@nickmaster2007: I agree. I do think you can go a long way to demystifying computers with a key few ideas.
If you can explain a logic gate, give a real world example of how to build a few kinds, show how to make a simple adder with gates, and finally show and explain a simple eight segment display to output your adder I think that's enough to at least conceptualize how a computer can exist without magical gnomes.
Remember those ALU's people used to build in minecraft? I would probably use those as a jumping off point if I was going to try and introduce someone to these ideas.
You can get a pretty decent start in computer education from videogames these days.Infinifactory, Factorio, Human Resource Machine, TIS-100, Hackmud, ect. There are games for every abstraction level of computing.
@cheetovicks: 3D land and world are more similar to the 2d games than sm64, sunshine ect. are. The real distinction is linear stages vs hub world design. There are 2d and 3d linear stage based games but only 3d hub world games. That's 3 categories, but to claim one isn't core is arbitrary. I just wanna see the 2d hub world version. Would that be a multi stage metroidvania? A 2d collectathon like that Kirby game with all the treasure?
@nickmaster2007: That's just syntax and protocol. What Abby is referring to is more fundamental. She doesn't understand how code, which is just abstract words on a page, actually causes real world action. To a layman it is no different than if words written in a book using structured rules could move mountains. Learning about the physical layer on a small scale is the only way to reconcile how computers aren't just magic. Logic gates, adding machines, simple digital displays; these are the keys to spoiling the magic. Understanding how simple circuits can be designed to solve simple problems and then black boxing those circuits so they can be used as components in future problems. Everything else is abstraction.
@elath: For me it was learning about logic gates and assembly that demystified computers. Until then it was just magical bullshit that turned computer code into actionable things. With a foundation in the physical workings of simple circuitry and some understanding of how things get abstracted and black boxed you can go pretty far and at least see how the computer fundamentally works and how the complexity is built up.
@tjhall42: bloodborne is closer to dark souls 3 than dark souls 1. It's quite linear and there is usually only one way to a new area, also there is very little choice in the order you tackle bosses and a far higher proportion of them are required to complete the game. It especially hurts that the only weapons I really like are locked behind mid game bosses. I love the aesthetic though. Transitioning from a gothic horror story to one of eldritch horrors as you inevitably get more powerful is pretty awesome. I think only having consumable blood vials was a mistake but it only really matters early on when you are still learning the game. I'd go back to it a lot more often if I didn't have to dust off my PS4 to do so.
@nickhead: In Ds1 Fromsoft really pushes the interconnected world pretty far and then just after they exhaust the ability to maintain it they give you the ability to warp. Ds2 starts with the ability to warp and doesn't even attempt to present a coherent world. It has a floating prison, an underwater pirate dock and an invisible volcano. Still loved the game and probably put more time into ds2 pvp then any of the other souls games but Ds1 is just far and away my favourite. I like Ds1 the most because the freedom to sequence break and reach so many areas and different weapons before even fighting a single boss and then being able to fight several bosses out of order (or even skip them alltogether) really adds to the feeling of mastering the environment. The fact that they only ever pulled off that kind of world design in one of their games does make me wonder if it was a fluke or just to costly to keep doing.
Crem's comments