this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
213 points (92.4% liked)
PC Gaming
8049 readers
465 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The original challenge is to get doom running on random devices with their own hardware. If that wasn't the case I could just duct tape a laptop to a stick and claim that the stick is running doom.
That's some serious gatekeeping lmao, I thought we were past that. Having a high level layer makes it easier to run custom code yes, but gaining access to that layer is the definition of hardware hacking. Not breaking the original functionality (or in this case expanding on it) is still impressive and encapsulates the original spirit of 'you can run Doom on anything' perfectly.
Personally I didn’t think the pregnancy test one really counted, either, but I’m with you on this one. This isn’t just “I put Doom on a sex toy,” but “I put Doom on a sex toy and used game events to trigger its functionality,” which is a level above.
Also looking at the pregnancy test one now I might change my mind. They did use a different microcontroller and screen, but the pregnancy test already had a microcontroller inside it; it just wasn’t programmable. If the replacement microcontroller and screen had the same specs as the old one, it’s more than fair to call that a win IMO. At that point, it’s the same hardware, after all.
Yeah I haven't seen the pregnancy test one, can't really claim it's the test running it when it's not. Definitely agree with your point as well.