"Metal Gear" fan-animations by Mitchell Hammond @BipedalBastard

Personal opinion but, I actually think questions like this are not only ok but actually a good thing. They provide the devs with a clear moment to win back some trust. How you handle these types of questions are important, and there is absolutely a right way to do so that you can come out the other side on top. And from what I've seen in the industry, there seems to be two splits. One is what I'm discussing which is the more open communication, and the other is to close it off and reduce risk. Being open is "High risk high reward".

Trailer for 'VAMPIRE HUNTER D: BLOODLUST' (Remastered)! Coming to North American theaters in 2027

What is the first video game that comes to mind?

HALF-LIFE 2 Windows Media Player skin Made in 3D

The new development cycle in one image.

the footage for DIGGER (shot on Vista Vision) does a great job illustrating a lot of the traits people fetishize as “filmic” on here, like richly saturated color and contrast, are not inherent to celluloid at all and movies have always been able to look like just about anything

When I say a AAA trailer can cost "about four months of development iteration time", I don't mean it LITERALLY takes four months to edit a video. I mean that's roughly how much disruption gets spread across the team. The first month is goddamn death by a thousand cuts. Producers and Directors need to figure out what the trailer is trying to say. Teams are pulled into meetings. Features get reprioritized. Artists, designers, engineers and QA all have to estimate what they can realistically contribute. Nobody stops working entirely, but everybody for sure loses some momentum. Then you can have a period of intense focus where parts of the team temporarily pivot away from buildin the core game. Artists gotta create bespoke assets. Engineers are hacking together functionality that only needs to work in a controlled environment. Designers have script moments that sell the fantasy that takes so much iteration to get right. QA has to maybe validate a slice of the game that may not represent the wider experience. Because you can't showcase something that looks well but doesn't play well, (and then you're stuck with bullshit that looked good in a trailer). For a month or two, a significant amount of creative energy gets redirected toward the trailer. BUT GUYS IT GETS EVEN MORE ANNOYING WHEN THE TRAILER SHIPS. The month after is often spent stitching all that shit back together again. Teams gotta resync, all the damn plans get rewritten. All those features built for the trailer get integrated, or re-scoped (or ABANDONED???). Feedback from execs, publisher, press, or the public might even create new priorities. Not ot mention people have to remember where they left off before the interruption. A whole bunch of people gotta take a couple days vacation after the trailer if they had to crunch for it. The trailer migtt only be three mintes long, but every AAA game development i worked on ran on momentum. It's not that everyone suddenly stops working for four months. It's that hundreds of people each lose little chunks of time, and eventually those chunks add up to months of development momentum disappearing into the fucking void. I'm trying to teach everyone how Game Dev works but it's too many words sometimes.

Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken, Chateau Marmont.

HighGuard honest review after ~12h of play ⬇️ 🟢 After understanding the game flow, maps, and buildings, the game is… incredibly fun. 🟢 Gunplay was meh at the start, but becomes excellent once mastered. Not Apex, but same feeling. 🟢 If matched against a team that knows how to play, it’s almost constant action. 🟢 Innovative, super fresh, and super competitive. 🟢 3v3 felt like a mistake at first, but once real matches start, it’s the right number. 🟡 Not a fan of bases taking damage when you fail an attack, but I get why: avoiding 1h+ games (balanced match ~45 min atm). 🟡 Some guns are meh and not enjoyable, others are super cool. 🟡 Shotguns are overpowered (one-shot in elite quality). 🔴 Performance is meh, with some questionable technical choices (Nanite tessellation?). 🔴 DLSS without DLAA is a mistake. DLSS is good tech, but without DLAA-quality it hurts sharpness. 🔴 Gun crosshairs are blurry (DLSS/TSR) 🔴 Mining mini-game isn’t very enjoyable, would be better without the QTE imo. 🟢 The comeback potential of the game mode is excellent. 🔴 Visibility is bad with heavy VFX, sometimes it’s hard to understand what’s going on. 🟡 Sound is weird: you hear far away very well (cool), but your own character making almost no sound in FPP makes it hard to judge your footprint. 🟡 More guns, loot variety, and tools would be awesome. 🟡 Character abilities can be cool but lack depth imo. 🔴 Character design is atrocious. 🟢 Level art is excellent. 🟢 Each map having a unique fortress design is a huge win. 🟢 Level design is well handled. 🔴 Massive lack of QoL features and customization options. 🔴 Performance is still meh for a competitive shooter. Note : The game clearly suffers from hate because some people decided *before release* that it would be bad. Without that bias, I’m convinced the Steam score would be much higher. I’m honestly angry at influencers who start the game, play one match, and put zero effort into giving it a fair chance. Your job is not to surf trends, but to actually test the game so people can trust your judgment. Objectively, and yes I’m targeting content creators: you’ve done an insanely bad job reviewing this game. Yes, it’s not perfect (like most releases). But it’s VERY far from the disaster some reviews describe. You have the right to not like a game. You do NOT have the right to publish a “full review” without actually reviewing it. That’s unfair. That’s sad. And that’s concerning for the future of gaming. Shame.

This is one of the biggest lies in gamedev. You need almost all the components of the game to properly understand how entertaining a game is. It’s extremely hard to evaluate a game just based on greyboxing

Is AI needed in gaming? Bruce Straley (Co-Director of TLOU) gives his thoughts.

There are too many studios making too many games for too few consumers that have too little time. It's 'survival of the fittest' at its very essence. N64 had fewer than 400 games. PS2 got into the several thousand. 18,000 games have been published on Steam in 2025. It's math.