I’ve always hated it and thought it was a stupid untuitive mechanic that didn’t map to anything in real life. It also looks equally stupid in multiplayer when you see player character models spasm their way up a ledge during a crouch jump. It’s an old school mechanic that I am glad is going out of fashion due to better vault controls.

like a simulation of pulling your legs up in real life.

You don’t pull your legs up in real life though, you use your hands to vault onto something. You can’t just swap stances in mid air without holding onto anything. Even if you were talking about box jumps, like the kinds you normally do at a gym, it still isn’t anything remotely like a crouch jump. Also anyone doing a box jump in an actual combat situation just looks goofy.

Any time a game explicitly has a tutorial for crouch jump, my immersion is completely broken. I am instantly reminded that it is a game.

Yeah it’s literally free marketing for them and they’re crushing the community.

Exactly. If companies didn’t want their workers and their customers to say stuff and make conjectures on their behalf, then they should communicate about it.

Never played the original, but she is so annoying in the remake and her motivation to gather materia is razer thin.

The stupid talking book in It Takes Two. Practically destroyed any plot momentum the game had and that’s if it wasn’t beating you over the head with painfully obvious relationship advice.

Man, it’s insane how Larian has set up their business model to be so pro-consumer. Everyone needs to be looking at how they’re doing things as a case study.

That’s my reasoning as well. Jif is for peanut butter, why make things extra confusing?

A casino is pure gambling, there’s no parallel game attached to it

What are you talking about? Blackjack, poker, literally any card game…these are all parallel games that accompany the gambling. You can play these games independently of spending money. Casinos just make it pay-to-win by offering bets and larger payout tables for high-rollers, etc.

It might surprise you, but people understand what CS is.

Except you because you can’t make the distinction between CS and a casino. That’s why I am explaining it to you. CS is a competitive shooter first where none of the loot box mechanics affect actual gameplay, which is more than you can say for a majority of F2P games. A casino REQUIRES you to pay money to even engage in it. I don’t get what’s so hard to understand about this.

I’m talking about addictive gambling, I’m not talking about selling pay to win advantages.

Stop moving the goal posts. Your whole point was calling CS a casino, but there’s massive differences between the two that you seem to gloss over. Now, if CS offered higher damage weapons, more health, etc. and the only way to get them was via loot boxes, then sure, I’d agree with you, but that’s not what CS does. Calling it simply a casino is just being reductive.

But because they have no impact on the gameplay, the onus is entirely on the player whether they want it or not. At this point you’re basically saying that they made the battlepasses and lootboxes interesting and therefore they’re bad

That’s how I think of cosmetics in most MP games as well haha. They’re immersion breaking.

But I never argued it was

You’re the one who brought up the idea that the game is a casino. A casino is pay-to-win, because you literally have to pay money to participate and having more money gives you advantages.

This is not what CS is. You don’t have to pay money to participate and there are no upgrades weapons or characters as a result of paying more money.

Yeah, they keep trying to bring their walled-garden approach to gaming and it just won’t work. It’s like trying to build another console in the current gaming market and unrealistically expecting it to take off.

It’s also why I think the Vision Pro, despite how cool and innovative the tech might be, is also DOA.

assess whether CS is designed that way

It isn’t. There’s no grind to get better weapons so that you can remain competitive with other players and no paid lootboxes that give you an early advantage. You start out with the standard set of weapons just like any other player and that never changes. The only addicting thing about the boxes in CS2 is that they look cool but I’d say that that’s more on the player to decide whether they want it or not.

It’s like saying providing the ability to paint your car is an addicting business practice, which I don’t really buy. This is not the same as pay-to-win and the distinction should be made here.

That’s how it works on most games

Not really. A bunch of F2P games have lootboxes that give you a chance at better weapons / characters early on instead of going through a long grind. The set of CS weapons is the same and does not change.

The community gets upset when it becomes pay-to-win. I wouldn’t consider CS to be pay-to-win though so I find the casino comparison a bit inaccurate.

…so is gaming in general. What’s your point?

My point is that they’re just cosmetic, unlike gacha games or other free to play games where you’re FORCED to buy loot boxes to unlock good weapons and items.

A casino REQUIRES you to spend money in order to participate. CS2 does not. Big difference.

It’s meant more to help developers with their porting efforts though, not really meant for normal users like Valve’s doing with Proton.

So…how long before Apple realizes that game devs are notoriously time-crunched and forcing them to target yet another proprietary graphics API is a stupid move for their gaming ambitions?

I get the feeling it was pushed out before everything was ready. I am willing to bet that all these missing features are coming later. Not sure why they didn’t just wait before pushing out the game. The smokes are just different, players just need to adapt to new mechanics instead of using the same grenade tactics that they’ve memorized for years.

Let’s be real. You don’t HAVE to buy the loot boxes lmao. It’s not like they make you any better as a player.

That’s fair, if CRPG isn’t your thing, it isn’t your thing.