Thanks for the reaction, I know a lot were not thrilled with the questions, but we did a follow with questions from comments and unfortunately it has gotten very little views :( I personally really found their answers interesting, even if I knew the answers to some of them already - having them confirmed in specific ways was fascinating to me. The dev was cool and wants to answer more questions too!
YO the pin, thanks bro. You are very smart with the: they are fibbing the numbers a little bit ;) The dev cleared the vid before we hit publish btw. We are covering their asses several ways
I get that there are people newer to gaming or just younger in general but this video didn't really have ANY information that was groundbreaking or unexpected. I have to assume the creator is either hyping up mundane stuff for clicks or is just really young and actually has his eyes opened by the basics.
It's stuff you expect to hear but it's still good to hear it confirmed from a source, rather than just being speculation by people not involved at all in the creation process. It would have been nice to get more info, but it's tough when the person wants to protect their identity for understandable reasons. You're limited in questions you can ask and they're limited in their responses that they can give.
This clarity and honesty should be celebrated and promoted and I hope with the unionisation this type of Dev feedback will not need to be anonymous in fear of layoffs in the future This, and not any kind of advertising, is why I want to try CoD again after so many years If the anon Dev ever reads this, thank you for all the work you and your team does ❤
No there's still a need to be anonymous, remember that NDAs still exist and if that dev was under an NDA, guess what could happen to them and 100% get royally fucked by the legal system.
This interview was a joke. "Do you know about the day one patches ahead of time?" Are you kidding? That's like putting a T-ball stand up in front of a MLB pinch hitter.
About the topic of repeating gameplay loops and that is what sells. The thing is, people aren't mad that CoD keeps the same gameplay, they are mad they have to pay 70+ bucks every year just to keep playing the same exact thing, because as soon as a new game releases, they slowly stop the content for the previous one. That means you either get no new content and watch the game slowly die out, or you gotta let go of all the stuff you paid money on, to move to the new game. It's not about the gameplay loop, it's about the predatory monetization. They did let you keep all your stuff from MWII to MWIII, that's why I gleefully made the switch. I will absolutely not switch to BO6. I would have loved to actually hear in detail about issues like that, instead of the most bland questions we already knew the answers to.
1 - I hope you were not ACTUALLY dying, and the "actually" was metaphoric. 2 - I AM actually a software guy, so I can, so I know that idea that older stuff is harder to gack pretty well. In most cases this is related to older HARDWARE, it IS more resistant not only to hacking, but also agains wear, AND because of how RAM memory stores data, against what we usually call "cosmic rays" or "alfa particles" ( I did dig a bit into that and, apparently, both are wrong, but that's what Devs are used to say when referring to that, essentially some shit from space can create some charge, i.e. eletrons, when passing through your RAM. Older RAM modules needed so much charge to detect it, it made no difference. Nowadays we had a lot more RAM because we need tiny spaces to store very few eletrons and that's enough for us to know whether that's a zero or one. Problem is, it got so small that it can ACTUALLY change from a 0 to a 1 if the not-actually-cosmic-ray-thing passes through that. That's why NASA's Mars Rovers has so little RAM, by the way. And this got worse, all the stuff that improves performance on newer processors introduces complexity that many times will lead to bugs and vulnerabilities).. In this case, the hardware is new, so it's different. It's still true to some extent, since newer stuff uses tons of APIs and services and stuff, and it's usually made in many distributed modules that need to communicate between them, and all that, again, adds tons of complexity, which is basically a breeding ground for bugs and vulnerabilities. Being a GOOD software engineer is basically trying to figure out how to solve the problems you have while adding as little complexity as possible to the system. Amazing software engineers will usually write very little code that does almost nothing, and it stays in the codebase basically forever, because it just works, perfectly, in a fraction of a second, while any more complex code takes at least 10 times as long, and has 10 times as many edge cases, leading to 10 times as many possible bugs... But I digress. On the older stuff are safer, actually LESS COMPLEX stuff is safer, but that's harder to create, harder to mantain, and requires more talented people when it needs any changes, because it usually relies on a deep understanding of the problem being solved, the language being used, and a bazillion details that require a passion for coding (to dedicate time to learn unusual/obscure/niche stuff) coupled with many years of experience (to learn so much that you actually understand what can be useful and when it's actually useful). Also, a lot of stuff becomes un-updateable because of that. Happened to Amazon, they had to rewrite the software used to manage customer calls because they couldn't find LISP developers to update the one they had for years, there's an article on that that's worth reading, and I always wonder whether Overwatch's workshop is going through something similar, in the sense that not many developers are able to actually understand everything, the reasoning, and the implications of changing some of that stuff. Maybe they did try to update it, and realized any seemingly insignificant changes the made caused so many unforeseen issues it wasn't worth changing anything and risk breaking loads of stuff we use. Been there, done that. Shouldn't be hard to add stuf to the workshop though, at least stuff like assets, maps etc.
The big giveaway of who it could be is also the level of information or access they have. Luckily or maybe unfortunately. It sounds like this guy is fairly mid level within the company. So he isn't too easily identifiable. He knows stuff but not really anything you can't find out yourself. With half of this information. It's just stuff that the fanbase of games like to either pretend isn't the case or find a way to defend. Like being forced to download 4k textures. Which this attitude is what alienated a lot of people. Similar to saying "go play something else" towards criticism. They will go play something else and they won't come back.
As much as I like TDT I don't feel like these interviews (this one and the new one) are from real developers, they were not the biggest Destiny content creators, they made multiple videos of "I'm quitting destiny forever", which made a ton of vires due to the clickbaity nature of the title, after saying that they were branching out suddenly a dev wants to do an interview in which the only ask very basic and obvious questions? And when the video does well another dev also wants to answer questions? I haven't seen the newer one yet but I personally don't buy it
overwatch 2 is literally a worse overwatch one, nothing about it is a upgrade the whole reason we got overwatch 2 was for pve... and then we all know were that went
@@nurikkulanbaev3628 ok and ? you know the reason none of that was fixed in ow1 was cause they were working on pve it is literally the exacts same game but worse now
@riot6508 Why they were working on PvE? Bcs the initial sales money OW1 generated dried off quickly. So to continue growth, They decided to make OW2 lol Current game has a lot better monetisation, for both the company and player(You sure dont want content drought)
I stopped playing Destiny a long time ago didn’t expect to hear TDT voice again in a flats videos, used to watch his vids all the time when I played Destiny 😂
This was not a leak, it's the kind of interview we used to see from game journalists. Maybe he just thought putting the word leaked would get views. From the view count I think he's onto something.
Honestly the answer to that first question makes it sound like he’s never played a game other than cod just because your game is modular doesn’t mean it has to be 200 gbs
the problem with overwatch 2 (forgetting about pve here) is that literally nobody wanted overwatch 2 or atleast I didn't. we just wanted them to fix overwatch 1
I mean. They literally did change the gameplay and change the way the game is played completely when they added other kinds of movements and mechanics and 100 attachments
Question 10 disgusted me as their answer was around performance whilst CoD is still released to prior gen consoles (ps4, xbox one from 2013). They must be wasting so much time on that bs just to sell copies to old tech.
No hardball questions/// Some decent answers tho. 10 was good. No one notices 'the well oiled wheel, as it doesn't squeak'. Especially the 'It BETTER work before you take the old thing away' makes me think some old repos, scripts, or tools got yanked for being old, maybe didn't mesh well with some other quite of tools or whatnot, and replaced with something not as 'reliable'... I wish TDT kinda followed that thread, might have lead to a lens of how the company makes decisions internally, not just the dev team.
I fell out of love with cod after MW2. Came back for Cod Infinite warfare for a while. Beyond that I haven't cared to play cod in sometime. 1. Because nothing should be taking up that much fucking space on any of my hard drives. 2. Hackers & cheaters running rampant 3. I've grown to love hero shooters significantly more.
Asking a back end dev where do they get feedback from , is probably one of the most irrelevant question possible, they don't work directly with UI, balance or even players opinion on systems, so of course they get their data from "numbers" form back end all that matter is if the program is running correctly and with at least bugs possible.
See, people don’t want CoD to change fundamentally, the issue comes when they keep releasing new versions of the game and charging people $70 to use the new meta guns or for 10 more fps. Not to mention half the guns in the newer games are just stat buffed versions of guns from previous
Idk if this is a hot take but overwatch isnt really overwatch anymore, like overwatch 1 was more like chess, while overwatch 2 feels more like rock paper scissors, like overwatch 1 was more like if ur better than someone at the game you will win 9/10 but in overwatch 2 even if u are better theres really nothing you can do, at least to me thats what it feels like
15:30 the people did not picket fences about needing updates for the game (except getting rid of lootboxes) it was blizzard that made the decision to release a sequel... now they did PROMISE that the sequel would contain PVE campaign and other stuff that was canceled - meaning the title wasn't warranted.... if the cod devs wanted to improve the game so the gpu renders 0.5 % faster and to allocate resources because of that improvement.... how do you justify that to the customer? imagine you take your car to a mechanic and they tell you - your tires can be improved 1% traction - so I suggest you buy new tires for 600 dollars.... that's essentially what Cod is doing when they release semi annually and the "improvements" are so not detectable by the end customer....
"Criticize the work, not the person" you mean unlike every political "debate", or every gamer who flames in game; they always flame the person and not the actions that were taken. ("your shit" vs "going that way was not the move"
Yeah, he's so wrong about file size the campaign is a whopping 65 GIGABYTES ON PC! It's honestly so drastically incorrect that it makes me question the entirety of the interview. Not to mention that every answered question is super vanilla no flava.
Those questions really kinda sucked. The only question with some bite had a really simple useless one off answer. Some of the questions were good in a different way but not in the way that I feel demanded the identity be hidden or the overall vibe of the title or intro. Really strange.
@ we only got the future games because people complained about boots on the ground, AW, BO3 and IW were more innovative and tried to do something different and listen to the community. Even when they initially switched back to boots on the ground with WW2 and BO4 the creativity and uniqueness they had between them made them standout. I can understand you or someone else not liking it, I don’t like BO3 but I believe that period of time (2014-2018) AW-BO4 were the best 5 games they did imo
@@llewliet4021 maybe, maybe not. Regardless, players were bored of the regular movement we had since the first cod through to cod ghost. They innovated with AW-IW and even WW2 and BO4 with headquarters, division, manual healing. IW introduced unlocking dlc weapons through challenges without being “forced” to buy it. IW and WW2 also had great zombies. Also Titanfall stomps
14:21 Hmm, it seems like a dev problem and not a gamers' one. Like he said, we don't know how games are made, just how they are played, and if they play the same and there's nothing new, then it's the same game. He probably should have phrased that better.
nah i think he's talking about people unconsciously assume that just bc its the "same game", a new cod game doesn't require massive amounts of work, ingenuity, and time
@ ok but when people PLAY the game it’s still exactly the same to them. It feels like nothing changed. It doesn’t matter that the code of the game changed because that part isn’t a concern of the player.
@@pandoraarts7748 I think saying he could have phrased it better is true since there are clearly different interpretations. But I took this to mean that if they make a performance improvement and then use that improvement to make the AI better, or add a unit where otherwise you couldn't have because it would have dropped frames too much, players don't notice it as much. The better AI or extra units on the field likely DO make a MASSIVE impact on the enjoyment of the game but to the player they seem so gradual as to not be a major impact. An example of how gradual change over time is hard to notice is overwatch and the classic arcade mode in the game now. I have played OW since 2015 (in closed beta) and I would say that while I know OW has changed a lot, it has always felt pretty similar to me. But going back to the day 1 patch.... wow... the physics don't even feel the same to me. It is the same engine and I know they fundamentally are, but I was personally shocked at how different it felt, and that is without the old UI changes that would have made it feel extra dated. When you have a game series on a yearly release cycle you aren't going to get the dramatic shifts in design that make it feel "new", but if you go back to a version 6 years old, I bet you will suddenly feel it.
@@luin6788 what are talking about? I’m not talking about the performance of the game. I’m talking about how the guy worded his statement that makes it seem like players should care that they changed few lines of code. If the player feels like they’re playing the exact same game as the previous one then that’s on the game developers to do better then change a few lines of code and call it a new game. Which I know is not all that they do but that’s how a lot of people feel. That’s why I said it could have been phrased better. Him focusing on the coding being different isn’t enough to defend the new game feeling exactly like the last one.
Thanks for the reaction, I know a lot were not thrilled with the questions, but we did a follow with questions from comments and unfortunately it has gotten very little views :(
I personally really found their answers interesting, even if I knew the answers to some of them already - having them confirmed in specific ways was fascinating to me. The dev was cool and wants to answer more questions too!
YO the pin, thanks bro. You are very smart with the: they are fibbing the numbers a little bit ;)
The dev cleared the vid before we hit publish btw. We are covering their asses several ways
They need to make Overwatch 64v64 like it was always meant to be
69 vs 69 better
They should increase the amount of players in a game to match the amount of heroes on the roster
Best idea ever 😂💯@@MemeTeamS1x
hear me out, OW Battle Royale 😂
@@ManicMan1601I would pay for that
I get that there are people newer to gaming or just younger in general but this video didn't really have ANY information that was groundbreaking or unexpected. I have to assume the creator is either hyping up mundane stuff for clicks or is just really young and actually has his eyes opened by the basics.
It's stuff you expect to hear but it's still good to hear it confirmed from a source, rather than just being speculation by people not involved at all in the creation process.
It would have been nice to get more info, but it's tough when the person wants to protect their identity for understandable reasons. You're limited in questions you can ask and they're limited in their responses that they can give.
I think the creator started with the hardball questions, was told that they were too revealing, and therefore this was a small overcorrection
Yeah TDT has been clickbaiting since the stone ages. No surprises here unfortunately
The most clickbait interview I’ve ever seen he had the potential for way better questions
1-3 were probably better but had to be taken out
TDT is a master clickbaiter unfortunately
This clarity and honesty should be celebrated and promoted and I hope with the unionisation this type of Dev feedback will not need to be anonymous in fear of layoffs in the future
This, and not any kind of advertising, is why I want to try CoD again after so many years
If the anon Dev ever reads this, thank you for all the work you and your team does ❤
No there's still a need to be anonymous, remember that NDAs still exist and if that dev was under an NDA, guess what could happen to them and 100% get royally fucked by the legal system.
This interview was a joke. "Do you know about the day one patches ahead of time?" Are you kidding? That's like putting a T-ball stand up in front of a MLB pinch hitter.
like asking a mathematician what 2+2 is 😭
Never thought I’d see the OW-Destiny crossover
first vid i watch with this guy, its been 5 min and I like it so much I subed, this guy is so nice
that "ooooo drama" reminded me of frogger
I feel like the last question was the only question that gave any kind of true insight. Feels like a plant.
TDT MENTIONED
That guy did not ask any questions
About the topic of repeating gameplay loops and that is what sells. The thing is, people aren't mad that CoD keeps the same gameplay, they are mad they have to pay 70+ bucks every year just to keep playing the same exact thing, because as soon as a new game releases, they slowly stop the content for the previous one. That means you either get no new content and watch the game slowly die out, or you gotta let go of all the stuff you paid money on, to move to the new game. It's not about the gameplay loop, it's about the predatory monetization.
They did let you keep all your stuff from MWII to MWIII, that's why I gleefully made the switch. I will absolutely not switch to BO6.
I would have loved to actually hear in detail about issues like that, instead of the most bland questions we already knew the answers to.
1 - I hope you were not ACTUALLY dying, and the "actually" was metaphoric.
2 - I AM actually a software guy, so I can, so I know that idea that older stuff is harder to gack pretty well. In most cases this is related to older HARDWARE, it IS more resistant not only to hacking, but also agains wear, AND because of how RAM memory stores data, against what we usually call "cosmic rays" or "alfa particles" ( I did dig a bit into that and, apparently, both are wrong, but that's what Devs are used to say when referring to that, essentially some shit from space can create some charge, i.e. eletrons, when passing through your RAM. Older RAM modules needed so much charge to detect it, it made no difference. Nowadays we had a lot more RAM because we need tiny spaces to store very few eletrons and that's enough for us to know whether that's a zero or one. Problem is, it got so small that it can ACTUALLY change from a 0 to a 1 if the not-actually-cosmic-ray-thing passes through that. That's why NASA's Mars Rovers has so little RAM, by the way. And this got worse, all the stuff that improves performance on newer processors introduces complexity that many times will lead to bugs and vulnerabilities).. In this case, the hardware is new, so it's different. It's still true to some extent, since newer stuff uses tons of APIs and services and stuff, and it's usually made in many distributed modules that need to communicate between them, and all that, again, adds tons of complexity, which is basically a breeding ground for bugs and vulnerabilities.
Being a GOOD software engineer is basically trying to figure out how to solve the problems you have while adding as little complexity as possible to the system. Amazing software engineers will usually write very little code that does almost nothing, and it stays in the codebase basically forever, because it just works, perfectly, in a fraction of a second, while any more complex code takes at least 10 times as long, and has 10 times as many edge cases, leading to 10 times as many possible bugs... But I digress. On the older stuff are safer, actually LESS COMPLEX stuff is safer, but that's harder to create, harder to mantain, and requires more talented people when it needs any changes, because it usually relies on a deep understanding of the problem being solved, the language being used, and a bazillion details that require a passion for coding (to dedicate time to learn unusual/obscure/niche stuff) coupled with many years of experience (to learn so much that you actually understand what can be useful and when it's actually useful).
Also, a lot of stuff becomes un-updateable because of that. Happened to Amazon, they had to rewrite the software used to manage customer calls because they couldn't find LISP developers to update the one they had for years, there's an article on that that's worth reading, and I always wonder whether Overwatch's workshop is going through something similar, in the sense that not many developers are able to actually understand everything, the reasoning, and the implications of changing some of that stuff. Maybe they did try to update it, and realized any seemingly insignificant changes the made caused so many unforeseen issues it wasn't worth changing anything and risk breaking loads of stuff we use. Been there, done that. Shouldn't be hard to add stuf to the workshop though, at least stuff like assets, maps etc.
You should work on your CAPITALIZATION
The big giveaway of who it could be is also the level of information or access they have. Luckily or maybe unfortunately. It sounds like this guy is fairly mid level within the company. So he isn't too easily identifiable. He knows stuff but not really anything you can't find out yourself.
With half of this information. It's just stuff that the fanbase of games like to either pretend isn't the case or find a way to defend. Like being forced to download 4k textures. Which this attitude is what alienated a lot of people. Similar to saying "go play something else" towards criticism. They will go play something else and they won't come back.
As much as I like TDT I don't feel like these interviews (this one and the new one) are from real developers, they were not the biggest Destiny content creators, they made multiple videos of "I'm quitting destiny forever", which made a ton of vires due to the clickbaity nature of the title, after saying that they were branching out suddenly a dev wants to do an interview in which the only ask very basic and obvious questions? And when the video does well another dev also wants to answer questions? I haven't seen the newer one yet but I personally don't buy it
overwatch 2 is literally a worse overwatch one, nothing about it is a upgrade the whole reason we got overwatch 2 was for pve... and then we all know were that went
Queue times....
Faster balance....
More content....
@@nurikkulanbaev3628 ok and ? you know the reason none of that was fixed in ow1 was cause they were working on pve it is literally the exacts same game but worse now
@riot6508 Why they were working on PvE? Bcs the initial sales money OW1 generated dried off quickly. So to continue growth, They decided to make OW2 lol
Current game has a lot better monetisation, for both the company and player(You sure dont want content drought)
I stopped playing Destiny a long time ago didn’t expect to hear TDT voice again in a flats videos, used to watch his vids all the time when I played Destiny 😂
Coming from someone who mods a lot of their games, texture mods are always my biggest downloads so this checks out lol
god-awful interview, idk if the guy is really that naive and unexperienced or is he just a plant
instead of sht criticsm try constructive critism
This was not a leak, it's the kind of interview we used to see from game journalists. Maybe he just thought putting the word leaked would get views. From the view count I think he's onto something.
1:08 the toxicity that exists in all of us overwatch players
Honestly the answer to that first question makes it sound like he’s never played a game other than cod just because your game is modular doesn’t mean it has to be 200 gbs
I never expected to see TDT here
the problem with overwatch 2 (forgetting about pve here) is that literally nobody wanted overwatch 2 or atleast I didn't. we just wanted them to fix overwatch 1
I mean. They literally did change the gameplay and change the way the game is played completely when they added other kinds of movements and mechanics and 100 attachments
Question 10 disgusted me as their answer was around performance whilst CoD is still released to prior gen consoles (ps4, xbox one from 2013).
They must be wasting so much time on that bs just to sell copies to old tech.
You act as if the old tech is bad.
No hardball questions///
Some decent answers tho. 10 was good. No one notices 'the well oiled wheel, as it doesn't squeak'.
Especially the 'It BETTER work before you take the old thing away' makes me think some old repos, scripts, or tools got yanked for being old, maybe didn't mesh well with some other quite of tools or whatnot, and replaced with something not as 'reliable'... I wish TDT kinda followed that thread, might have lead to a lens of how the company makes decisions internally, not just the dev team.
Not the crossover I expected today.
Meesome has made it wooooo
I fell out of love with cod after MW2. Came back for Cod Infinite warfare for a while. Beyond that I haven't cared to play cod in sometime. 1. Because nothing should be taking up that much fucking space on any of my hard drives. 2. Hackers & cheaters running rampant 3. I've grown to love hero shooters significantly more.
Asking a back end dev where do they get feedback from , is probably one of the most irrelevant question possible, they don't work directly with UI, balance or even players opinion on systems, so of course they get their data from "numbers" form back end all that matter is if the program is running correctly and with at least bugs possible.
See, people don’t want CoD to change fundamentally, the issue comes when they keep releasing new versions of the game and charging people $70 to use the new meta guns or for 10 more fps. Not to mention half the guns in the newer games are just stat buffed versions of guns from previous
This was so interesting.
Idk if this is a hot take but overwatch isnt really overwatch anymore, like overwatch 1 was more like chess, while overwatch 2 feels more like rock paper scissors, like overwatch 1 was more like if ur better than someone at the game you will win 9/10 but in overwatch 2 even if u are better theres really nothing you can do, at least to me thats what it feels like
15:30 the people did not picket fences about needing updates for the game (except getting rid of lootboxes) it was blizzard that made the decision to release a sequel...
now they did PROMISE that the sequel would contain PVE campaign and other stuff that was canceled - meaning the title wasn't warranted....
if the cod devs wanted to improve the game so the gpu renders 0.5 % faster and to allocate resources because of that improvement.... how do you justify that to the customer?
imagine you take your car to a mechanic and they tell you - your tires can be improved 1% traction - so I suggest you buy new tires for 600 dollars....
that's essentially what Cod is doing when they release semi annually and the "improvements" are so not detectable by the end customer....
Try not to pause and yap challenge impossible
"Criticize the work, not the person" you mean unlike every political "debate", or every gamer who flames in game; they always flame the person and not the actions that were taken. ("your shit" vs "going that way was not the move"
Yeah, he's so wrong about file size the campaign is a whopping 65 GIGABYTES ON PC! It's honestly so drastically incorrect that it makes me question the entirety of the interview. Not to mention that every answered question is super vanilla no flava.
Just found out Activision doesn’t support linux after playing exclusivity on my steam deck
Probably because of a kernel level anti-cheat
nah Advanced Warfare was fucking GAS.
Tbf... they just brute forced 5v5 with no real reason.
Those questions really kinda sucked. The only question with some bite had a really simple useless one off answer. Some of the questions were good in a different way but not in the way that I feel demanded the identity be hidden or the overall vibe of the title or intro. Really strange.
bro why ask an obvious question as the first one
TDT been clickbaiting since the stone age
The guy was giving out too much info. Every body busted
15:35 AW is one of the best cods, Jetpack movement was way more fun then the boring stuff now
Subjective subject but If you ran a poll with almost everycod player AW will be near the bottom
@ we only got the future games because people complained about boots on the ground, AW, BO3 and IW were more innovative and tried to do something different and listen to the community. Even when they initially switched back to boots on the ground with WW2 and BO4 the creativity and uniqueness they had between them made them standout. I can understand you or someone else not liking it, I don’t like BO3 but I believe that period of time (2014-2018) AW-BO4 were the best 5 games they did imo
@@volktol4432 No, it was to stomp on Titanfall.
@@llewliet4021 maybe, maybe not. Regardless, players were bored of the regular movement we had since the first cod through to cod ghost. They innovated with AW-IW and even WW2 and BO4 with headquarters, division, manual healing. IW introduced unlocking dlc weapons through challenges without being “forced” to buy it. IW and WW2 also had great zombies. Also Titanfall stomps
14:21 Hmm, it seems like a dev problem and not a gamers' one. Like he said, we don't know how games are made, just how they are played, and if they play the same and there's nothing new, then it's the same game. He probably should have phrased that better.
nah i think he's talking about people unconsciously assume that just bc its the "same game", a new cod game doesn't require massive amounts of work, ingenuity, and time
@ ok but when people PLAY the game it’s still exactly the same to them. It feels like nothing changed. It doesn’t matter that the code of the game changed because that part isn’t a concern of the player.
@@pandoraarts7748 what... what are you talking about... improving performance is directly relevant to the player
@@pandoraarts7748 I think saying he could have phrased it better is true since there are clearly different interpretations. But I took this to mean that if they make a performance improvement and then use that improvement to make the AI better, or add a unit where otherwise you couldn't have because it would have dropped frames too much, players don't notice it as much. The better AI or extra units on the field likely DO make a MASSIVE impact on the enjoyment of the game but to the player they seem so gradual as to not be a major impact.
An example of how gradual change over time is hard to notice is overwatch and the classic arcade mode in the game now. I have played OW since 2015 (in closed beta) and I would say that while I know OW has changed a lot, it has always felt pretty similar to me. But going back to the day 1 patch.... wow... the physics don't even feel the same to me. It is the same engine and I know they fundamentally are, but I was personally shocked at how different it felt, and that is without the old UI changes that would have made it feel extra dated. When you have a game series on a yearly release cycle you aren't going to get the dramatic shifts in design that make it feel "new", but if you go back to a version 6 years old, I bet you will suddenly feel it.
@@luin6788 what are talking about? I’m not talking about the performance of the game. I’m talking about how the guy worded his statement that makes it seem like players should care that they changed few lines of code. If the player feels like they’re playing the exact same game as the previous one then that’s on the game developers to do better then change a few lines of code and call it a new game. Which I know is not all that they do but that’s how a lot of people feel. That’s why I said it could have been phrased better. Him focusing on the coding being different isn’t enough to defend the new game feeling exactly like the last one.
First