I really recommended you the 2nd Misson in the Soviet Campaign in CTA Gates of Hell. It took me a good 3 days to get through it but its as close to All Ghillied Up as you can get.

Quite the contrary, I love this subgenre more than any other one regarding shooters. But I’ve never seen it done right. If you know any game that doesn’t end in frustration about the AI, please tell me.

I’m more than OK with micromanagement in games, but that’s not how it should work in shooters. Men of War is a good example, it’s a strategy series with a notorious amount of micromanagement, but the difference is, you get all the information needed to manage your units and you as a player are not part of the battlefield. No enemy unit can look up in the sky and shoot down your birds-eye camera. But in shooters, not only do you have limited information about your enemies and your own team, you can also be killed during micromanagement. This is not how it should work. Your friendlies being a little bit more pro active is the least one could ask for.

Like imagine you storm Osama’s hideout and every time your soldiers have to ask you - the captain if its OK to shoot the terrorist in the room, or if its OK to move onto the next room, or its OK to take cover, that’s how it feels.

And because you’re essentially responsible for every single action of your team, you also feel responsible for every single mishap, whether it actually was your fault or not.

Also modern shooters themselves have already fairly demanding controls, pairing that with the ability to command different units means compromises have to be made in user experience. Your commands are usually limited by line of sight, you can’t tell your units to advance behind this wall and search for cover. Arma 3 tries to address this issue with the “Command Mode” that let’s you zoom out the camera to a birds-eye view, but that’s essentially what a strategy game is anyway. You also can’t command multiple squad simultaneously, each squad needs separate attention, while the AI computer can do everything at once, putting you even more at a disadvantage.

Developers also rarely bother implementing actual military techniques. The only 2 examples I can think of are Arma 3s combat advance (half the units cover, the other half moves) or Ready or Not’s room clearing. What ends up happening is, people just take 4 machine gunners with scopes or 4 snipers, since all units essentially behave the same AI wise, there no downside to that.

In my opinion a squad control game should essentially play itself, meaning that if your character dies, the rest of your AI should be smart enough to finish the mission or at least retreat on their own, just like a real squad would if their commander dies. The challenge shouldn’t come from janky controls or cheating AI, it should come from having the odds stacked against you. The goal shouldn’t be to just finish the mission, but have everybody come out alive. A lot of those games become almost trivial, if you just leave the AI at spawn and run through the mission yourself.

I’ve played all the games you mentioned and I am a huge fan of squad control games. I’ve recently looked through Steam games with tags “single player” and "shooter"most recent titles are primarily arcade style shooters. One thing I’ve noticed while playing CTA Gates of Hell is that no AI, whether friendly or not has ever had any sense of self preservation, and this is true for any game. So what ends up happening is, you as a player always end up babysitting your AI. You expect a squad full of capable soldiers, but end up having one capable one and a punch of crayon eating babies. That’s why most modern titles cheat with their friendly AI, making them immortal, invisible, teleporting them and giving then wall hacks. I’ve mostly given on the Idea that a squad control game can have satisfying AI interaction. If I have to tell every single unit where to go, who to shoot and when to hide, I’m not playing a shooter, I’m playing a strategy game in first person.

While I see that nothing like this currently exists on the market, I can kind of see why. The reason old school shooters look and play like they do is because of technical limitations. There’s a reason new Ghost Recon games don’t look like Ghost Recon 1 anymore, even if Ghost Recon 1 is still available and playable today. And if you’re interested in ultra janky gameplay, we have Arma 3. I just don’t understand who this game is for exactly.

Or importing new maps and characters, imagine somebody porting the Resident Evil Mansion or Raccoon Police Station with the Resident Evil Characters. Playing Resident Evil 1 with 5e rules would certainly be something. People have already done it with Men of War Assault Squad 2.

Suddenly, somewhere people heard a distinct but faint “FUCK” echo through the valley, but they knew it was Angelina Jolie.

Yeah I agree.

I would love to get a code break down and see how Bethesda spaghetti recoded the Skyrim horse mechanic into a vehicle.

I know, it’s as likely as me shiting myself a pair of angel wings.

As an outsider I’m fine with all of this for the US, as long as the US is completely demilitarized and gets rid of every last one if their nukes. Can’t have hyper-religious christian Nazis start nuclear crusades in the name of the only God that matters to them - The Dollar.

I would stand behind the idea of splitting Google in it’s seperate branches with no shared assets. Basically Google search becomes is seperate corporation, Google AI, Google Webservices, Google Ad Services, YouTube. etc… This will hopefully undo some of the webs enshitification since now the essentially most powerful company on the web has to actually offer good product for profit instead of compensating bad product with more profitable one.

Good, that shit was fruitless anyway.

Why is Gamora?

I disagree. The rule is “sex sells”, always has, always will be, period.

The people that complain about “wokeness” in games are a small but loud minority. The majority doesn’t care, hells seeing the steam achievements for some games the majority doesn’t even care to finish a game past the tutorial yet alone care about story or characters.

The problem is the approach to game design has changed. In the earlier stages of gaming, you would take a fun concept (finding perfect fits for boxes) and make it into a game (Tetris), that was all there was, Super Mario was literally called “Jump & Run Man” at one point. It was the essence of fun presented in a replayable form. Now games have to have a story, morals, relatable characters or some sort of overlaying message. This together with good gameplay can create a very good game no doubt. But each aspect has to be good on its own.
Take away the story from Last of Us and it’s essentially a 3rd person arena shooter, but it’s a good one at that. This alone would be a good selling point, add on top the story and you have an objectively good game.
But take Saint Row 5 as an example, take away the story and it’s a less than mediocre 3rd Person sandbox game, the fact that the story isn’t compelling either makes it objectively bad.
Rember the Hot/Crazy scale from His I Met Your Mother? Well there is also a Hot/Boring scale for games. If your game is boring it has to compensate by having hotter characters, if it’s fun it can get away with uglier ones. I can name countless examples where this is true.

Studios often overlook this connection. I’m all for diversification of the actual development environment but not the games themselves. It should always be fun first.
Never in my life have I heard anybody say “Are you going to get new game …? I’ve heard you can play as a black woman in this one. So cool.”
Studios then get upset because their model “Here diversity. Where money?” isn’t paying off.
It’s like not wanting to buy a cheaply made plastic valve for a boiler over a solid metal one and the company asks “Why are you not buying it? We made it blue.”

The fanbase is never going to change, because at some point we all realize that we want value for our money and often times studios spend so much time and effort making a game diverse, they forget to make it fun.

In all seriousness, I never was into Mr. Beasts content, because I’m not a 12 year old. But what really made me despise the guy is when he was talking about how he wanted to watch One Piece but didn’t want to waste time watching 1000+ episodes, so he decided to stream himself doing it. Like what type of person are you that you can’t enjoy something unless you earn money from it. This “monetize everything” attitude is telling me he is a horrible person to be around. I bet if he’s out with friends (if a person like him can even have real friends) he saves all the bills to deduct the whole evening from taxes, because that’s essentially what you as a person are to him - business.

I don’t know whats more entertaining, The Boys finale or the actual election.

‘Who are we killing, I won’t do kids, that’s a rule, but the rule’s negotiable if the kid’s a dick.’

• Adrian Pimento, B99

As fucked up as this is, there’s so little information given by this article that I can’t even form an opinion on it.

Well you close and lock the door. So you kind of do opt-in. It’s just muscle memory at that point.

It’s really hard to find any sympathy for people whose entire business model is to leach money from young impressionable men. It’s almost like their asking “Please stop extorting us, so we can continue extorting our own clientele in peace.” And don’t tell me that all those men are giving up their money voluntarily. It’s like saying the gambling addicts put their money in the slot machine volutarily, therefore it’s not a problem. No self-respecting individual in their right mind would or should enter his card information and buy naughty pictures of some rando, while there’s a backlog of billions of them online for free. Rub one out and get in with your day.
They can themselves “sex workers” while there is literally zero sex in their work. Imagine thinking that posting pictures of “yourself wearing short skirts” ads any value to society. Actual sex workers at least provide physical and social comfort, even if it’s just an act, it’s still a professional form of commitment.
Do those women ever stop and think why there is no one stepping in for them and preventing this scam from happening? Almost like what they do has zero value to people with the actual power to do so.
Maybe take a long hard look at yourself and see your accounts being suddely deleted as an opportunity to freshen up that resume of yours and get a real job with taxable income.

Also the fact that this is happening to the 0.0X% of highest earners, is ironic. Usually, it’s the lower end that gets scammed the most.