I picked a small subset of games that I played for thousands of hours each at a high level. They were not really simple. StarCraft in particular is one of the most complex games ever created. The other three games don't have an inordinate amount of heroes, but the actual gameplay mechanics...
What was so horribly unbalanced about CS? What was unbalanced about UT2004? Starcraft? Quake 3? There can never be perfection, but they are far ahead of what is being put out today in the multiplayer space.
Honestly, the majority of newer gamers aren't competent enough to understand much...
Complete revisionist history that games were always horribly balanced. Game developers today are so bereft of talent and creativity, they just leave game mechanics to sheer randomness because they don't know what fun actually is. It's also crazy to claim gameplay loops have become more complex.
Fair enough about the jumping. The combat itself looks much less fun here. The hyper fast pace and crazy movement abilities of the prior entries were so much fun. The glory kills added a ton of intrinsic value as well.
Async has always been more beneficial for console as knowing what resources will be underutilized is of great importance. This can’t be known when having to code for many combinations in an API that is much more abstracted from the hardware. No one expected PC to match console performance...
It should be the de facto goal of the medium as a whole in general. There will be exceptions for games that are heavily narrative driven, but even those should strive for maximum gameplay agency within the limitations the story imposes on them. Today's games offer a minimum amount of gameplay...
That wouldn’t apply to the other games that have introduced VG systems. It would still be noticeable here too though. There is going to be a fair amount if down time between battles as well as exploring.
Do you have a link to their paper/talk?
I wonder what the size on disk would be for a...