Again: you are replying to the wrong person.

I am not the one who said the things you’re ranting about.

Check usernames, dingus.

Guy named Bird, guy names Jones.

Hold a brick above your foot and let go.

You have no idea what will happen! It could be anything! It could even be a boat!

Wrong person. Scroll up.

I ask you again: does this rationale apply to other physical traits? No more “mute button,” no more “window blinds?” You could argue those are the accepted terms for certain handicaps, but said it doesn’t matter what term we consider acceptable.

… yes. Especially if it’s some cutesy diminutive in a romance language.

Would you have us remove all commercial uses of the word “giant?”

The IPA market is dumb enough that I could not rule out being literal.

This has been a weird case for the euphemism treadmill. The word is not meaningfully distinct from “dwarf” in tone, context, or common use. This push might be even sillier than people trying to taboo the word “crazy,” as if the suggested alternatives won’t go the exact same way, for the exact same reasons.

… is there a right amount, besides none?

“You got a license for that uncle?”

The industry was so different back then, Unreal Tournament 2004 still shipped with a software renderer.

The industry was so different back then, Michael Abrash documented that renderer’s development in Dr. Dobbs, an actual ink-on-paper journal.

Here’s one thing that hasn’t changed: Intel. This renderer, Pixomatic, was all hand-optimized assembly, from the guy John Carmack hired to outclass him. At one point he realized one instruction in a very tight loop was redundant. Removing it made the loop slower. Which is, in technical terms, some bullshit. Doing less should not take more time. It wasn’t from alignment or cache or pipelines or any sensible cause. Abrash called in favors so he could study the actual traces of the Pentium 4, because he just had to know what the fuck was happening under the hood - and Intel made him sign a stack of NDAs, so we the public will never find out.

That’s not disproof they did things differently - or well. Any multiplayer-only game without players is a dead game, even if the gameplay it would have is mindblowing.

Why would it matter who made it? It was a corporate trend-chasing exercise, for an abusive business model, arriving years late and costing the wealth of Croesus.

Multiplayer-only shooters are a death wish. Either you succeed instantly and massively, or your game is nonfunctional. With digital distribution it’s not even a coaster. If all these nice people were allowed to be smart people they’d deliver the PvE that Overwatch lied about.

I’m told the pace was a lot slower. Less twitchy, more tactical. Higher time-to-kill.

I’m also told it was ugly as sin. That’s one way to stand out from Overwatch’s waifu parade.

This video and the Portal trailer blew people’s dicks off when they came out, but at least the Portal trailer, younger audiences can see why. So much of HL2’s tech is now ‘Yep, that’s a thing. Was it new?’

If you want the proper contemporary experience, here it is in potato quality, with live commentary.

The crinkles leave me both unnerved and salivating.

Sidelong glance at the furries.

Seek the old blood.

Are you also frightened?

Ahhh, it’s an Animal Crossing situation.