Doctor Destiny

I doubt Microsoft's acquisition of GitHub will change anything. They're getting too invested in it. When they got LinkedIn, guess what changed? That's right. Sweet fuck all changed. I don't even use it much and it was the same as it was 8 years ago when I used it actively. Microsoft is trying to get into open source. Hell, they have some of their own products on there and they've committed to Linux quite well. Ballmer is gone and Gates really doesn't do much anymore. Their product quality is actually on the rise. I don't use Windows 10, Office 2016 and Visual Studio because they're bad. Far, far from it...

I never said Active Shooter did anything other than be faux edgy for the sake of being edgy. It's tasteless, but that alone is not a justification for a game removal. Nobody is going to bother with anything on some random dickhead's website and probably for the best. Being on Steam makes it a tad more legitimate, even if it's a shitty game. Steam has lots of shitty games but lack of quality is not a reason to remove any game. Valve leaves countless poor quality, tasteless and edgelord games on Steam. Whether or not they have quality control isn't relevant to this point. Violating laws is really the only legitimate reason to remove a game from my perspective, but Valve will do what they need to do to keep their business healthy. I don't fault them for that but I can still disagree with their choices.

Then that should be the reason, not the shitty ass game or the game content itself. While this much is true, it should be a platform of free expression, even if we may find the subject matter distasteful. Not everyone likes the same things and any game, regardless of subject matter, should be available on a widely used platform. If the creator is a thief, or doing other unseemly things, by all means, blow them away. However, subjective metrics lead to issues and it paints games in a poor light. Not being able to explore dark subject matter is limiting, especially when non-interactive media does it frequently. Being an edgelord supreme does not mean the game cannot have at least some merit. While this one likely did not, that's not the real issue with it. There are plenty of tasteless games on Steam that don't get bothered. Steam is being coerced. Just not by anyone with authority, only by people with an overinflated sense of self worth. The fact is that the dude is a known shitbiscuit is the only valid reason to boot the guy. Fortunately, he is and it removes his bullshit from Steam. Acting like the game is tasteless, which it probably is, is the worst reason to do a damn thing. Had the guy been an unknown publisher, I suspect they might not have removed the game...

To be honest, I'd rather Steam not remove it. Not because I wanted it, but because we really shouldn't pick and choose what game content is acceptable. If it was a movie, no one would bat an eye. Video game? Crime of the fuckin' century. To be fair, there wasn't anything redeeming about this and it wouldn't be anything special. However, that should be the focus, not the content itself.

Vivaldi is better than Opera in just about every single way.

Loot boxes aren't going anywhere. The fundamental idea is fine. The implementation, however, has been atrociously bad.

Instant fail? For a small number of people at best. It's made for multiplayer now. Saying this Call of Duty will be bad just because of that is a severe misstep. The only downfall for this on PC will be the Battle.net requirement with no way to purchase and launch through Steam. This, however, can mean good things still. For example, cheaters actually getting motherfucking banned. If they use Blizzard servers, those are top tier. Never had a single issue in any game of Overwatch or Starcraft 2 or any Blizzard title. It will be a mixed bag but I feel, in the end, Battle.net will be a net positive when cheaters get banned and the games run smoothly. However, time will tell on this one.

It's based off Chromium entirely so it's Chrome with a different skin. It's better than Chrome though. It's my secondary browser and one of my primary ones at work. It's not a bad browser though. I prefer it over Chrome. It doesn't eat RAM quite as badly and it's fast.

Even if they did, good luck getting a suit filed in the US to do anything to an Asian business. Tencent is massive and even if the suit did go anywhere, it wouldn't make a dent in their profits. I'm not excusing them mind you. Just balking at the idea of suing a massive media conglomerate. From China.

At the end of the day, my straying off topic didn't even hurt anything. The poll was bad and PC Gamer should feel bad.

I'm nearing my mid-30s.

With responses like that, you're all gonna make me feel super old. XD

Crystal Castles. Atari 2600 version, not arcade. First game I really played frequently and grew to adore, even though it was actually really hard. Beating a level I hadn't beaten before was a triumph. That's gonna show my age... :p

I didn't forget multiplayer. It's part of the consistent design aspect. But you still need a good hook to draw you in so you want to spend time in that world for the singleplayer and multiplayer. If you don't have a good hook with the narrative, even if it's MP only, you'll fall flat. That's what happened to the first Titanfall. It was MP only, had great aesthetics and mechanics but lacked a hook to really pull you in to keep you playing for a long time. It was fun for a while but once the initial spectacle wore off, it felt somewhat bland. That's only my take and being a PC first title with a low population, how many others felt. MP is important for longevity but when establishing a new brand, it can't be your only hook either. Remember also, Bansh, my list is hardly comprehensive. My take is at the higher level instead of the minutiae of the mechanics themselves. You need the high level aspects to be right before you can deconstruct the smaller elements of play.

Banshee, that's fair but disparate mechanics don't have mean entirely different genres either. Look at JRPGs versus Western RPGs. Wholly different yet they engage us similarly, despite their differences in play. RTS and RTT deliver in much the same way. Regardless, straying a tad further off the point than I had intended. Since this is about the RTS specifically, let's break down what makes for a great one. First, and most importantly, the game will serve its core engagement with every element within. To build a great RTS, you need a narrative with a great hook with characters and events to deliver the narrative; you need a consistent world with a consistent, coherent aesthetic, meaning consistent graphical and sound design choices; and, of course, everyone's favorite, great mechanics to bind it all together. A great RTS is the sum of its components. If any of those fails, you'll end up with an okay game or a forgettable one... or one worth a couple of campaign playthroughs and little else. This is why Command & Conquer still resonates today but things like Empire At War and Universe At War don't have the same prestige. This is why Starcraft and Warcraft maintain massive playerbases while the 8-bit RTS series is little more than a footnote. Sure, we can quibble over specific mechanics like unit upgrades versus global ones, builder units versus construction yards or resource fields versus resource blocks (note: list not comprehensive). Won't get us anywhere if the atmosphere sucks or the characters are forgettable. Shit, I bet most of you can recite lines from C&C1 and Red Alert, or remember voice quips from Starcraft! Those showed us what a great RTS is and can be, and the lasting power they have. Now if someone capitalized on it... I think we'd all be happy.

It's for a very specific type of setup. Unless you delid your processor, this won't be of any use. A normal air cooler or waterblock will be fine.

The fact of the matter is that mechanics alone do not make the game great. They're important as part of the whole, but very rarely do they alone actually make the game great. If you want to make a great game, RTS or otherwise, you need everything to do with it. Consider this. Take 8-bit Armies and the original Command & Conquer. Which one would you say is better? I'd venture you'd say Command & Conquer is better even though, fundamentally, the mechanics and gameplay are nearly identical. A great RTS and great RTS mechanics and gameplay are not the same thing. Great RTS mechanics are finite, mostly definable. However, it wasn't phrased that way. Regardless of that, a great RTS is more than just its gameplay. Also, I didn't even start this bullshit. I said an RTS didn't need to have base building and Plokite took it in the other direction so don't give me any bullshit about shitting on the conversation. And Plokite, I just roll my eyes. I'm just going to ignore you for the most part from now on.

The discussion is blase at best. There isn't a perfect RTS or a singular set of mechanics that make for a great experience 100 percent of the time. Those mechanics may very from upgrades to waypointing to base building to even resource collection. Things I like may not be what you like or Plokite likes. Sure, we can discuss what the best games had but the games weren't great solely based on their mechanics either. There's the narrative and campaign design, multiplayer design, maps, aesthetics, flow and multitudes of other things. Oh yeah, you can point out what great games had mechanics-wise but they're not the only thing that makes a game great. Starcraft isn't great just because the game mechanics are flawless. C&C, AoE, Starcraft, Warcraft, TA... they all had personality and reasons to get invested in them. That's what separates them from games that fall flat. Universe at War, while an okay game, doesn't have the same punch as say... Warcraft. It falls flat despite the same mechanics. Had this been "best RTS mechanics," that's a more concise thing to determine. Still subjective but there are ways to play common between all RTS juggernauts... and even those unsung classics like Dark Reign.

It's a growing trend, but not getting enough publication. This is the basis for the entire idea, which has always been there... just not fully explained. Genre is never defined by mechanics, art style or camera views. Do we define movies by their camera style? Do we define books by their narrative style? No, we do not and doing the same to games is a fundamental lack of understanding of art, media and expression. Can you actually try countering an argument instead of saying I need a new one? Rather, stop trying to cling to a model that was never accurate and broaden your horizons beyond your minuscule, misinformed box.

No. Not just me. There are many people, especially in the industry, trying to get away from "mechanics = genre." Because mechanics don't make a genre. The emotions or the core reasons you play make the genre. Diablo is an RPG if you want to get basic. Not because of the leveling system or its mechanics, but because it's about a narrative. Like most other RPGs are. This is why Mass Effect is an RPG and not a third person shooter, or why Portal is a puzzle game and not an FPS. RTS/RTT evoke the same core aesthetics of play - being a leader. If you want to deny it, go ahead but you'd still be wrong.

Mechanics have never defined game genres and never will. That's surface level nonsense. Look into the aesthetics of play. It's the reasons why one might play a game that's more important for defining genre than surface level elements. Is Portal an FPS because it's in first person? Is Mass Effect just a third person shooter because it's in third person and the combat revolves around shooting? RTS/RTT deliver on the same core engagement: being a leader... commanding and managing armed forces. If that's not functionally the same just because a few mechanics are different, you're holding games back as a medium. I don't play Borderlands for the same reasons as Call of Duty despite them both being in first person with combat revolving around guns and shooting...

You can have an RTS without base building. Claiming that one mechanic makes a game part of a genre is ridiculous. It's just that the most successful RTS games had base building. There is no "perfect RTS." What I like may not be what purplederp or PW like. This is an entirely subjective discussion. Starcraft and Warcraft have done it the best with AoE and C&C right behind them. If the gameplay is good, the game is usually good.

FPS without singleplayer is limiting the genre to a limited scope. That is not how to move the gaming medium forward. Are there games in the genre that don't need singleplayer? Absolutely! Some games just aren't made for a solo experience. Trying to claim that all games in a specific genre don't need X feature is ridiculously shortsighted. Bioshock, Metro 2033, Wolfenstein, Doom (new and old) would not be better MP only experiences. These games prove that a great SP experience still resonates with players. While I enjoy some Call of Duty MP, that's about all the online I need. I still get and play many titles just for SP. Like Bioshock. Metro. Wolfenstein. And many others. Removing SP from this juggernaut of a gaming genre would be a massive detriment. The FPS, and first person games in general, are some of the best vessels for experiencing a narrative.

Oh yeah. Finally got one.

If it's good, that's fine. Doubt I'll play it since I don't like mobile games that much, but if comes out for Android, I might give it a go on my tablet.