Im curious to see how a discussion around the choices made when making a game are thought about by the player base. This is the 2nd time Arc Raiders, or more accurately, the talk about how that game was made and the decisions that made it successful have got me thinking about why I think CIG are making a lot of poor decisions while developing SC. This is about the development process and the decisions made that took a game that does nothing particularly special, but absolutely nailed the process of development so that what was delivered resulted in an experience that is by all measures a resounding success. I don't want to lead the discussion too much, the video is below if people want to watch it, but the key points for me are where this game does things in ways I've hoped SC will do them for a long time with a goal of making a more immersive and ultimately fun experience. Things like healing taking time so you can't spam it, not being completely immobile and out of the game when downed, not relying on hit markers to inform you that you scored a hit, and damage being a visual feedback mechanic rather than a guessing game of HP pools and invisible number counters. Also how the game respects your time by ensuring that no matter how hard you lose, you always get something. When a player dies the distress flare tells you this in a way that feels organic and in game, not a magic red cross and cash register sound. What makes the design of that game a success is how the mechanics are done, and this to me is arguably more important than just the content, which for AR is conceptually very very simple. It's a bit sad that for all it's complexity, SC has in many ways become a good example of how not to do things IMO, and AR has shown why exactly that is. I'm curious if I'm on my own with this or not. As with my last thread on this, I'd like the developers to watch the video, and do so not through the lens of it being a video about the game, but a video about the development process.