating on Steam, players have praised the game for its addictive gameplay, atmospheric design, and challenging nature. Reviews frequently highlight the thrill of narrowly escaping death and the satisfaction of mastering the game’s mechanics.

One player wrote, “This game is a masterpiece of tension and simplicity. Every moment is a test of your reflexes and wits. I’ve never felt more alive in a game where death is so common!”

Another review reads, “Death’s Doorstep reminds me why I love gaming. It’s raw, unfiltered excitement. The simplicity is deceptive—there’s so much depth to uncover, and every run feels fresh and exhilarating.”

The Appeal of Minimalism

“Death’s Doorstep” exemplifies the appeal of minimalism in game design. In an industry often bogged down by complex narratives and grandiose visuals, this game’s streamlined approach resonates strongly with a broad spectrum of players. The stripped-back aesthetics, devoid of unnecessary clutter, allow players to immerse themselves fully in the gameplay. The monochromatic palette and subtle sound design heighten the tension, making every moment feel significant.

This minimalist approach also extends to its replayability. Every session in “Death’s Doorstep” is a fresh challenge with varying obstacles and enemy placements, ensuring that no two runs are ever the same. The lack of detailed maps or exhaustive instructions encourages players to rely on their instincts and memory, making each playthrough uniquely personal.

The developers’ commitment to keeping things simple yet engaging is apparent. The game’s core, stripped of excessive features, focuses purely on delivering an adrenaline-pumping experience. It’s a nod to classic gaming, where skills and reflexes were the centerpiece. In a world where more is often equated with better, “Death’s Doorstep” stands as a testament to the power of minimalistic design done right.

Conclusion

“Death’s Doorstep” is a testament to the power of simplicity in game design. Its 95% rating on Steam is a reflection of its ability to captivate players with a straightforward yet intense concept. For those seeking a game where every moment matters and death is always just a step away, “Death’s Doorstep” offers an unforgettable journey. Whether you’re a seasoned gamer or a newcomer looking for a thrill, this game is a must-try hit on Steam. So, don’t wait any longer – step through the door and face death head-on! Game over? Not in “Death’s Doorstep.”

Share0

Tweet

Share

Overview of Xiaomi Redmi Note 12

In terms of design, each model has unique characteristics that could influence your choice. The Samsung Galaxy A14 5G sports a minimalist design with photo sensors seemingly placed on the rear shell, offering a clean look. It is available in black, lime, silver, and lavender, with a glossy finish and light texture on the back. The Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 and Redmi Note 12, for their part, display their sensors on a slightly protruding plate that blends into the color of the phone, available in black, blue and green. The profiles of all three models are relatively flat with a slight curvature at the edges for better grip.

Dimensions vary slightly between models: the Samsung Galaxy A14 5G is the largest (167.7x78x9.1 mm and 205 grams), while the Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 is the thinnest (162.24×75.55×7.97 mm and 188.5 grams), offering a more compact and lightweight alternative. The Redmi Note 12 has a thickness comparable to that of the Redmi Note 13 but is slightly heavier since it weighs 183 grams. These differences, although small, can be decisive depending on your size and weight preferences for daily use.
All models are equipped with a 5000 mAh battery, promising good autonomy in use. However, the Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 and 12 models stand out for their supported charging power of 33 watts, compared to only 15 watts for the Samsung Galaxy A14 5G, offering a significant advantage in terms of charging speed. None of the models offer wireless charging.

Which is the most powerful and which is the best screen?

The Samsung Galaxy A14 5G is equipped with a MediaTek Dimensity 700 processor, with 4 GB of RAM, providing adequate performance for daily tasks. In terms of storage, it offers 64 GB or 128 GB options, expandable via micro SD. The Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 and Redmi Note 12 are equipped with the Qualcomm Snapdragon 685. The Redmi Note 13 offers 6 GB or 8 GB of RAM and storage capacities of 128 GB or 256 GB. The Redmi Note 12 is available with 4 GB of RAM and up to 128 GB of storage. Both Xiaomi models also support memory expansion via micro SD. Ranking these smartphones from most to least powerful, the Redmi Note 13 and 12 slightly outperform the Galaxy A14 5G thanks to their newer processor and higher RAM options.

In terms of screens, the Samsung Galaxy A14 5G offers a 6.6-inch LCD panel with a refresh rate of 90 Hz. The Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 and 12, on the other hand, offer 6.67-inch AMOLED screens with a refresh rate of 90 Hz. 120Hz refresh rate, promising not only better display quality but also a smoother visual experience. The Redmi Note 13 particularly shines with an impressive peak brightness of 1800 cd/m², while the Redmi Note 12 also offers excellent brightness at 1200 cd/m². Considering the display quality, the Redmi Note 13 stands out as the most attractive, closely followed by the Redmi Note 12, leaving the Samsung Galaxy A14 5G in third place.

What configurations for photos and what connectivity?

Regarding the camera configurations, the Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 is equipped with a 108-megapixel primary sensor, followed by an 8-megapixel ultra-wide-angle and a 2-megapixel macro. The selfie sensor is 16 megapixels. The Redmi Note 12 shares a similar secondary camera setup but opts for a 50-megapixel primary sensor and a 13-megapixel selfie camera. The Samsung Galaxy A14 5G has a 50-megapixel main sensor, complemented by two 2-megapixel sensors for portraits and macros, with a 13-megapixel selfie sensor. In terms of photographic capability, the Redmi Note 13 takes the lead thanks to its more capable main sensor, offering better image quality, followed by the Redmi Note 12 and the Galaxy A14 5G.

For connectivity, all models support Wi-Fi 5 and Bluetooth, with a jack retained for plugging in headphones. The Redmi Note 13 and 12 add an infrared emitter and IP54 waterproof certification, giving them an extra edge in practical features. The Redmi Note 13’s fingerprint reader is integrated under the screen, offering a cleaner aesthetic and increased accessibility, while the one on the Redmi Note 12 and Samsung Galaxy A14 5G is located on the profile, which can be less practical for some users.

Additional Features to Consider in a Smartphone

Besides the characteristics compared between these three models, there are other features to consider when selecting a smartphone. These include:

Operating System

The Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 and Redmi Note 12 run on Android 11 with MIUI 12, while the Samsung Galaxy A14 5G runs on Android 10 with One UI 2.5. Depending on your preferences, you may prefer one operating system over the other.

Security Features

While all three models offer fingerprint readers, the Redmi Note 13 stands out with its under-screen fingerprint sensor for added security and convenience. The Samsung Galaxy A14 5G also offers facial recognition as an additional biometric security feature.

Customization Options

The MIUI 12 interface on the Xiaomi models allows for a high level of customization and personalization, while the One UI interface on the Samsung model is known for its user-friendly design and features.

Software Updates

Xiaomi and Samsung both regularly release software updates for their devices, but Xiaomi may be slightly faster in delivering the latest Android updates compared to Samsung.

Price

Of course, price is an important factor to consider when choosing a smartphone. The Samsung Galaxy A14 5G is generally the most affordable option among these three models, while the Redmi Note 13 and 12 offer more advanced features at a higher price point. Ultimately, it’s important to consider your budget and prioritize which features are most important to you when making a decision.

Final Verdict

In conclusion, if you are looking for a powerful and visually impressive smartphone with good camera capabilities, the Xiaomi Redmi Note 13 would be the ideal choice. The Redmi Note 12 offers similar features but at a slightly lower price point, making it an attractive option for budget-conscious consumers. However, if you prioritize battery life and charging speed over other features, the Samsung Galaxy A14 5G may be the better option for you. Ultimately, your personal preferences and usage habits will determine which one of these models is truly made for you. So take some time to consider each aspect and choose the model that best fits your needs and preferences. Happy phone shopping!

Share0

Tweet

Share

In parliaments and on social networks, the rapid progress of AI is livening up discussions. In the future, what impacts can we expect on our society? To try to answer this question in a dispassionate manner, we propose to look at what happened in a sector which has already experienced the arrival and victory of AI over human capabilities: chess. The machine has in fact been at a level higher than that of humans for more than a quarter of a century now.

Why chess as an indicator?

Since the beginning of computing, failures have been used as an indicator of software and hardware progress. It is an interesting game on multiple levels to study the impacts of AI on society:

1. It is an intellectual activity that requires different skills: spatial visualization, memory, mental calculation, creativity, ability to adapt, etc., skills on which AI competes with the human mind.
2. The game hasn’t changed in centuries. The rules are well established and this provides a stable basis for studying player development.
3. It is possible to measure the strength of machines objectively and compare this level to that of humans with the Elo ranking.
4. The field of study is narrow: it is clear that chess is only a very small aspect of life, but that is precisely the point. This narrowness of the subject makes it possible to better target the impacts of AI on everyday life.
5. AIs have outperformed the best human players for over 20 years. It is therefore possible to see what the concrete impacts were on the game of chess and the life of its community, which can be seen as a microcosm of society. We can also study these impacts with regard to the progression of AI over time.

Let’s explore what’s been happening in the world of chess since Gary Kasparov, then the reigning world champion, lost a game to Deep Blue in 1996, and then the rematch played in 1997. We’ll review several recurring themes in the discussion on the risks linked to AI and see what happened to these speculations in the particular field of chess.

Will AI performance continue to increase ever faster?

There are two main schools of programming chess software: for a long time, only brute force worked. It was essentially a matter of calculating as quickly as possible to have a deeper move tree, that is to say capable of anticipating the game further into the future.

Today, brute force is in competition with AI techniques from neural networks. In 2018, Google subsidiary DeepMind produced AlphaZero, an artificial neural network deep learning AI, which learned on its own by playing chess against itself. Among the most powerful software today, it is remarkable that LC0, which is a neural network AI, and Stockfish, which is essentially a brute force calculation software, both have similar results. In the latest rankings from the Swedish Computer Chess Association (SSDF), they are separated by only 4 Elo points: 3,582 for LC0 compared to 3,586 for Stockfish. These two completely different ways of implementing a chess engine are virtually indistinguishable in terms of strength.

In terms of Elo points, the progression of the machines was linear. The following graph gives the level of the best software each year according to the SSDF ranking which began since the mid-1980s. The current best software, LC0, is at 3586, which extends the figure as one would expect.

This linear progression is in fact the reflection of a fairly slow progression of software. Indeed, progress in computing power is exponential. It is the famous Moore’s Law which states that the computing power of computers doubles every eighteen months.

However, Ken Thompson, an American computer scientist who worked in the 1980s on Belle, at the time the best chess program, had experimentally observed that an exponential increase in computing power led to a linear increase in the strength of software, as it has been observed in recent decades. Indeed, adding an extra bit of computational depth involves calculating many more new positions. We thus see that the tree of possible moves is wider and wider at each stage.

Progress in AI as such therefore seems weak: even if it did not progress, we would still observe an increase in the strength of software simply because of the improvement in the computing power of machines. We therefore cannot give advances in AI all the credit for the constant improvement of computers in chess.

Reception by the chess community

With the arrival of powerful machines in the world of chess, the community has necessarily evolved. This point is less scientific but is perhaps the most important. Let us observe what these developments were.

“Why would people continue to play chess? » This question really arose just after Kasparov’s defeat, when the future of amateur and professional chess seemed bleak. It turns out that humans prefer to play against other humans and are always interested in the spectacle of strong grandmasters playing against each other, even if machines can detect their mistakes in real time. The prestige of top chess players has not been diminished by machines being able to beat them.

The style of play has been impacted on many levels. Essentially, players realized that there were many more possible approaches to the game than previously thought. It was academicism, the rigid rules, which took a hit. We still need to succeed in analyzing the choices made by the machines. AIs are also very good at pointing out tactical errors, that is to say calculation errors over short sequences. Online, it is possible to analyze games almost instantly. It’s a bit like having a private teacher at your fingertips. This has surely contributed to an increase in the general level of human players and the democratization of the game in recent years. For the moment, the AIs cannot provide good strategic advice, that is to say longer-term considerations in the game. This may change with language models, such as ChatGPT.

AIs have also introduced the possibility of cheating. There have been many scandals on this subject, and we must recognize that to date there is no “good solution” to manage this problem which echoes the questions of teachers who no longer know who, from ChatGPT or students, return their homework.

Temporary conclusions

This quick review seems to indicate that at present, most of the fears expressed regarding AI are not experimentally justified. The game of chess is an interesting historical precedent for studying the impacts of these new technologies when their capabilities begin to exceed those of humans. Of course, this example is very limited, and it is not possible to generalize it to the whole of society without precaution. In particular, the AI ​​models that play chess are not generative AIs, like ChatGPT, which are the ones that are most talked about recently. Nevertheless, failures are a concrete example that can be useful to put into perspective the risks associated with AI and the significant influence it promises to have on society.

Share0

Tweet

Share