@Oscillator

I used to go to the Molson Indy in Toronto when I was really young but that circuit is pretty weird compared to most modern circuits or even road courses. But honestly, too much oval for me in Indy. I just can't get into oval racing very much. Still have a soft spot for those Paul Tracy years. I also got in trouble in Grade 4 (2004-ish) for wearing a Kool Cigarettes Green IndyCar t-shirt. Lame ass teachers.

@E_Zed_Eh_Intern

It's a loaded question and my answer probably isn't super satisfying but the F1 cars are different from one another because there are strict regulations about certain parts of the car need to be uniform between all teams, while other parts are allowed to be designed however the team engineers see fit for success.

So the beauty of the sport come from the formula. The rules are the formula and each team gets to run wild with it. Many motorsport leagues across the world also follow this model but F1 teams just invest so much money in improvements to their vehicle The disparity comes when some teams have unlimited bankroll with no spending cap whereas the bottom teams have way less money. Like Mercedes has thousands of employees back at the factory always working on the current car as well as next seasons improvements.

Teams like Haas have gotten clever and they bought the rights to the design of certain car parts (I'm simplifying explanation here) then the team engineers work from the template they purchased to develop their car. So that saves them millions of dollars to get off the ground but ultimately, they'll never fundraise enough money to complete on any meaningful level.

So in 2021 and especially in 2022 when F1 enters into the new era of engines, the rules are trying to equal out the playing field. Now there are spending caps per season. It's still massive, but it prohibits teams from unlimited investment. So last weekend when Mercedes crashed into the wall and the car was a complete write off, they now only have x-amount of dollars to spend to repair their car which would've gone to performance increases had they not crashed.

Per the Hamilton vs Schumacher argument; Hamilton's accolades are extremely impressive and people saying otherwise are just downplaying him. Both Hamilton and Schumacher had the fastest cars on the grid for most of their careers, but there is more to it than just having the fastest car. Both have outperformed their teammates in the same car year after year and a pole position doesn't always mean you win the race, but these two drivers mostly win no matter what.

There are so many unanswerable questions about the whole GOAT debate and overall race craft between legendary drivers. How would Hamilton or Schumacher fare driving on the limit with low fuel? Who knows, but in our current era, Hamilton does a lot of things significantly better than the rest of the grid such as tire management and racing in the rain.

Here is a really good article by ESPN about the GOAT debate: https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/30330501/how-do-hamilton-schumacher-compare

I caved and watched Huber play the Village 30 min demo. I feel pretty fine seeing what I saw because he didn't get very far.

I have to say, that main story moment in the house with the other villagers did a lot more tasteful storytelling in one 3 minute scene than the entirety of Resident Evil has ever done for its characters. It was surprisingly like well done. It's crazy cause at this point you'd never know Resident Evil 4 is in the same franchise based on how much more effort they are putting into the storytelling in these newer games.

--

I've always loved Victor Lucas from Electric Playground / Reviews on the Run and over the years he's always been fixated on this one element of Resident Evil and he brings it up in every single review to an almost obsessive degree. He says video games have been getting more and more interactive and he feels like RE is still somewhat in the past because you always run around the rooms or the world and you can only interact with the objects the game says you can. So there are these detailed environments but they are basically set dressing until you find the object you are allowed to hit 'X' on to pick up.

I always found it to be a weird criticism. It isn't like RE is a cRPG like Fallout 3, right? Why should you be able to interact with so many things? Especially when a game like RE2 Remake has you dodging horrific monsters in a close space.

But as I watched Huber play the Village demo, I started to understand that criticism a bit more. When Huber was lost in front of the house not sure what to interact with, he wasn't really playing so much as he was just looking for the 'press X' button prompt to appear somewhere so he can progress forward. And you know what, that kinda thing happens a lot in Resident Evil. I'm not entirely sure what the solution would be but I do kinda hear Victor Lucas in my mind when I see that stuff. Because I thought his criticism was more of a weird obsessive point that nobody cares about, but I'm starting to see it a bit.

EDIT:

@4:09 in his review he explains what he's talking about with the objects.
Youtube Video – [04:09..]

@6:20 in this review he also mentions what he wants from interactivity in RE series in the future.
Youtube Video – [06:20..]

@axel

First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer me in the simplest of terms. I'm a big sports fan but honestly have paid much attention to football in years.

I texted my friend who works for TFC in the MLS who is a big football fan. I wasn't expecting a response since he's away this week, but what he said was so similar to your answer, so clearly most of the fans around the world share the same views that you do.

I guess from my perspective is that I only have so much time to watch sports. I already watch NHL, NBA, and F1 this spring/summer with some MLB sprinkled in between, so when I do want to take a dive into Champions, Serie A, Premiere, etc, I'd prefer the experience is streamlined and as elite as possible. I personally have found the amount of matches that take place to be overwhelming in the first place with many of them being clear W's for the bigger franchise.

I also was somewhat aware of their tiering system in football, but my assumption is that the mega corporations were already abusing the disparity within their own leagues. I mean, I see it in every sports league, especially F1 where the bottom teams have absolutely no chance at winning whatsoever, but even leagues like MLB have massive disparity between big market franchises and smaller ones. So I was operating under the assumption that the power is already imbalanced and this new Super League is no different than what already exists.

Not sure how each league functions but couldn't the even out the playing field through things like spending/salary caps, expansion drafts, and other things like that or does it already exist?

One more question- my friend says a lot of these mega clubs are really annoyed with how Champions League is being run, but he hasn't been following why they are annoyed. Would you happen to know? Because with that info, maybe this Super League is something they threw at the wall to disrupt UEFA and show their displeasure, but do not expect it to stick.

Can somebody with better knowledge of Football explain to me the problem UEFA has with this Super League?

As a absentee landlord fan of Juve, I find having to follow Serie A and Champions way too much work. Wouldn’t this be better for fans? Especially since so many clubs within one league are like Top 10 richest in the world while also sharing a league with teams who have stadiums that hold bakers dozens of people and not nearly enough financing to compete at any worthwhile level?

What do a not understand here as a bit of an outsider? Idk why fans are against this based on the info I have.

YAY!

I still might drop the $100 on PS1 games to be safe but maybe not by July now. Comon PS Now. You can do it. We believe in your ability to play PS1 games.

That one and only safe passing position made for a tense run down. I really hoped Leclerc could stave off Norris a bit longer but that one spot on the map kinda made for a lengthened hunt down with Norris chasing Lecleric then Hamilton and Norris.

The finger wag from the Days Gone director about buying games at launch for full price kinda reminds me of a few years back when Capcom was making horrible decisions and greenlighting bad ideas for games. I recall some executive saying something about the spin off action-oriented Resident Evil games (Operation Racoon City / Umbrella Corps crap) being made because RE5 and RE6 were highly successful action games and they expected those to sell equally as well due to the genre.

They also made a quasi threat around the cheap Devil May Cry HD port to PS4/PC saying like, "the future of the franchise hangs in these sales."

That kind of guilting and handcuffing fans isn't what developers or publishers should be doing. Just let them buy it at their own merit and pace. Some people stop gaming for decades at a time, then come back to it. I'd hate to find out they cancelled a series I love because I was too busy with life to buy it right away.

Ultimately, if you want me to buy a game at launch you need to completely sell me on it. Days Gone should consider itself lucky launching in Q1 2019 among other single player games and before the Fall / Christmas rush.

Back in the day there were multiple games in the same genre launching at the same date head to head, vying for your dollar:

• NBA Live vs NBA2K vs NBA The Inside
• Guitar Hero vs Rock Band
• Call of Duty vs Battlefield vs Halo
• FIFA vs PES
• Gran Turismo vs Forza

I think if a game like Days Gone only has x-amount of fans, then why get pissy at them for the cancellation of the series cause they didn't buy it right away. So shortsighted.

Gonna skip the demo. I'm already sold on the game and I can wait until May 8th or whenever. I just don't like the idea of spoiling 30 whole minutes.

@el-shmiablo

A lot of the major staff who made COD2-COD MW2 left after MW2, went to Respawn then made classics at Respawn, then returned again to make COD MW 2019. I think NoClip covered some of the development of that game (could've been another company tbh), but a ton of the core IW staff returned to make Modern Warfare.

@bam541

I never understood the World at War love. That game was terrible. I don't understand how a series could step backwards so much from COD4 yet sell so many copies.

Treyarch is like the douche bag in college who is banging the smart hot chick AND stealing her notes yet and somehow gets better grades than her despite stealing her essay verbatim.

@bam541 @El-Shmiablo

It's a mix of both. Black Ops CW engine must be different than IW's tech cause it literally feels like dogshit compared to Modern Warfare. It actually feel like dog shit compared to Black Ops 4 from 2018 so I don't even know how that happens.

I've liked a few non-COD Treyarch games over the years but it seems like their main skillset is delivering a COD game in under 14 months like Activision keeps asking them to do when they cancel a game mid-cycle.

@Bigdude1

Call of Duty 3 is by far the worst COD I've played and was trying to copy Battlefield 2 unsuccessfully. I actually hated that game. Black Ops 1 was janky as all hell on PS3 and was a pretty bad follow up to MW2, and BO2 had appeal with it's speed and attachment system and is, in my opinion, the only great COD game by Treyarch. I didn't love it, but I'll accept it's praise.

EDIT:
I liked Call of Duty: Big Red One by Treyarch, but wouldn't call it great.