Probably because it makes a ton of money. The opinions of people who post online represent a small fraction of people who play games.

I’m legitimately having difficulty following the flow of this question. The formatting vacillates between question and statement, and I am sincerely having trouble fully discerning the connection between points.

I think this post comes from disappointment with Star Wars Outlaws, which by all reports largely follows the Ubisoft formula for open world games. For this, yes Ubisoft has struck upon a formula that is applied to seemingly all of their open world games, which is indeed overly predictable. For that, I do agree that the rote steps of a collectation heavy game where the player secures territory of the game in order to advance the story is overplayed.

Otherwise, I am stuck trying to tease out the rest of the post’s intention.

Recently the 2 “highly praised” Star Wars “open world” games

I don’t know what the other Star Wars game referred to is supposed to be. Is this referring to Jedi Survivor? That game did have a number of technical problems, but it wasn’t ever intended or marketed as an open world game. Putting even that aside, why are two Star Wars games used as the pillars of western AAA games? What is the point or critique here?

The domain was always for me to archive the things I enjoyed.

https://scratch-that.org/

Yes that new Delta Force game really looks like it is just cashing in on the attitude of modern Rainbow 6 Siege and generic modern military gameplay. Shame.

Yes, but I believe they are only a publisher. The actual dev team seems to be a two person operation with a few indie titles under their belt.

But I’ve never seen it done right.

So you don’t like GRAW, Brothers In Arms, or Full Spectrum Warrior. Thats fine. This game is made for people who do.

It sounds like you specifically don’t like the sub-genre as a whole. Thats perfectly fine, but can you accept that there are people who do like these games? I mean clearly, since those older titles still have fans those people exist. That is the audience for this game.

For people who want FPS single player, squad control games. The choices are really original Ghost Recon, GRAW, Brothers In Arms, and kinda-sorta Full Spectrum Warrior.

Arma is more open ended. There is a niche for a game that is out of the box squad control with missions designed around it.

Sure you can tell people to keep replaying those old games over and over, but new entries into the genre would be nice. The graphics of this new game are a mix of indie game devs knowing their limitations and appealing to original GR era nostalgia.

There’s no good 1-for-1 way to represent it on a screen.

In real life, the entire image in one eye would be the scope, and the other would be everything else. On a monitor with a little scope pop up you have a small image-in-an-image that you’re looking at with both eyes and bouncing back and forth with to the surroundings. Your brain isn’t processing it the same way.

This is a case where i don’t think it is possible to replicate the real experience, but that doing image-in-image is a more annoying choice than others. I’d veto it on being annoying to play with grounds, and do hope what we see in the trailer either doesn’t represent how it works or is an option.

I’m hoping that was done for some sort of misguided “cinematic” reason for the trailer. I caught a moment at 0:50 that looks like full screen scoping in, and then later at 0:54 that looks like a clearly cinematic angle where the scope-in-screen seems visible in the corner.

It’s not painted as a casing, more like an exceptionally extended body. It rather looks like a tracer projectile body. I suspect somebody searched for 5.56mm projectile references and picked the tracer at random.

The crimp mark is quite far up though, rather than on the major diameter.

It has a bright and cartoony aesthetic, which isn’t inherently bad. Objects are easily readable, and the style is very flexible for adding all sorts of characters from various settings. The style also ages better than attempting photo realism.

Otherwise, yeah sure it’s a shooter which happened to catch on for the younger audience especially, and the increase of social areas and events gave it more varied content.

I played it for about 10 minutes, it’s not really for me. I don’t think about it much, but I understand why someone might like it. Just because it isn’t for me doesn’t mean it’s bad. People that getting really riled up about it existing or being popular give the same aura as 12 year olds vocally making fun of things 10 year olds are into to prove how mature and sophisticated they are in comparison.

I acknowledged that in the comment.

Judging by other top level comments, it seems many people do indeed simply accept it as something that actually happened.

I’m sure some cops somewhere still do that, but I can’t remember the last time I saw a uniformed patrol officer not using some kind of retention holster. Even the old fashion leather holsters had thumbsnaps every time I’ve seen them for the kind of role.

Just like the fake story gets repeatedly posted.

The number was, in fact, zero. (The story is made up. It circulates around every so often with the same mugshot that came from a real, but very different case.)

A duty holster will have a retention lock of some kind, usually a thumblock or button. Thats what you’d expect a uniformed patrol officer to use on a belt kit. A detective or some other LEO that wears more business casual clothes or formal clothes will more likely to have a holster without a retention, but they aren’t normally making traffic stops.

Not really worth a deep dive since the story is made up in the first place.

What does that have to do with a retention holster design?

Also, yes, fake story. Mugshot is clipped from a real and very different case.

Fake story. Mugshot is from this case.

I know I’m factchecking a shitpost, but I get the feeling a lot of people would otherwise think this is a real story.

Years ago I had the free version of Hulu that came with ads (it used to have the free ad tier, and the paid-for-no-ads tier). Hulu did the dynamically scaling resolution to match your connection thing, which was mostly good for me since I didn’t have great internet and I’ll take smooth playing 720p over constant buffering. I don’t know if the ads scaled or were naturally at a reasonably low resolution, but I never had a problem with them playing through

One day though, something changed. Suddenly ads were coming in only in the highest resolution supported by Hulu at the time. Thanks to my terribly slow internet, this meant horrible buffering. Combined with ads being louder than programs, a 30 second ad turned into a multi-minute experience of a few frames at a time screeching at me before buffering again.

I didn’t keep Hulu long after that.