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

Then it isn’t a filler. I never said I don’t swear, but have greatly reduced it. One effect of reduced swearing is that when swears are used, they have more punch.

I’m not sure why you’re so invested in debating that people who habitually swear won’t insert swears into unrelated thoughts, but the only support I offer is to listen to someone who habitually swears speak. I don’t want to sound like that, so I make the effort not to.

My choice on how I speak and type doesn’t impose anything on you.

I don’t recall saying every use of a swear is a filler word.

Delightful.

I have made a conscious effort to reduce swearing, which has brought my swearing down to near zero, both online and in real life conversation.

I have found that it streamlines the ability to make a point. A lot of swearing is simply thrown in out of habit, and if you remove it, all you do is make your point more clear without losing anything of substance.

I think for many people swearing is a “filler word” in the same way that “umm” can be. I have also worked hard to reduce my other filler word use. My goal with both of these is better articulation.

The next effect is that swearing is normally viewed as an extreme use of language for an extreme situation, and when you don’t constantly swear the times that you do actually conveys how notable the situation is.

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.

Just a phone camera. A little older. I keep the lens clean and take about a 1000 pictures and pick out the best few

Basically every episode of Columbo. The mystery isn’t the crime, but how he’s going to solve it.

On the other side of the spike wall in an inner moat. I presume the inner spikes help trap people and creates a kill zone. Also arranging spikes in an X pattern is simple to produce.