Kunakai

@voiceinject: According to a quick google compelled by your question: Dogs only possess two types of photoreceptor while humans possess three. (To be taken with a grain of salt given how common misconceptions are regarding popular science)

I don't get why so many are offended on behalf of others over Dan's messing around in an unranked match.

Me and friends used to spend entire games in Battlefield blowing each others vehicles into the sky. If you want a serious game play with serious people, not a PUG.

All of the attempts to pit the audience against Dan/Austin are a buzzkill in my opinion.

Dan and Austin are both great entertainers in their own ways. Your approval of one or the other is entirely subjective. Writing an essay on which does the job better seems bitter at best.

@sergio: Surely any persistent feature in the frame would be cause for such concern? (I.E. walls/lights in the background)

I could go on about how most websites/applications/whatever have persistent elements and how screens susceptible to burn in probably shouldn't be used as a PC monitor but I get the impression you're making a fuss for the sake of making a fuss.

Surely games like KSP/Battlefield Bad Company 2 contradict such a point?

There's more than enough processing power in these boxes to make games that facilitate interesting interactions should they opt to lower the excessive levels of detail. The problem resides in the fact that pretty is generally more marketable.

@humanity: I'm not so sure their spending more time preparing would have given a better impression of the game though? It's not as though they're missing mechanics or anything. The game is literally broken in places. Conditions could have been better but if we were to imagine a scenario wherein everyone had played through the campaign would it have changed the outcome (difficulty aside)?

I kind of suspect there would be more disappointment and criticisms, personally.

I don't understand how so many comments misinterpret the criticism in the video?

From one stating the crew aren't aware they're going into a higher level mission (when Jan literally mentions it before accepting) to others stating that they've misrepresented the game by not showing the singleplayer (which was commented on many times). Should the games devs/marketing not share blame for their presentations of a multiplayer experience?

Sure, the game looks fine, most of the crew (Jeff aside) reacted as though they thought it were fine (for how broken it was).

I get that there's always going to be a group who find the mundane to be exceptional and that there are others who'll shit on something the first chance they get but let's not lose sight. Ben was thrown out of the game without explination in every mission. Enemies warped due to bugs. Framerate got so low at some point it looked like single digits. Inventory space isn't sufficient to carry what you obtain in a single mission. Environments were literally duplicated (they played 3-4 levels and came across duplicated levels).

While the campaign might be decent, the muliplayer certainly seems like it could do with a lot of work. (That area where the framerate died a thousand deaths especially).

Everyone is welcome to their opinion but I'm not so sure many would have such an unnecessarily high opinion of this if it weren't for its branding.

This wasn't a review of the game. It was people playing it and giving their opinions. Meanwhile those criticising the criticism seem little more thand defensive.

@topcyclist said:

This is that but with a linear path though?