That would only make sense if you a) had a competing product on the market or b) at the very least actually announced one. The remaster/remake is a mere rumour, we don't even know if there's substance behind it.
Persona - a turn based Pokémon-like RPG fused with a social simulator. Your main way of getting stronger isn't by simply levelling up (although it helps) but by fusing multiple monsters that you catch and spending your limited time available with comrades.
id has always been a crack team of developers where performance is concerned. The fact that it was possible to get Eternal running on Switch says a lot.
You've got a very valid point with embedded devices. Although there are some big differences in that software for embedded devices typically also act as the operating system, something games stopped doing years ago.
For everything else you mentioned, you're mostly correct but there are complications. The problem is, it can be hard to sell those skills at an interview.
Not a game developer, but one aspect is that developers outside of the gaming industry function VERY differently to the point where there is little in the way of transferable knowledge.
For example, most games are made in C/C++ because performance is a serious concern, but management will absolutely shit themselves if you try to make a web service in that language due to security concerns. The only language with any serious overlap is C#, as that is the scripting language used in Unreal Engine and Unity.
Some app developers use game engines for non-game apps (eg: Duolingo uses Unity) but that's about it.
There's also the chaos aspect. Put 100 people in an arena and pretty much anything can happen. The top player can find themselves overwhelmed by people, and any competent player can come out the winner with a bit of luck. It keeps things from getting boring in the way a standard 8v8 in a standard map might get.
Sunset. It was a walking simulator back when they were all the rage.
You might think including walking simulators is cheating for a 'most unfun' game rating, but no matter what game comes to mind when you think of 'walking simulator', Sunset is more boring than that.
If you've played this type of game, you'll know that the best ones are the ones that have their plots unfold in interesting and engaging ways. There isn't a lot else going on in these games so a good plot and interesting ways to engage are paramount for this genre.
Sunset had you walk through an apartment to guess what object to interact with to advance the plot in a completely linear manner, driven entirely by post it notes. The plot was also pretty basic for the genre too.
How this game got 9/10s, 4/5s and a game awards nomination is fucking mystifying. The reviews talk about some deep commentary about civil wars or some shit, but I was too bored out of my mind to notice anything other than a high-schooler's attempt at writing about war. It's so far up its own arse about its 'war is bad' message that it forgets that it needs to convey it in an interesting way.
The game was received so badly by audiences that the developers just noped out of the video game market.
Jesus, this thing looks like a switch game yet still struggles with getting an acceptable framerate. And the animations... Do the devs know we're well past 6th gen?
Okay so you clearly agree that OW2 doesn't deserve to be the lowest rated game on steam, since "there are very few differences", and you liked OW1.
I do agree it doesn't deserve to be seen as literally the worst game on Steam. I never said otherwise. I hate, hate, HATE the MTX system...but as you said, this doesn't make it literally the worst game ever. MTX aside the game still works and the core gameplay loop is fun while you're in a match. Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing this is not.
Would I hit the Recommend button on Steam? No. The MTX strategy is a deal breaker for me. Whenever I'm not in a match I feel like a fucking product. At that point I'd rather just fire up another shooter because I straight up don't want to deal with that shit.
OW2 isn't a bad game. It is a predatory game. It is debatable which is worse (I consider predatory to be much worse than bad). Being predatory is plenty reason enough for a bad review.
And making comparisons between the two products is perfectly valid.
ow1 was shut down to avoid splitting the playerbase.
I'm sorry, are you an Activision/Blizzard employee?
I ask because only one of their employees could come up with such a bullshit statement. The core gameplay loops aren't different enough to cause that kind of split, and OW2 Is free-to-play. Anybody that wanted to voluntarily jump from OW1 to OW2 could have freely done so at literally no cost, if they so wanted.
They shut down OW1 to a) pump up the numbers for OW2 and b) to get OW1 players forcibly exposed to their F2P market.
when kaplan went on record saying that he'd fought to get ow1 owners a copy of ow2 for free everybody loved it, but now it's bad, actually? yes that makes sense
Definitely an Activision/Blizzard employee. Nobody else would miss the disingenuity of making such a statement about a free-to-play game.
comparing the entire landscape of gaming to a game is a very different thing to comparing it to a specific game
And my point is, taking into account the landscape, even in a macro level such as Activision's own behaviour with the series, including this very game, is relevant context worthy of being part of a review.
it would be like if somebody reviewed Baldur's Gate 3 by saying it was bad just because they liked the source powers from Divinity 2. as part of a review maybe it works, sure but as the bedrock and sole item of substance, it's useless.
Your analogy falls flat because Divinity and BG, though they share much of the same inspirations and development staff, are very different games. OW2 is basically OW1 with some minor tweaks and microtransactions.
The problem with OW2's mtx though is that the game makes it as hard as possible to ignore its microtransaction nature as possible, and they willingly hamper the user experience to do so.
Other than the MTX, OW2 is so similar to OW1, that without it, these reviews would be saying that they're essentially the same game. So what they're saying now, that it's OW1 enshittified, is valid.
your entire argument so far has been "I preferred the previous game therefore OW2 deserves to be the worst reviewed game on steam".
If that's what you took away from my comments, then I'm afraid you cannot read. That, or you're unable to discern from different users. All I've said was that people calling OW2 basically enshittified OW1 is not review bombing, because it's a valid review.
even ignoring the fact that you've failed to articulate any differences past a vague notion of not liking that it's free-to-play
Because there are very few differences and none of them are improvements. Like the shrinking of team sizes and available modes.
Also, F2P can be predatory as fuck, and Activision/Blizzard have most certainly been so here. they've even broken sales laws in countries like Australia.
If it does, I've literally never seen it, and I play regularly. The closest I ever got was the Halo MCC soundtrack in CSGO, and I'm pretty sure I only got that because I also have MCC on Steam.