The premise of the article’s headline is immediately contradicted by one of its first quotes:

I’m not sure I follow what the contradiction is?

“Comma-la” unfortunately doesn’t help much for people without US accents lol (though of course people in the US are who the question and answer are most relevant to). On first reading – without the accent or something close to it – it implies “kom-uh-luh”, whereas with the accent it implies something more like “kah-muh-luh”, just based on how people pronounce “comma” differently.

Cool idea, though I was surprised by the level of fidelity loss in the fountain example. I would’ve expected that to be a good case scenario for noise cancellation so maybe it just needs some more time to iterate and improve on its level of “false positive” removal.

It’s normally negative, yeah, hence the “reverse review bombing” implying that they’re positive reviews.

I’m not sure it qualifies as “reverse review bombing” if the recent review +/- percentage matches the all-time percentage. There’s just more reviews because of the shutdown, the ratio of positive vs negative hasn’t meaningfully changed (97% positive overall, 97% positive recently).

My quote is not the only content of the video; I’ve just included most of the introduction. The 13:23 long video has the following chapter markers:

00:00 Introduction 00:50 How was DOOM originally described? 02:20 DOOM clones 04:33 Quake Killers 6:06 A hypothetical question 12:05 Conclusion

Only the first half of the video is accurately described by your suggested title. The video as a whole is described by the existing title with reasonable accuracy. It’s not a bait-and-switch: the video also discusses what genre DOOM is, not only what genre DOOM was.

It seems that you (and many others) have used a heuristic of “clickbait-y sounding titles don’t accurately describe the contents of videos” and left corresponding comments. Although often accurate, that heuristic has failed in this instance.

Then let’s transcribe part of the opening:

I know what you’re thinking – it’s a stupid question, it’s an FPS. It’s the definitive FPS. And it’s a fair point. DOOM ticks all the boxes required for a reasonable definition of a first person shooter. It’s presented from a first-person perspective, and shooting the bad guys is a key part of it. But the FPS genre didn’t exist when DOOM was released. The term “first person shooter” wasn’t common until a few years later.

So what genre was DOOM? How was it originally described?

Edit I’ve now understood that quoting most of the video’s opening salvo has unfortunately misrepresented the video’s contents to the people who are still trying to leave comments without actually watching it. It’s a video about what DOOM’s genre is and what DOOM’s genre was, not only the latter. The title looks clickbait-y but is honestly pretty accurate regarding the subject of the video.

Maybe the title was changed post-publication?

That is indeed the very first criteria listed in the sidebar, despite you being showered in downvotes for saying it.

It does absolutely flood the feeds of some subscribed users when you post 40 (!!) things in one go to a single place. Would you be willing to consider either submitting in batches or spreading some submissions into more targeted communities? While I admire your dedication (and of course don’t speak for everyone about preferences), I find this amount of stuff from a single sub/comm/mag at once really undesirable because in the aftermath it temporarily turns most of my subscription feed into just that and not much else.

Well I think you meant to reply to the other commenter, but in any case what you said included:

instead fix the rest of the shit weapons?! Making everything equally garbage does not solve the problem.

And it sounds like they’re already trying to do this with the buffs (though again: I don’t own the game). It’s the first balance patch - I assume (and hope) that the situation will continue to improve with further updates similar to Helldivers 1 and its many patches.

Patch notes have 3 weapons/stratagems getting nerfed vs 5 weapons/stratagems getting buffed. I don’t own the game but it sounds like they’re already hitting it from both sides? If they do nothing but buffs there’s a huge risk of just powercreeping everything.

Excluding Piledriver (?) to Zen, wouldn’t 30% be the highest inter-generational IPC increase in Intel/AMD CPUs in at least 15 years? The article’s original title also included quotes around “ABSURD”, as the term is being re-used from the source’s clickbait YouTube title lol.

Archive Options Failing

This one worked for me, useful if wanting to share the story elsewhere:

https://archive.is/20231224184755/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/sam-altman-openai-protected-by-silicon-valley-friends-f3efcf68

Partially a downside of traditional title-casing.

Goose Goose Duck released in 2021 and nonetheless didn’t blow up until 2022. Among Us’ explosion also happened only in the second half of the year, when most games experienced “lockdown growth” earlier during March-ish (see TF2, CS:GO, Rocket League).

I’m sure circumstances helped, but imo it seems difficult to attribute the delayed growth of those two titles solely to that. There are surely also other multiplayer-only titles that similarly weren’t runaway hits on release that later became more played – these are just the first two that I could confirm information for quickly.

There is no long tail for multiplayer-only games. You succeed wildly, right off the bat, or you die.

Now and then a game seems to buck this trend (Among us blew up after 2 years, Goose Goose Duck after 1 year). So there are exceptions to this rule, but I imagine it’s increasingly hard to pull off the larger the studio’s costs are.