Are hats your main issue with them? I don’t like organised religion but tend to focus on other things than their silly hats even though they are even sillier than MAGA ones.
Honestly I haven’t seen the video but it looks like something I was wondering about recently so let me explain.
We’re more and more confused as to how mainstream games look like, as if gameplay was not a consideration at all. One could argue that this is due to lack of direction and trying to satisfy as many market needs as possible.
At the same time I also think that there could be an issue where there is no constructive feedback in the discussion because all of the reviews were either paid for (with a game copy and maybe some other goodies too) or have an interest in creating an outrage (culture wars or being negative all the time). There’s no middle ground so everyone works in the dark. Honest reviewers are rare and you need to find someone matching your taste which is beyond most people so it’s kind of irrelevant for how things look in general.
According to pcgamingwiki it has frame pacing and stutter issues even on high end systems. I’m okay with how it runs on current PCs and Xbox Series X but that’s because I can stomach 40 fps with inconsistent frame pacing - many people can’t and at this point it’s probably best to hope for some updated version.
I didn’t think that gimmicky game where you run over lines of people (monks? cadets?) would become that popular. Never figured what they were exactly but it was fun. Quest system was a dealbreaker for me. I didn’t know English that well and timed missions suck.
I skipped 2 based on experience with the first. I think I missed more colourful lighting but not much more than that.
Couldn’t ignore 3 which was technically impressive but was kind of boring otherwise. Played it to kill time but Tony Hawk was still better at that.
4 ran like shit but the story kept me playing. This thing needs a proper remaster to evaluate.
5 was an all around achievement and a landmark in a video game history. It’s probably the closest thing to a modern Blizzard game - not exactly innovative but really polished and treated reasonably well for years.
Never touched a game with predatory monetisation so I never touched multiplayer. Heard it sucks but somehow it’s making a bank.
The CPC Network, coordinated by the European Commission, is publishing a set of guidelines today to promote transparency and fairness in the online gaming industry’s use of virtual currencies.
Yeah, as a resident Valve hater I agree it’s a weird thing to get angry over.
If there was anything to get angry over is that I bought this game in a box (stand alone because I was too broke for Orange Box!) with an understanding that it’s an online multiplayer shooter. Meaning, there are servers you join manually from a list, shoot at other guys for a bit and return to that server or not based on how good time it was. This functionality has been ripped out of the game and replaced with some weird algorithm. Before that Valve broke their own design promises of clear silhouettes which made the game less accessible. The game has been dead, riddled with bots farming in-game items that can be traded for real money that Valve added to the game because they could. If it was any other game I wouldn’t care but TF2 started out as an amazing game that was mangled beyond recognition by Valve greed.
They should have released TF2 source code this way 10 years ago. They’re probably doing this now because income from TF2 related items on Marketplace is laughably small compared to their other titles.
I started playing on a PC in the 90s so as long as it’s above 40 with consistent frame pacing it’s fine. Those VRR displays and games targeting 40 are a game changer for me and why I play on Xbox with a modern LG OLED.
I want to learn about it either through an independent journalist or from a space dedicated to self promotion. Small developers are not saints and ads are poison, haven’t we all learnt?