Its people parroting things they hear from whiney pissbaby streamers who aren't as good as they think they are and don't get enough kills for their YouTube compilations when they just want to pubstomp without being good.

Basically all it is.

Imagine someone like LowTierFraud as an FPS player.

I've got a direct connection so I can play reasonably with EU and JP players. If you're not doing at least that much, you're a fucking scrub tier at best.

This.

If you can't, I understand. Not everyone gets to decide. But if you have the option, fucking use it.

Miles Morales is basically a large DLC pack and follows on the heels of Spider-Man.

Get Spider-Man first, and if you want more, get Miles Morales.

And I'm sharing the idea that your tier list is terrible.

Assumptions aren't the only thing wrong you're doing, mate. This list is basically the DSP of Mario tier lists, in that it's so wrong you could eliminate the ten obvious problems and still find ten more.

Maybe don't call it accurate then, unless it's "accurate for someone on enough drugs to render their judgement highly fucking suspect."

This.

Mario 64 being anything less than A-tier makes this completely fucking inaccurate.

Right?

Mario 64 is fucking C-tier?

You're objectively, factually wrong.

I'd choose a thousand other factors first, to be honest. Like, if I were giving it a weighing score, the willingness to watch the YouTube video would be a +100 and the sim knowledge would be a +0.5-+1 at best.

I've played fucking thousands of hours of Call of Duty and I'm under no delusion that said experience means a god damned thing in anything remotely comparable.

...yes and no.

Very often, they're a stripped down, more easily accessible and playable version of a given hobby, even if they're very information accurate. Invariably they're like LEGO for the chosen hobby. You're not getting the hands on information or the nitty gritty, but it gives you a basic idea of how things work compared to someone clueless.

Like, I'd rather have someone who has never played a Car Mechanic simulator and never done the job take an hour with YouTube to do my brakes, than have someone with 100 hours on Car Mechanic simulator do them from memory.

So what you're telling me is that you have no fucking idea why these regulatory bodies exist. Gotcha.

And they've already told Microsoft that they don't like the deal. One in Europe outright told them that promising COD on the Switch doesn't change anything for them.

Redfall, Arkane's latest game, was literally in development for PlayStation as well as Xbox and was made exclusive.

Call of Duty is literally the fourth biggest franchise in all of gaming, after Mario, Tetris, and Pokemon. By itself, the merger is big enough to warrant investigation by regulator bodies, and that's before you factor in all the other IPs which Microsoft would acquire with the merger on top of that, like Diablo, Overwatch, Tony Hawk, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, etc etc.

A single Call of Duty game has outsold the lifetime sales of any franchise on OP's list. A single Call of Duty game has outsold the lifetime sales of the entire original Halo trilogy.

Pretending it's just another game series which can be easily replaced is fucking asinine.

> Makes zero sense. "Let's shoot ourselves in the foot and lose $$$billions just because we wanna stick it to Sony"?

Almost like making Bethesda's new game Starfield a Microsoft exclusive costs them billions to stick it to Sony would be shooting themselves in the foot? That exact thing that happened?

It's not. There are multiple regulatory bodies looking into it. If any one of them blocks it, it doesn't go through. The European bodies are especially casting a critical eye on it.

Microsoft said they'd decide it on a case by case basis, and every case has been for exclusivity. Regulators are not morons who say "Tee-hee, you got us!"

Microsoft violated the spirit of their agreement with regulators with Bethesda merger, so those same regulators aren't going to take them at their word now.

It's a good thing you're not in charge of Sony, then.

Microsoft trying to buy third parties is a big deal, and we know their lies about not making everything exclusive are lies after their acquisition of Bethesda. You might not care much for Call of Duty, but it's literally the biggest third-party franchise in existence and competed with Pokemon in terms of sales figures. Microsoft suddenly turning it exclusive is the kind of move that decides the console generation winner by itself.

Sony has to protest it. Jim Ryan would be shit at his job if he didn't. And that's just COD. The acquisition would give them all of Activision's other franchises, as well as Blizzard's. So that's Diablo, Warcraft, Overwatch, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Tony Hawk, and more.

There's no way regulators are going to allow it to go through. It's too big a merger and would give Microsoft a defacto monopoly on the market.

At this point, it is but it isn't.

They're basically like a James Bond movie or The Fast and the Furious series. Past events have an impact on current events and there's a rotating cast of core characters who make up the main gang of the protagonists, but the games also do a good job of being self-contained, standalone adventures which explain the who, what, and when all of the characters in a given game matter to new players so they don't miss out.

The only real exception to this is Resident Evil 6, which was designed as a huge, Avengers-like mega game which brought back the entire cast for a huge spectacle of continuity, ruined by the fact that it's one of the worst in the series, and easily the worst game which is an official, numbered sequel instead of being a spin-off.

If you've got time, they're still worth playing. I'd even recommend giving the original originals and not the remakes a try if you think you won't be bothered by the graphics, because there are some things that the originals do better than the remakes.

You can quantify it, though, and most NES games lose out to most games released today, and that's a basic fucking fact.

Nice attempt at dodging the point, tho.

Or we were around when a NES game cost $50 and even the good ones can be beaten in an hour or two. Even the basic version of a game today is an undeniable value proposition over something that cost the same 20-30 years ago.

Have you bought a single game for $79.99 in the last five years you'd happily trade for Primal Rage, by the way? Just wondering about the actual value proposition.