Discussing my philosophy of peripherals (more steam controller commentary)

 So...I watched more stuff on the steam controller, and I see a lot of influencers acting like the price is reasonable. I understand that I've been out of the console market for a good 15 years now, and over in PC land, it's a lot harder to pull one over on us due to our market behaving more like an actual market, but I also acknowledge console rot has been ruining things as well.

Consoles....are walled gardens. As I discussed not long ago, consoles are just glorified PCs with closed operating systems and proprietary peripherals. They're cheap up front, and appeal to people with little technical know how or patience to trouble shoot their own problems, so they "just work." However, in exchange, you kinda get screwed in other ways. I got out of that market because of micro$oft charging for Xbox Live. Nowadays, all 3 big companies charge for online, and everyone sees it as normal...except PC gamers. But that's the point. When you're in a closed ecosystem with limited competition, these companies can do whatever they want to you, and what are you gonna do, leave? Fat chance. Except on PC....well....yeah....we will. Steam got popular not because it was forced on us, but because it offered a better service than anyone else. it's a de facto benevolent monopoly that people LOVE. like when epic games tried to break it, most gamers hated it because it was like "screw off EGS, we just wanna buy games on steam, we dont care what you have to offer." And when they relied on forced exclusivity to force us to use them, those games sold rather poorly, and most of us resented using the store. Even now, I literally only use epic to collect free games. And that's how it is for most of us. 

But yeah. Push comes to shove, alienate us, and we're gonna be more resistant to push back against stuff. Charge more for a controller, and while some might buy, most are still gonna buy the cheaper ones. I mean if you look on amazon right now, while the xbox elite controller is on their top list for $150, most of it is dominated by $20-70 offerings, with $50 being about the average I'd say. And to me, that's the range I'd say is reasonable. Below $20, you get into the boots theory of economics zone. Above $70, it's like....yeah, while there's like ONE premium controller people will flock to for people into that sorta thing, most of us will top out around $60-70. As I said, if you take a $35 dual shock from the PS2 era and adjust for inflation, you get around $65. You take a $40 wired Xbox 360 controller, about the same thing. And even then, there's clearly a market for less.

Me? I dont think much about PC peripherals. I try to spend the last amount of money possible. Keyboards, any keyboard will do. Buttons are buttons, they often take a couple years to get weird enough to replace them. Get a $20-30 keyboard, I'm good for years to come. I could even get by on a $10-15 one although it might lack some features like lighting or more robust build quality, and keep in mind what I say about boots theory (for those who dont know what that is, it's the idea that if you cheap out on boots, you'll pay more long term than if you just bought a decent pair to begin with). 

Mice is where boots theory REALLY comes to life for me. I mean, I've gamed on $5 mice. I'm not kidding. FIVE. DOLLARS. Look up like, the OM3400U or something. Yeah. Total. piece. Of. ####. 400 DPI, bad sensor, broke and had to be replaced literally once every 4 months. Then I went for a slightly more expensive e-blue cobra for...I think...$13. Much better sensor, greatly improved gaming performance, still a POS that broke in 4 months.

So then I started buying logitech mice. G400S, G502, G402, etc. I buy one every few years. They eventually develop the same double click issue that all mice get, and that is fatal to them being usable in games for me, but it takes on average...2-3 years to happen. So I spend around $45ish on average....and I replace my mice 6-9x less often. So instead of going through a bad $5 mouse every 4 months, spending $30-45 in that same time period, I just spend $30-45 on something actually good. And it has super high quality sensors that greatly improve precision. So for that, yeah, that's the one expensive peripheral I'd buy. And again...my logic is rooted primarily in boots theory. Just as you want a good pair of work boots that lasts for years and not some cheap POS you replace every few months, the same can be said with gaming mice.

Which brings me to...controllers. 

Again, last time I was in the market for a controller in a serious way, was the 360 era, where they had $50 wireless and $40 wired. I had wireless that came with the 360, but they were a pain because well....batteries go dead. And honestly, I think one of my controllers corroded the last time I tried to use it from having batteries in there for years, since i play on PC. Not that it matters, since ive since rebought most games cheap on PC. Because a lot of them go on sale for $2.50-5? yeah. Steam rocks. But yeah....I go in the market looking for a cheap controller, and first time, it was like....okay, I can get a cheapo controller for $15 (logitech submarine special), something more midrange for $30, and up to $60 for an actual xbox branded controller. Since I dont use controllers often on PC, I went the super cheap route. But after getting into retro gaming again, Ive come to realize that was, in fact a cheap POS...so I wanted something a bit better. And I found out the 8bitdo wired controller for $20 is far superior. And it is. It's...actually better than the kishi that came with my edge, which was...$80 standalone. I mean, let that go to show paying more doesnt always equal quality. Like, the razer kishi on my edge is kinda finnicky, sometimes buttons dont register properly on the dpad, a few buttons feel a bit weird clicking them. it still works, but yeah, for $80, I'd expect a perfect experience and it's far from perfect. More money isnt always better. 

And that's how I feel here. Like, I just want a good enough experience. Sure, you can market some fancy controller as having gyros i wont use, or bluetooth i despise using (again, i HATE wireless stuff, and peripherals? man with my limited exposure to wireless mice and controllers from the 2000s? never again). But yeah. I want something basic, wired, and functional. I dont need fancy features. I dont need steam's trackpads, since any games I'd use them Id rather just use a mouse with anyway. Idk. It seems like an overly premium product in that forbidden zone of pricing. Again, anything up to $60-70, I can see an argument for. But even that's too much for me. I'd rather keep my own peripherals in the $20-30 range, and only get something expensive if I NEED it like a gaming mouse. 

So yeah. When I say $100 is too much for a controller, that's where I come from. But then I end up dealing with...the console gamers, and most of them are so dumb. Like "what do you mean thats too expensive? We've been paying that much for years on our platforms". Yeah. because you guys get ripped off. And I hate to whip out the whole PCMR mindset here, but a lot of us PC gamers ARE more informed consumers than console gamers. We might pay more for PCs, but we got cheap peripherals, cheap games, and we want things to remain cheap. I look at the predatory crap companies like nintendo, microsoft, and sony and pulling over on their customers and im like "wait, you people buy this stuff? wow, you guys really are being ripped off." 

So...when I deal with people defending a $100 controller, I feel a culture clash coming on. In my corner of the market, we've been insulated from those kinds of price increases for a while, and when we start seeing them here in the PC space, we're like OH HELL NO. Not saying the PC space is perfect. look at GPUs and how nvidia has been conditioning us to pay more for years and how they've cultivated a class of out of touch yuppies willing to spend seemingly unlimited sums on GPUs. But given hallmarks like the 3060 and 4060 are still the go tos for many of us, I feel like more people are like me more than we are willing to admit. We just dont engage on forums as much because the upper class people trying to use their GPUs as a member measuring contest end up dominating those spaces. But yeah, we exist. And there's more of us than the forums realize, we're actually the silent majority. We just end up checking out when stuff gets too expensive and we drop out of the market. And then people are like, "oh, well they chose not to buy, so we dont need to appeal to them, let's appeal to these rich people instead." It's survivorship bias. But yeah. 

Anyway, just wanted to break down my mindset. 

Can the democrats win the senate after all? (Election Update 4/26/26)

 So....take any election update before say, August with a grain of salt. I'd say July, but for some reason some states have their primary schedules going well into August and certain questions will never be settled before then, like who will be the Michigan democratic candidate? Who will be the Texas republican candidate? We don't know, and this makes it hard to predict general elections.

normally, i wouldnt bother this early. I'd just make like one prediction leading up to the final one in November and sit on that. But...that was when each prediction took hours of painstaking work to put together, I've automated said predictions somewhat through the use of spreadsheets, and thus, have an election model I can input data into to get rudimentary results. And this map...well, this is weird. I'll just show it. 

 So yeah. As I said. Weird map. The thing is, I normally use realclearpolitics/realclearpolling for data, but sometimes they just dont cover some data for some reason. And apparently, polls were coming out in places like Iowa and Alaska that were kinda spicy in the sense that democrats were somehow winning. Now, it's possible these pollsters just arent good enough for RCP to cover, or maybe they just arent following states. but given the lack of data on RCP, i decided to add these to the model. And it's leading to a weird tie. 

The democrats have an uphill battle, dont get me wrong. not only do they need to hold every senate seat they currently have (including Michigan, where McMorrow and El Sayed are both tied and both are behind), but they need to flip at least four new ones. North Carolina is looking like a shoe in. Assuming Platner wins the primary in Maine, he's also at a quite comfortable 7+ point lead. Some say Maine's polling is funky and can be off, but I think my own probability calculations would hold here. A 7.6% lead is nothing to sneeze at, and theres only a statistically 3% chance to overturn that result. Not saying it cant happen, but yeah. 8+ is my two tailed 95% confidence interval, and only afford each candidate a 2.3% chance to defy the odds in a one tailed environment. But from there, it gets tricky. Recalculating Texas, given Paxton and Cornyn are equally probable outcomes, we get a 1.5% Republican edge. That's a 65% shot that they win. Michigan is somehow worse. McMorrow and El Sayed are tied in the primary. McMorrow is down 1.5%, El Sayed 3%. The average being 2.3%. So thats around a 72% chance the republicans flip that one. That means we'd need THREE seats to effectively flip the senate. And Ohio, another one I've pointed out, is in the direction of 2.6% lead for the republicans, leading to a 74% chance they retain the seat. So...not good odds for democrats.

But then...but then...we got 270 to win with these weird polls coming out of Alaska and Iowa. So let's discuss these. Both states are states I previously had ZERO data on, and I assumed would be heavily republican. Iowa is in the same category as Texas, Ohio, and Florida by this point. And I estimated a R+6 or so lead. But, the polls have them ahead by 2%? What gives? Did Ann Selzer try their luck at polling again? This polls looks as off as THAT was. And for all we know this one is. Well, this one comes from Echelon Insights, which is a republican pollster, but has a history of being relatively credible. Anyway, they released a poll showing the dems ahead. It is what it is I guess. Throw it on the pile, and given I have no other data, well....I'll settle for it. It would be crazy if this flipped out of nowhere.

What's worth talking about especially here is Alaska. Mary Peltola is the presumed democratic candidate there. She's quite popular there despite being a democrat. She actually did win a few house races up there, despite it being a republican state. She lost in 2024, but is now running for the senate. And...let's be honest. Alaska is a one house district state so if you can win the house, you can definitely win the senate. it's the same constituency. So...is this in error? Does she have a chance? Again, if she could win house races there, she can win a senate race. The whole state is a single house district, so running for the senate, you get the same exact voters. And given she was winning prior to 2024, the republican high water mark, I honestly think she CAN pull it off. 

It's weird, normally, I'd consider alaska a R+10-12 state and not even consider it in play BUT....it's looking quite "in play" right now. Some individuals are charismatic and can defy how their state normally votes. Maine is very democratic but susan collins is still a senator there (although I expect her to lose to platner this year). Ohio has candidates like Sherrod Brown where despite it being all but lost for the presidential elections, Brown still holds a special place for that state's constituency, and tends to overperform there. He just got screwed by 2024 as well. And of course, north carolina shouldnt be as locked up for dems as it is, but Roy Cooper seems popular there. So individual candidates can overcome the odds of their states normal predispositions.

So...yeah. At this point, we take North Carolina, Maine, and Alaska, we're up to 49. We keep Michigan, we're up to 50. We get Iowa, we get 51. We get Texas and Ohio, we could see 52-53. So the senate is looking increasingly winnable for democrats. Even though the odds are against them, there's just so many possible paths opening up for them and a system wide overperformance could cause those republican advantages to disappear.

Still, probabilistically, as my prediction points out, the dems have a 35% chance, the republicans a 31% chance, and there's a 34% chance of a tie. That's near 50-50 on paper, although in the event of a tie it depends who the vice president is, and that's JD Vance, so a tie is still functional republican control. So 35% chance for democrats, 65% for republicans in practice. yeah....

Still, a lot better than i thought. And given the "multiple paths" thing, I would like to run 100 simulations right now and report the results.

So, out of 100 simulations, we got:

Dems: 29

Reps: 38

Ties: 33

Pretty even, but slightly favoring republicans. Considering ties, the republicans have a net 71-29 advantage, but yeah, this is getting interesting. Keep in mind, my simulation is rudimentary and doesnt really track red/blue waves well. Each state is simulated separately, with no relation to the others. In reality, we have wave elections where overperformance is one state means overperformance in most. Either way, when the map gets THIS competitive, even the simulator has problems picking a solid winner. I mean, we can see it's slightly GOP favored ignoring the ties, but yeah. That COULD just be random statistical noise for all I know. I'd need to run a second hundred to see, but I won't bother. Point is, senate map is increasingly competitive, and there are increasing opportunities for surprise upsets to happen. Now, do I trust this new data coming out of Alaska and Iowa? Eh....I'd like to see MORE before coming to a conclusion. Alaska I can believe, Iowa, I'm skeptical of.

I mean think of it this way. Some of these states are states that in 2024 went around R+13 or so. Now they're at risk of flipping democrat?! Even in a D+7 environment relative to 2024, we're still talking R+6 here. And if I had to guess, my brain wants to say, yeah, these polls are wrong, these are R+6 states. 

However, remember what happened in Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. None of those had any business being so close in 2024. And I discounted a lot of that data too as polling artifacts from not having enough of it. But...those polls Biden had that showed dems underperforming there were dead on. So many these states ARE in play. Only time will tell.

Anyway, I aint gonna be posting these super often until like...August or so. Mainly because some of these states literally dont have their primary cycles until then. So, yeah. Anything I post now should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, this is shaping up to be interesting. By all accounts, this should be a map democrats have virtually no shot at flipping. But it's actually opening up for them. Really crazy crap. Anyway, we'll see what happens I guess.  

Telling other people what to do with their money apparently... (Steam controller criticism)

 So...a review for the steam controller leaked, and it was apparently $100. Which...I think is insane. I mean, here's my logic. As a PC gamer, I dont even use controllers often. For years, i used the infamous logitech submarine special, which I got for $13. As discussed in the linked article, it was mid. And this past Christmas, after seeing how even among cheapo controllers it's kinda lacking, I upgraded to an 8bitdo wired ultimately 2C controller for around $23. I could've gotten an uglier color for $18, but I wanted something that looked cool so I went for the more expensive wukong version. And while I havent played with it extensively, I thought it was a pretty good deal. it's a marked upgrade from the Logitech F310 and it's something finally worthy of using. 

And...don't get me wrong, I can see people pushing for a more expensive controller. As I said, xbox branded ones, which presumably have better build quality are like $50-60. But I also know controllers get pricey these days. The switch was pushing like an eye watering $90 controller, Xbox and Playstation have elite controllers like $200. And yeah, a $100 controller? That's A LOT of money for a controller. I'm sorry, it is. I grew up in the PS2 era where those controllers broke and name brand ones cost like $35, or $30 on sale, and you could get some rip off mad katz one for like $15. Not that I'd recommend buying the mad katz one. Those things were boots theory in action. but yeah, $35 for a controller was pretty reasonable. These days, that's more like $65. And that's kind of fair. As I said, i can see a good quality controller being around $60. I wouldnt spend much more than that. Hell, i wont even spend that. I dont have tons of money to buy gaming stuff with, and quite frankly, I wanna allocate what I have efficiently. less money on controllers means more money for games. So for me....cheapo $20 controller, it does the job. And it kind of makes me wonder...what's even the point in paying so much for these things? I mean, again, I admit I'm going for something a bit above the mad katz boots theory special here, but given how we advanced from the logitech submarine special to something that feels a lot more premium for the price, why bother spending more? Idk, i think beyond a certain point, you're wasting your money. Ya know, in PC gaming, there's price/performance. You wanna get the best value for the money. That's what you do when you're money oriented. 

But....other people on the internet dont like my opinion. And I've gotten a lot of really butthurt comments like HOW DARE I TELL PEOPLE HOW TO SPEND THEIR MONEY! And THE FEATURES ARE WORTH IT TO ME, BLAH BLAH BLAH, PREMIUM, BLAH BLAH BLAH, EXTRA FEATURES! And BLAH BLAH BLAH SO YOU DON'T WANNA BUY IT, THEN SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

No, you shut up. I'm sorry, but if you're making me double down, I'll double down. Buying a $100 controller is an irrational and stupid buying decision that plays into the hands of the same corporations jacking up the price of everything. Like, seriously. We have a cost of living crisis, and everything feels inflationary. And it's not just a little inflationary like 3-5% a year, some stuff seems to be going up WAY more than that. Like, as I said, a $35 controller in like 2002 is worth around $65 now. okay, but that doesn't justify a $100 controller, let alone a $200 controller like the really "elite" controllers out there cost. That's 50% above even the going rate of inflation. If we even wanna make that argument. I hate making that argument with tech because I think tech should be at least SOMEWHAT inflation proof given the whole point is stuff that used to be expensive is now cheap. Like flat screen TVs used to cost like a hundred bajillion dollars back in the day, now you can buy one for $100. Stuff like that. Of course, raw materials and stupid crap like tariffs can influence that. And I guess we do see that happen with the $20 controller I bought. But that's the thing. if something like that can be made for $20, why are such expensive controllers justified? It's like buying a 5090 for $3250 or whatever they cost now when you can buy a 5060 Ti 16 GB for $500 (and even that's too high, let's be frank, I've complained about GPUs in the past though). 

Like that's the thing. i feel like there are two kinds of consumers out there. There's middle class, budget oriented people like me, who like normal americans are complaining about EVERYTHING getting too expensive these days. And then you have...the top 20% of the income earners. Those guys have gotten virtually all of the economic gains since the 1980s. They make up the majority of purchasing behavior, and while most people like me are spending less and less as gaming gets more expensive, these guys are gung ho into throwing their massive disposable income at the problem and arent very price sensitive. So $100 for a controller is nothing for them. It's like 1-2 hours of work. So what? And they're the ones driving the price of stuff up. one commenter made a point that $100 controllers didnt exist in the 2000s because there was no market for it and because consumers would've given them the side eye. Ya know...like I'm doing, since I still think like someone like that. but in the 2020s, the market is different. The middle class is dead, the market is adjusting to a more premium audience willing to throw higher and higher sums of money at stuff, and the rest of us are getting squeezed out. 

And then when you tell them their purchasing behavior is stupid and irrational, and quite frankly, ruining it for the rest of us, they get all high and mighty. Hell, even toning that down, and on forums these days, i HAVE to tone it down because we all know how snowflakey people are when you call them an idiot or something (they're idiots), I still get huffy people who feel like merely pointing out that MUCH cheaper options exist make the value proposition of more premium products questionable, I get a whole bunch of HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT, I SPEND MY MONEY AS I WANT BLAH BLAH BLAH. Fine, spend it as you want I'm not saying you CAN'T (although i think people with that much disposable income should be taxed more heavily), I'm saying you SHOULDN'T because the value isn't there. But then i get people who are like "im a butcher and im at risk of carpal tunnel syndrome so i need a super comfy controller and I'm willing to pay a lot of money for it", okay, but is this controller really that specialized? it's not.

But then I get, BUT BUT, THE FEATURES! Okay, so...others brought this up too. But....remember my discussion of how yeah, you can get better value than a $20 controller with more features if you spend like...idk...$50-60? The same company that made my controller (8bitdo) has a controller with the fancy pants features like bluetooth (which i think is a waste, I hate bluetooth), gyroscopes in the controller (which I can use on my edge, but never do, because motion controls are stupid to me), etc, for $60. 

Heck, the only thing that version lacks is...the touchpads. And let's discuss the touchpads. Okay, so you can argue that adding them costs a premium. idk how much. $40 for touch pads? Not sure that's worth it. but let's discuss the touchpads. 

The touch pads were used to great success on the steam deck. Another device I don't care for because it's fundamentally flawed in many ways (man I write a lot of articles about how I hate certain tech), but for that device, you can make an argument for them. here's why the steam deck trackpads exist. Because the steam deck is a handheld gaming PC. Gaming PCs typically use keyboards and mice to control games. So the steam deck offered trackpads to give people an alternative to a mouse, to simulate mouse movement. I assume it works similarly to a laptop trackpad or a touch screen on a mobile device. And having played shooters on android, I would rather use that over joysticks as controlling FPS games with controllers is a miserable experience IMO, the fact is, you want to use a mouse if you play PC games. Kind of like...if you wanna play console games, sometimes using a KBM is a terrible experience. Hence why I needed a cheap controller, for those niche situations where using a KBM kinda sucks. 

But on PC, I'm like 90/10 KBM vs controller. This controller is to be used with the upcoming steam machine, a "cheap" gaming PC made for a living room experience. It ain't cheap, it's looking to cost maybe $800-1000, even though my PC arguably packs equal to better specs. But...again, RAMmageddon, I can give SOME leeway here, but yeah. You're talking a PS5 tier experience for like $1k. Which is...pretty bad given that level of hardware is 6 years old and we've barely made significant progress since then and now we're talking of replacing that with super expensive consoles. Again, price of everything seems insane these days. But yeah, this controller is meant for that. And it's meant to offer a "living room" experience for those who want a console like PC experience....but not really a console like PC experience....like they want the benefits of a controller...while not having the drawbacks...because controllers actually suck for PC games...idk. it doesnt make much sense.

Hell, the idea of a steam machine doesnt make sense to me. Valve tried all this literally a decade ago, including that horrendous controller with the touchpads and it failed. But apparently the market has shifted so...they're trying again? To be fair I think steam OS and the like is a good idea, but pushing these super expensive gaming PCs as....consoles....isn't necessarily a good value proposition. Which is why it failed the first time. 

But apparently in the 2020s it's like, the internet has been lobotomized or taken over by those top 20% yuppie types who come into tech spaces with all their market fundamentalism and are like BUT THE MARKET, THIS IS WHAT THE MARKET WANTS, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE MARKET! Which is hilarious, and brings me back to why im rambling about this. Markets exists for humans, humans dont exist for markets. Well...actually, humans do exist for markets, but that's that really dark theory about how markets were used to enslave us. Either way, markets SHOULD exist to serve us, we SHOULDNT exist to serve markets. And....honestly? i feel like this weird market fundamentalism is just used to astroturf the internet into making us WANT to pay higher prices for stuff and to silence critics like me who actually are pro middle class consumer and wanna keep prices stable. But no, the logic of the 2020s is just, "everything's expensive, that's just how the market is now, if you have a problem with it, the market is right, you're wrong, and you should feel bad, and join the consumption craze, or feel bad for being poor." It just feels like massive gaslighting. And it's not just this. It's the $450 switch, the $70-90 games, the next gen consoles reportedly costing $700-1000, controllers being $100+. We're literally being gaslit into accepting higher prices, which means higher profit margins for these corporations screwing us, and we're not supposed to say anything about it? like, if you dare say "that's too expensive" or "that's not a good value", we're just supposed to stfu while upper class yuppies throw their money away for overly expensive products while telling the rest of us to STFU?

Quite frankly, this is one of the reasons I hate the overmoderation of the internet. Because it allows bad faith trolls to astroturf and encourage these behaviors, while anyone who speaks out gets dogpiled on, or even worse, modded when they dare get a bit too rough with the verbiage to criticize these kinds of spending habits. I HATE it. 

Well..sorry, not sorry, $100 is too expensive for a controller, you're stupid if you think it isn't. Either that or way too rich for society's good. And while I didn't initially make my criticisms against this product about individual consumer habits and spending, if they wanna get butthurt and take it personally, I will double down on that, saying that anyone who throws their money away on this stuff is not just wasting THEIR money, but participating in the same inflationary forces that we've been complaining about since 2021. Seriously, by buying it, you're showing the big corporations that people are willing to pay this kind of money for this stuff, which...just leads to them charging this much or more next time.

For markets to work PROPERLY. You NEED people like me to say no. You NEED people to say, "no, this is a stupid product at a stupid price and i aint buying it." And then it fails, and then the company goes back to the drawing board and makes something more reasonably priced next time. It's kinda like how, we need unions to ensure people get good wages in the work force, while we look down on those scabs who cross the picket lines. Basically, if you spend $100+ on a controller, you're a scab. I'll say it. It's funny these same people will say "well back then, this idea would have failed, but now things are different." Yeah, they wouldve failed because consumers wouldve laughed the idea out of the room and not bought it. But now, in the 2020s, people just buy everything at ridiculous prices, say "this is how things are now" and then complain not at the people charging ridiculous prices but at other consumers pointing out the absurdity of such a price? Like...what's wrong with this picture? Well, from my analytical perspective, everything. Because as I see it, much of these price increases are happening because:

1) Businesses have all the market power

2) Enough consumers refuse to say no

3) This enables the offending behavior

4) Stuff is more expensive for everyone as a result

Back in 2006, horse armor was laughed out of the room. Then we went on a decade long binge of "season passes" and stealth $110 games. And now, while we've axed the season passes, all games are full of microtransactions that make horse armor look relatively tame. 

Back in 2015, these steam machine/controller ideas failed. because they didnt make a lot of sense. Now we're conditioned to just accept $100 controllers and upcoming $1000 consoles. Back then, consumers said NO, and forced businesses to backtrack. Now, we just open our wallets, throw money at the problem, and then the rest of us are increasingly priced out of the market. 

Quite frankly i think the problem IS income inequality. Some people just have TOO MUCH money, and they need to be taxed more so the rest of us can get a UBI. Call it "class envy" or whatever, I dont care. Society doesnt work right when most wealth is held by a handful of people. Just look at how rich people are destroying the entire PC hardware market right now by buying up EVERYTHING for years on end sending prices to the moon. Markets work when you have more equality, because people can spend dollars a bit more democratically, and businesses have to appeal to a broader customer base to get more dollars. but now, we just got a handful of people owning more and more stuff, and the rest of us are just the slaves to make it all, but can't really consume it because we dont get all the money any more. Fordism is what made the american consumerist model possible, but with that being abandoned, so are the bottom 80%. 

And yeah. This isn't just me ranting about tech. It has politics and economics in there too. 

And yeah, that's just my opinion on this. Take it or leave it.  

Discussing the White House Correspondent's dinner incident

 So...for those living under a rock, we had an incident yesterday at the white house correspondent's dinner. Trump normally doesnt do these things because he hates the press (the good old "lugenpresse" if we wanna make a historical comparison) for criticizing him, but he did it this year for some reason.

Anyway, some dude tried to storm the barricades and shoot the place up. Now, the security worked as intended, Trump is fine, they stopped him, and quickly evacuated Trump and his inner circle from the scene. 

Despite this, there's a lot of discussion in the media where they're treating this like a security failure. The argument is that there wasn't ENOUGH security, and OMG, THE SHOOTER WAS 15 SECONDS FROM THE PRESIDENT. As I see it, we can argue couldve, should've, would've, but my honest opinion is if secret service quickly stopped the guy, and no one was really hurt (one secret service agent took a bullet to a bulletproof vest but that's about it), that's a success. The security was successful. It worked as intended. Why is this a debate?

Well, some are saying, well, they didnt do enough. Like, a lot of it had to do with the venue. It was in a hotel. There are multiple ballrooms having multiple events. They couldnt secure the whole building because it was a public place where people were saying. They're not gonna shut down the whole hotel for this event apparently. And that led to the event being less secure. Apparently the suspect stayed on site, and put his weapons in his room. Apparently they also couldnt put multiple perimeters around where Trump was because of the way the hotel was setup. There were multiple ballrooms all having events, so they couldnt thoroughly secure the area to stop this from happening before it got to this point. Hence everyone freaking out.

One could make an argument that they shouldnt have held this at this venue. I'd agree. If this isnt safe enough, then maybe they should have put the president in an area where it was more secure. Trump is using this as an excuse to say "this is why i should have a ballroom." he could have hosted it at the white house. Yes, BUT....

Let's be honest. His ballroom idea is bad because it bypassed historical preservation of the white house. He was supposed to get approval to change it. He just did what he wanted. Because he doesnt care about rules unless they benefit him. He didnt get congressional approval, he didnt get the site looked at by historical preservationists, he just demolished the east wing and is building this monstrosity instead that looks like a massive tumor hanging off of the white house. And yeah, it's ugly too.

I'd say it's a waste of taxpayer money, but apparently it's funded by donations so...yeah. I cant criticize it on those grounds. But yeah. Either way, not a fan of the ballroom.

Some are wondering if this was a false flag to manufacture consent for his ballroom. I dont really think that, I mean playing through the logic above, the logical conclusion is it should have been held elsewhere if securing the area was so difficult. Just having an event with the president in a random hotel ball room with random people there seems....problematic. That doesnt mean this particular project is justified but it does make an argument for it, and I reached that conclusion before Trump even said it. 

Alternatively...how hard is it to find a venue where they could shut down the whole building and area around it? he spoke at how many fricking hundreds of stadiums and arenas for campaign rallies? Just plop a ton of tables down in a place like that and bring in the caterers. Ya know? Or find a different hotel with a different layout with better security. Not like there arent hundreds of swanky places in washington DC. idk. I guess if you want to argue we dont have enough security, just....look for other options. 

I will say this though. Security comes at the expense of other priorities. You have an event in a public space like this, and let's talk about what it would require to make it more secure. If you got a hotel with people staying there, more security means more scrutiny of guests. It means cancelling reservations and the hotel losing money if you wanna be extreme about it. It means more perimeters that cancel other events nearby in the same hotel. Again, means losing money for the hotel. I could see some argument for it, ya know, cordoning off an entire hotel or an entire floor to secure a space for the president, but yeah, you actually could ironically argue for the president having their own venue, or ballroom here. Not saying his current plans are good ones. Quite frankly, I'm fine with just plopping him in some abandoned building somewhere and letting them set up there. But yeah. There's an argument. 

Either way, I think we're getting way too lost in the weeds here. Rather than reflect on what his security detail did wrong, I think we should be focusing on what they did right. HELLO?! THEY STOPPED THE GUY WITH MINIMAL DAMAGE OTHER THAN A RUINED NIGHT. Shouldnt THAT be the story? I know with the Butler thing, we love to talk about what secret service did wrong. And OOOF, they messed up there. Thomas Matthew Crooks never should have been able to do what he did, and that was a glaring security failure. This, however, was a security success. They stopped the guy before he could even get to the president. And despite so many gunshots, the guy was captured alive. Bonus points there. Really professional quite frankly. Secret service deserves credit here. 

Again, rather than frame this as some massive security failure, we should be treating this as a success. The secret service stopped the bad guys with minimal damage. Yay. 

The best RETRO games of all times list

 Okay, so similar story as before, but I wanna limit myself to Gen 6 games and older. These games can either run on a low end PC or a retro handheld these days, and yeah, I'm literally gonna top out at gen 6 with most titles being from before.

Favorite Game- Doom 2

Yeah I moved my favorite retro game to just being my favorite game. Doom 2, and by extension, its mods, wads, and other campaigns have been one of the best retro experiences I've had. Now, again, it's hard to say "this is the best game of all time", and honestly, MANY games could have gone here, from Super Mario 64, to Sonic 3 & Knuckles, to Pokemon Red/Blue, but over the years, I just keep coming back to Doom 2 and its associated campaigns. 

Best Story- Starfox 64

Not gonna lie, given Halo 3 on my OG chart, I could've put Halo 2 here, BUT I kinda feel like the silly dialogue and story in this one deserve a mention somewhere. Like, the dialogue in this game is LEGENDARY and people my age still quote it all the time.

Favorite Art Style- Sonic CD

Halo got promoted to another slot for this one, so gonna go with Sonic CD because it was a runner up and OOOH PRETTY COLORS! Super Mario 64 also deserves a runner up here. Seriously Super Mario 64 deserves something here but it's hard to figure out what.

Biggest Personal Impact- Pokemon Red/Blue

Again, I dont really consider most games as having a personal impact on me. But if I had to put one down, I'd put Pokemon as it led to a lot of friends/bonding experiences in my elementary and middle school years, including lifelong friendships. So yeah. Here's to you, pokemon. 

Best Combat- Halo Combat Evolved

I mean, it's right in the name. And it really did offer...combat evolved. it helped pave the way for the FPS genre to move away from the old boomer shooter formula to something similar to what it is today. And its enemies, its AI, the weapon variety, all gave us a single player experience that feels YEARS ahead of its time. it truly lives up to its name. 

Overhated- Spec Ops II Omega Squad

This was a hard one. I didn't own many crappy games, or at least I dont remember many crappy games. I mostly got good titles, and a few odd balls that others didnt care for but were low key good. But most games I own never made it on the imfamous crap lists of worst games ever. However, this one did. Was it bad? Not really. Was it good? Also not really. It was a rather mid military FPS at the time. I kinda liked it, I had fun with it, but when looking at old games I've owned, this one made it on a bad list, so I put this one. I really just have nothing else to put here for old games. Most "overhated" games seem to be modern internet phenomenons where the internet just craps on a game that didnt live up to the hype despite being pretty decent otherwise. But this one was hated, and it...didn't deserve it. It wasnt terrible. Wasnt good, wasnt great, it was very forgettable, but it was kinda like "2000s B movie tier" video game wise. Like a no name action movie you forget, like "sniper" or something. ya know? Again, not good, not bad, it just exists.

Underrated- Doom 64

I stand by this one. I understand why it didnt stand out given better FPS at the time and console exclusivity, but this one deserved the come back it got recently in the 2020s.  

Overrated- The Legend of Zelda: Ocarana of Time

 OMG DAE ZELDA OCARANA OF TIME IS THE BEST GAME EVER?! I feel like that's the modern internet. Everyone swears it's the best game ever. It's just mid. I dont really like zelda, and this game feels overhyped to hell and back. people act like it's a 10/10 best game ever and I just cant get past the first hour without getting bored. 

Also, let's face it, by RETRO standard, Counter Strike actually was a pretty good game. if we're purely judging like pre 2005 games mostly, CS was actually quite innovative for its time. I just dont think it deserved the continued popularity and cult following into the modern day. So...yeah. I'll remove CS and allow it to stand by its own legacy there while anti hugboxing the legend of zelda crowd.

Needs a remake- Goldeneye 007

 So it got a remake in 2010, and apparently another one was cancelled, but yeah, this is a very dated game that was very good by the standards of its times, but I'd like to see it modernized somewhat. Again, the 2010 remake was nice, but something a bit closer to this OG game might suffice. 

Criminally Overlooked- The World Is Not Enough 007

Let's talk about the OTHER 007 game on N64. This one was also pretty good but its very underrated and kinda went ignored in favor of perfect dark and the like at the time. 

Favorite Protagonist- Doom

Giving it to doom slayer again. Runner ups involve James Bond from Goldeneye and several other 007 games of the 90s and early 2000s. Master chief from Halo is another one that stands out. Yeah, Im a simple man. Give me an FPS bad### and teenage me would define their own personality around them. 

Favorite Antagonist- Command & Conquer Red Alert 2 (specifically Yuri's Revenge)

C&C games always had excellent dialogue and story to them, with solid antagonists like Kane. However, I really liked Yuri back in the day in C&C Red Alert 2. He was some russian psychic dude who tried to take over the world by using psychic dominators to mass brainwash the population. Kinda cheesy now, but I loved it at the time. heck, I liked the US vs Russia thing at the time even though the cold war was over.

Best Sound Track- Advance Wars 2

 Honestly, this and C&C could be reversed. Sturm was also a really solid antagonist of the old Advance Wars games. he was like this weird darth vader type figure who launched meteors at people. But honestly, yuri was cooler. At the same time, Red Alert 2 also had a banging sound track, but not as strong as red alert 3's more orchestral version. Still, this little GBA game had a lot of pretty solid sound tracks for its time as well. 

Best multiplayer- Quake III Arena

This is one of the only games I COULD play multiplayer back in the day because it was one of the only games that would run. But yeah, between this and Unreal Tournament, those were our options back in the day. I mean, there was counter strike, but I hate that one and didnt play it until later, so....

Not usually by thing, but....- NFL Blitz 2000

I'm still gonna stick with the sports game here.

Turn my brain off- Unreal Tournament

 As I said I liked playing this one against bots and it helped train my reflexes a bit. I play it i just get into a flow state after a while, kinda like ultra instinct from Dragonball super.

Best with friends- Mario Kart 64

Mario Kart 64 holds this one for reasons previously mentioned

Best Retro game- Super Mario Bros

 So now we need a retro of retros. Which means I'm limiting this to at most gen 4. And it seemed like it just should go to the original super Mario bros. This game basically single handedly resurrected the industry after the 1983 video game crash. So yeah. Definitely deserves a spot if only for historical impact.

Nostalgic Childhood game- Sonic 3 & Knuckles

Yep, sticking with sonic 3 for this one. Although most sonic games could easily fill this spot.

Game everyone should play- Super Mario 64

It didnt fit anywhere else and I feel like it should deserve a spot so I put it here. Honestly, it fits here. It's simple enough that anyone can get into it. Just pick up a controller, wander princess peach's mansion, jump into paintings, collect power stars. Fun. 

And yeah, that's my best RETRO games of all times list. I thought maybe more gen 6 belongs here, but given my formative years were really during gen 4 and gen 5 I seemed to gravitate toward this era of games. like everything else there are a lot of games that probably belong on here too, but I just couldn't fit them, and yeah... 

 

Best years to build a PC, version 2

 So, I already made a post about this, but want to improve on it and emphasize a few things. Ultimately, I wanna focus on the longevity of the build, particularly the CPU and GPU. The ultimate deciding factor is how long a midrange build (with a $200-300ish CPU/GPU) will last. I will, however, offer nuance in some years as cheaper/more expensive builds are economical for various reasons.

2006

 As I said, you CAN get a good combo here that would last for a while in SOME form, but you'd get a MUCH better build if you waited a year. Still, you couldn't have known that at the time and you'd still likely get a console equivalent build that would last a while. Honestly, it was about average for the time.

 Example PC: E6600, 8600 GT

Estimated longevity: 4-5 years

Tier: B

2007

Probably the golden year of the late 2000s. You got high quality components for relatively cheap, leading to an abnormally long build cycle for the time. While not too out of the ordinary by modern standards, it was a very long lasting build for the time. 

Example PC: Q6600, 8800 GT/HD 3850

Estimated Longevity: 5-6 years (CPU could go 6-8 with GPU upgrade)

Tier: S

2008

Like 2007, but everything was cheaper. Some expensive stuff came out, but it wasn't worth buying at the time. Your best bet was getting cheap refreshes here. 

Example PC: Q6600, 9800 GTX+/ HD 4850

Estimate longevity: 4-5 years

Tier: B

2009

2009 was a weird year. You made out good if you bought a Radeon HD 5000 series at the end of the year, but otherwise it was just 2008 again with less longevity. 

Example PC (Q4): i5 750/Phenom II X4 965, HD 5770/5850

Estimated longevity: 5-6 years

Example PC (Q1-3):  i5 750/Phenom II X4 965, HD 4870/GTX 260

Estimated longevity: 3-4 years

Tier: B

2010

Probably a better year at the time. CPUs weren't amazing and didn't age well given what came after, but the GPUs lasted as long as could be expected at the time

 Example PC (Q4): i5 750/Phenom II X4 965, HD 5850/GTX 460

Estimated longevity: 4-5 years

Tier: B

2011

 2011 was a god year for CPUs but a mediocre one for GPUs. Sandy bridge was legendary but the GPUs kinda got the short end of the stick. So it was kinda middling.

 Example PC: i5 2500k, GTX 560 Ti/HD 6950

 Estimated longevity: 3-4 years (CPU was 5-7 arguably with a GPU upgrade)

Tier: B

2012

Example PC: i5 3570k, HD 7850/GTX 660 

Estimated longevity: 5-6 years

Tier: S

2013

Things started to get a big more middling for the midrange in this year. Not the strongest.

Example PC:  i5 4670k, GTX 760/R9 280

Estimated longevity: 4-5 years

Tier: B

2014

This is a year where if you spent a little more, you could get a truly legendary build. Otherwise, it kinda sucked though. 

 Example PC: i5 4690k, GTX 960/R9 280

Estimated longevity: 3-4 years

Upgraded "legendary" PC: i7 4790k,  GTX 970

Estimated longevity: 7-9 years

Tier: B

2015

Really a bad year if you stuck to midrange

Not a bad year if you spent more on a premium build. 

Example PC: i5 6600k, GTX 960/R9 380x 

Estimated longevity- 2-3 years

Upgraded PC: i7 6700k, GTX 970

Estimated longevity- 7-8 years

Tier: C

2016

Legendary year on GPUs, but once again, a bad year unless you upgraded to the expensive i7 model

Example PC: i5 6600k, GTX 1060/RX 480

Estimated longevity: 2-3 years (GPU would be good for around 6-7)

Upgraded PC: i7 6700k,  GTX 1060/RX 480

Estimated longevity: 6-7 years

Tier: B

2017

 Early on was bad because of middling CPU options, but still better than 2016. I'd recommend a Ryzen 1600 for an early year build unless you buy an i7 6700k/7700k. Late year opened up to truly be something special though. The Ryzen 1600x wouldn't last super long, but at least you'd have Zen 4 which can slot much better CPUs in it too. 

Example PC: R5 1600, GTX 1060/RX 580

Estimated longevity: 4-5 years

Example PC (Q4): i5 8600k, GTX 1060/RX 580

Estimated longevity: 5-6 years

Tier: A

2018

 CPU wise was a repeat of late 2017. GPU wise you got the RX series, which had better longevity, but was expensive. You kinda got screwed unless you paid out of the target price range on GPUs. 

Example PC: i5 9600k, GTX 1660 Ti

Estimated Longevity: 4-5 years

Upgraded PC: i5 9600k, RTX 2060

Estimated longevity: 5-6 years

Tier: B

2019

GPU wise, 2019 was a bad time, for CPUs, it was an okay time with the Ryzen 3000 series hitting things. 

Example PC: R5 3600, RX 5600 XT

Estimated Longevity: 4-5 years

Tier: B

2020

 As I said, god help you if your computer broke. Wasn't bad on the CPU side, but COVID and crypto destroyed the GPU market. I didnt mention it here as Ive mostly focused on midrange and reasonably premium builds, but there was also a lower midrange with stuff like "50" cards that was relatively popular for budget buyers and all of that died around here. It was on its way out after Nvidia started getting greedy in 2018, but yeah, here it truly died. 

Example PC: i5 10600k/R5 3600, GTX 1050 ti/1650

Estimated Longevity: 2-3 years (CPU could go 4-6)

Tier: F 

2021

The crapshow continues. RX 6000 and RTX 3000 series cards launched but good luck affording them. Btw, those 1050 tis and 1650s I'm recommending cost like $400-500 in this era, so you were paying premium prices for what used to be sub $200 budget cards.

Example PC: i5 12400/R5 5600, GTX 1050 Ti/1650

Estimated longevity: 1-2 years (CPUs still viable in 2026 as of writing this)

 Tier: F

2022

 For most of the year it was the same as 2021, but late year prices improved, especially on RX 6000 series cards. 

Example PC (Q4): R7 5700x/i5 12600k, RX 6650 XT

Estimated Longevity: 5-6 years

Example PC (Q1-3): R7 5700x/i5 12600k, GTX 1050 ti/1650

Estimated longevity: 1-2 years (GPU), 5-6 years (CPU) 

Tier: B

2023

Again, the best it was gonna get post pandemic. The new normal.

Example PC: R7 5700x/i7 12700k, GTX 4060/RX 7600

Estimated longevity: 4-5 years

Tier: B

2024

Lots of good deals but not a ton of changes. I think 8 GB VRAM is gonna bite people in the ### here. 

 Example PC: R7 7700x/i7 12700k, GTX 4060/RX 7600

Estimated longevity: 3-4 years (GPU), 5-6 years (CPU)

Tier: C

2025

Very mid year tbqh unless you buy up on GPU. Q4 sucked because RAMpocalypse began. I really think if you buy 8 GB RAM in 2025, its like buying 2 GB in 2015. It might be all you can afford, but yeah, good luck once games start wanting more. 

Example PC: R7 7700x/Core Ultra 7 265k, GTX 5060/RX 9060 XT 8 GB

Estimated longevity: 2-3 years (GPU), 4-6 years (CPU)

 Upgraded PC:  R7 7700x/Core Ultra 7 265k, RX 9060 XT 16 GB

Estimated longevity: 4-6 years

 Tier: C

2026

RAMpocalypse is the worst thing to happen to the GPU market since COVID. 

Example PC: R7 7700x/Core Ultra 5 250k, GTX 5050/RX 6650 XT

Estimated Longevity: 1-2 years (GPU), 3-6 years (CPU) 

I ain't even gonna do an upgraded PC since a decent GPU would cost north of $400 these days. 

Tier: F

So, with that said, let's update the tier list. I'll focus 75% on the worse build if I include 2, since the other build was only available for one quarter of the year, or required an upsell of $100 or so ($200 if both CPU/GPU) in order to make it work.

Results

S Tier: 2007, 2012

A Tier: 2017

B Tier: 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2022, 2023

C Tier: 2015, 2024, 2025

D Tier:  None

F Tier: 2020, 2021, 2026

With that said, what can we deduce?

Well, in retrospect, most years are pretty average. Even if there are years with the golden CPU, the golden GPU, for the most part, very few years do everything align and be perfect. Either the CPUs are bad, the GPUs are bad, part of the year is good, part of the year is bad, or it requires an upsell to an i7 or 70 tier (now "60" tier, because nvidia greedy) to make it a good year. Still, there is a year once every 5 years or so where things align.

Another thing I found interesting is at the midrange the best years often have 5-6 year PCs, whereas on average, you're talking 4-5 years. Anything less than 4 is bad. Some years got made worse due to the midrange being crap. 2014-2015 were both pretty bad. But again, the upsell was important.

Sometimes for best longevity, going up a tier can be as important as timing it right. Sometimes an "i7" or similar CPU is SIGNIFICANTLY more important than an i5, since, since sandy bridge, a good "i7" tier build can last upwards to 8-10 years. GPUs have a bit less longevity, but the same principle applies, especially when VRAM or tech like ray tracing (see: 2018) comes into consideration. A 1660 ti sucked, a 2060 was better, and even better, 2070s are still viable today. 1070s on up were viable for longer than a 1060. But the biggest difference came between say, a 2 GB 960 and a 4 GB 970. The 970 was viable until like 2023 for mainstream gaming, whereas the 960 ran out of steam by 2017-2018. Buying a quad core i7 helped in the long term vs an i5, which lacked hyperthreading. The 6 core i7 8700k, which i didnt include as it was almost $400 and the 8600k was a decent CPU, is still viable today.

And in the modern age, we're at a point where it's better to buy a slightly older CPU that's a higher tier than a newer one. The 12th gen intel and 5th gen ryzens are like this. Rather than buy a newer i3 or i5, you could buy an older i7 or r7 and use that. Also, to be fair, i intentionally excluded the 13th and 14th gen because of their...issues. But yeah. Like, I bought an older i9. It was like $600 at the time but I got it for $200. it's kinda like what happened with the Q6600s. Was $600ish in 2006, but by 2007, dropped to like $240 or something, and thus became viable. Buying a 7700k gave me 8600k level performance back in 2017. So yeah, sometimes strategically buying upward is as important as timing it correctly, if not more important.

If anything, this just vindicates my current strategy of buying my PCs piece by piece. Because I CAN just wait for a "golden year" CPU/GPU. Like Im good because I bought my GPU at the end of 2022 when the iron was hot, and then in 2023 bought a CPU which ended up being the right time for that. In 2017, I bought my 7700k as a late 2016 christmas gift as I wanted to hold out for zen 1, and then was disappointed by the 1600/1700 so much I went all 7700k instead. Then at the end of the year my 760 died so I went for a 1060, which ended up being a golden GPU so to speak. So....yeah. That's one thing I'm gonna say. Buying a whole build all at once might sound good on paper, but outside of specific time intervals, it can also backfire as most years always have SOMETHING wrong with them. 

And of course, dont buy when prices are nuts. COVID bad, crypto bad, AI bubble bad. 

If I had to guess, based on current and previous market trends, not only is buying now a bad time to buy, but if you did buy, at least on the GPU side, you'd want to buy up to like a 9060 XT 16 GB or 5060 Ti 16 GB. Which is like $400-500. So dont bother. 8 GB GPUs remind me of the 2 GB period going into 2014-2015. Like youre gonna get burned on that. CPU wise, things were good until rammageddon. Now they're less good.

If I had to guess, the next set of "golden years" will probably come around 2027-2029. I'm leaning toward 2028ish. We need the AI bubble to pop, and we'll need the next gen of CPUs/GPUs, and consoles to hit the market. We need quite a bit of progress for there to be a worthwhile boost over current CPUs. The market has been stagnant in recent years, and it's looking like we'll need zen 6 and nova lake bringing like 12 core X3D CPUs and the like to the forefront. And then we'll need to wait a few more years for prices to drop and normalize, since nowadays it seems like budget CPUs are just last year's premium ones...literally. We'll need there to be a sub $300 GPU with 12 GB or more of VRAM thats 2x as powerful as a 6650 XT or 4060. That aint gonna happen until at least 2027-2028. And once PS6 specs become finalized and we see roll outs, we'll know what the target specs for PCs will be to get something that'll last until like...2035. So yeah. Right now, unless youre desperate, hold everything you got, wait for current crisis to blow over, and buy low around 2028ish if possible. That's my plan at least, given I hit the 2022-2023 window where I got golden hardware for now.  

 

The best games of all time list

 So..I've been seeing this list going around various youtube channels and online communities I follow, and I wanted to fill it out myself and figured it would make a good article, since I've been doing more gaming discourse as of late on here. The list is somewhat flawed as I'll get to, but I did try to fill it out and I'll attempt to justify my choices. 

 Here's the final graphic, btw:

Favorite Game- Fallout 4

So, this is a very hard decision to make. There are so many games in so many genres and it's hard to say, "out of all of these games I've ever played, this one is the best." I mean, I would struggle to narrow this to a top 10, let alone just pick one, but I went with this one. 

The fact is, I wanted to choose a primarily single player title for this one. Multiplayer games come and go with the player base, but single player games are eternal. Candidates over the years would be: Sonic 3 & Knuckles, Mario 64, Doom/Doom 2, the Halo trilogy, etc. But honestly? I think that the bethesda RPGs are the most impactful. They're long lasting, keep me engrossed for hundreds of hours, and make me obsessed with them. From there, I had to decide which one? A lot of people love skyrim, but i kinda found it shallow and i aint a huge fan of high fantasy. I gravitate more toward Fallout. Fallout 3 was the first title I played, it had a great world, but the story sucked. New Vegas had a great story, but other elements were more mediocre. Fallout 4 was a massive improvement on both, even if it's not the best at anything. Fallout 76 was an MMO and definitely not the best the franchise has to offer. Starfield wasn't bad, and ended up making another category, but it's not the best game of all time, not by a long shot. So I went with Fallout 4. It's a solid game, it sucked me in for a good 500 hours through multiple play throughs, had solid game play, and yeah, when I REALLY think about it, if any game deserves the coveted "GOAT" status from me, it's probably this. 

Best Story- Halo 3 (Halo Trilogy, really...)

 I couldnt just choose Halo: The Master Chief collection, but yeah, Halos 1-3 are a huge trilogy and one of the best I've ever seen. Halo CE was kinda mediocre in and of itself. It felt like sci fi B movie ripping off aliens, predatory, etc. But the corresponding books kind of opened up the world a bit which really sucked me in. Halo 2 expanded on the lore and the story greatly, and while it was great in its own right, it ended on a cliffhanger which was infuriating at the time. That said, when Halo 3 came out and we had to finish the fight, it was quasi religious for a lot of us. Seriously, the hype this game had in 2007 was astounding. It tied up all the loose ends, it was the perfect ending to the trilogy. it was so perfect Halo struggled to regain its footing since, and I think halo 3 just set the bar too high where it set up the future of the franchise for failure. 

 Favorite Art Style- Halo Combat Evolved

 Art style is subjective. But one thing I've always been attracted to in video games is OOOH PRETTY COLORS. Sonic CD was an original choice I scrapped. I loved the colors back in the 90s and thought it looked amazing at the time. Arguably, lots of mario games have good art styles, and despite inferior graphics with newer consoles, Mario games always hold up EXTREMELY well. But honestly, I'm just gonna go with Halo CE as that was the advantage of the first halo. It had cutting edge graphics for its time, and everything was OOOH SUPER PRETTY COLORS. I mean, you got the purple alien ships. The environments range from beaches to icy canyons to alien ships. The aliens themselves are colorful and you can literally just paint rooms with their multicolored blood. 

Biggest Personal Impact- Bioshock Infinite

This was perhaps the hardest choice to make. Despite being deeply invested in video games, I dont feel like they make a personal impact on my life, at least not the way some other media does. Most games I like are actiony, and the stories often aren't amazing. 

I started thinking about games that helped me connect to other people, whether they be Doom or MarioKart 64, which I would sometimes play with my parents. Pokemon, which I played with my friends. Chess, which isnt a video game but I played it as one online and met an online girlfriend through that back when I was a teenager. But none of them really felt...right.

But then I just thought about what had the biggest impact on me. And given my obsessive anti work focus, I'll go with Bioshock Infinite. Bioshock infinite was intended to fit this early 1900s aesthetic of america at the time, but it still feels relevant today, between the enemies all being religious psychos, and let's face it, modern society's work ethic feels like it's straight out of Fink Industries with its propaganda. If anything, seeing this propaganda really helped drive home how wicked modern work culture is. When I see people talk about hustle culture and work ethic, I can't help but think of this game.  Be the bee!

 This one is also arguably a runner up for best story, but yeah. Halo has that covered. 

 Best Combat- Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

 People are gonna think I'm basic AF for this one, but hear me out. COD greatly modernized the FPS genre in the 2000s and is responsible for shaping much of the industry today. Given my most overrated title (Counter Strike) and its awful game play, I feel like COD did the opposite to the FPS genre. It kinda standardized modern military shooters, making ADS common, having regenerating health, and having 2 weapons. These design choices impacted gaming to the modern day.

A runner up though is, arguably, Halo though. For campaigns at least, the combat was also great. COD arguably got regenerating health from Halo, and Halo had great combat between the covenant being susceptible to energy weapons and resistant to bullet based weapons, the flood being weak to bullet based weapons and resistant against energy weapons, etc. Every encounter felt strategic. But at the same time, Halo's multiplayer just doesnt hold up, while COD's does. So I feel like COD is more impactful, and I already chose Halo for a few other categories.

Alternatively, Doom also deserves an honorable mention, both classic doom and 2016. Classic doom invented FPS combat in the first place in many ways, although without mods like GZdoom it does feel dated. Doom 2016 also arguably deserves to be here because of it being a rather fast paced single player game with great combat including glory kills, but given the direction the franchise went past that, I'm reluctant to include it, and also, I'm putting enough doom on this list elsewhere. 

Idk. There's a lot of titles that COULD go here, but I feel like COD has been most impactful on modern shooters for better or for worse, and serves as a perfect foil to counter strike (which I hate, more on that later). 

 Overhated- Starfield

 The internet hype machine and the internet hate machine are weird sometimes. They'll take a flawed game, they'll just dunk on it until people think it's the worst POS ever. They'll take a moderately good game and hype it up to levels of delusion that no game can live up to or deserves. There's been a lot of overhated games over the years. First, some honorable mentions. Mass Effect 3. Solid game, just with a let down ending, but the hate back at launch was INSANE. Fallout 76 was another one that was overhated, given the sheer amount of bugs and mediocre lack of story. It deserved some hate, but due to improving over time, has made a huge come back. Battlefield 2042 is another one of these games to some degree. It deserved SOME hate due to releasing in, quite frankly, an unacceptable state, but the battlefield boomers as I called them glommed onto specialists for some reason, which was the least of the game's problems. But honestly, a game that people still hate to this day seems to be starfield. Another one is also Halo 4, which, given the success of 3, was NEVER gonna live up to its hype, and it didn't, and I feel like it was overhated at the time for it. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't perfect and even I had issues with it, but yeah, I feel like it was judged too harshly for what it was. 

I'm not gonna lie. I LIKED starfield. It wasnt the best bethesda game. I understand it has some shortcomings between bugs, the repetitiveness of the planets, the loading screens, but to be fair, I have to ask, have these guys ever played a bethesda game before? I feel like this game's ambitions were set too high and the expectations were too high. All in all, it was a decent 8/10 title. Which is low for a bethesda game, but it IS still an adequate bethesda game. Quite frankly, I think people are just mad it distracted from TES 6 or fallout 5. And even now, people struggle to recommend it, acting like its garbage when I'm like 150 hours, would play again at some point. 

 Underrated- Doom 64

 There are a lot of underrated games out there IMO. Some of them are the overhated ones mentioned above. Some aren't bad, they just got overshadowed. There's a lot of games that could fit here. I chose Doom 64. Honestly, it was either Doom 64 or Doom 3, both are underrated. Doom 3 had a 2000s era survival horror vibe that didnt age well and feels awkwardly placed between the classic dooms of the 90s and the modern dooms of 2016 onward. But honestly, what I think has been more underrated is doom 64. Doom 64 is the REAL doom 3. It was the doom 3 they werent allowed to call Doom 3. It was a N64 exclusive Doom, and it just never stood out. There were better games on the system. The controls were awkward AF. It was largely forgotten until a PC re-release with Doom Eternal, and going back in playing it, while it wasnt perfect, it really didnt deserve its relatively negative treatment. And in retrospect, played with modern controls, it feels very good to play. 

 Overrated- Counter Strike 2

 Remember what I said about the internet hype machine. And remember what I said about COD modernizing FPS combat. 

Counter strike is the ultimate anti-COD FPS game. It released in another time. It was one of the first tactical multiplayer FPSes, it actually started off as a Half Life mod. It had awkward mechanics. For the time, they felt okay, but in my view, they aged VERY BADLY. And by the time I played CS Source in 2008 for the first time, the game felt dated. This was always hyped up to be like the ultimate PC FPS. But instead, i got this mediocre 7/10 game with crappy recoil mechanics from the 90s. And dont you DARE say anything about it online. HURR DURR SKILL, HURR DURR YOU JUST SUCK. I mean, i do suck at CS, but my criticism goes beyond sucking, it's the fact that I genuinely don't see the appeal of mastering crappy recoil mechanics from an old 90s game. There are better games out there. But it's like "but but if you only play a few hundred more hours it might eventually click." I DON'T WANT TO PLAY HUNDREDS OF HOURS JUST TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME, WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE. "Hurr durr you just suck." It's not that I suck, it's that I literally lack the drive to learn this crappy ### game. I play games for fun. I like more casual shooters...like COD....which revolutionized FPS games in its own way by making the mechanics simple and streamlined You ADS, bullets go where they're supposed to go, you dont have to fight your gun. These guys LIKE that recoil, because to them it means "skill." 

Now, for a while these guys just F-ed off to their own corners of the internet and did their own thing. But then, starting around 2017, they started infesting other FPS games, pushing their game play philosophy on more and more games, making them more "competitive." And again, the most obnoxious thing is the recoil. I dont want to have to fight my gun too much just to fricking land shots. I dont have the reflexes, I dont have the mouse pad space, and it just isn't fun. But for them it's what separates 'good" players from "bad" players. You see, "good" players can learn to control the recoil and thus dunk on the "bad" players, leading to insane skill gaps that pretty much wreck the game for the "bad" players. Whereas in a "low skill ceiling" game, anyone can log in, get a few kills, and enjoy themselves, "high skill" players dont like that, because they have to be the best, they have to lord their insane KDRs over the rest of us, and honestly, Im gonna be blunt. While there is always going to be some element of merit in FPS games, I like low skill games the same way I like low income inequality social democracies. It's more inclusive for everyone. It's more fun. It's less effort. It's just better. But because our society is run by type A ###holes who have to not just be the best the impose their BS social hierarchies on the rest of us, no, the rest of us have to suffer so THEY can look good. 

Honestly, people keep acting like if only i played hundreds of hours I'd grow to like it, but that just sounds like alcohol where you're drinking hand sanitizer, it's literally poisoning your body, but the people are just like "it's an acquired taste, bro!"

Now, before I continue, I do want some honorable mentions here too. 

League of Legends- I never seen such a toxic and try hardy unfun game that people seem to glaze for some reason. 

Final fantasy- I aint really a hardcore RPG person, and the cinematography ain't my thing. 

WoW (and other MMORPGs)- MMOs feel like the polar opposite of CS in a way. Rather than have SOME level of reflexes and skill, it's mostly just levelling up and choosing builds and your numbers being better than your opponents. Maybe there's more skill end game, but I'd never play one long enough to reach the end game, and I'd rather just play FPS.

 GTA (and rockstar games in general)- Always came off as an edgy teen thing. Like "look at me, Im 13 and I'm watching this really adult R rated movie." This is that but for video games. The game play is kinda crap. And no, I'm not looking forward to GTA 6. I dont care about GTA 6. GTA 5 was mediocre AF and GTA 6 is just gonna be more of the same.  

Of course, all of these franchises really come down to taste, to some degree. I feel especially qualified to rip CS because I'm literally an FPS gamer and I hate it and what it's done to gamer culture. And it baffled me the series still had a following in 2008, and it baffles me it's still popular now.  

Needs a remake- Fallout New Vegas (and 3)

Okay, so....arguably a lot of games deserve remakes. The problem is I feel like most remakes would completely F up the original game. Still, Fallout New Vegas gets my recommendation. In part because of the Fallout TV show, but in part because Fallout 3 and New Vegas are great games, but they're very VERY dated. And I can just imagine them being remade on FO4/76's engine and being FAR better for it. Like, the tech is there, the demand is there, Todd Howard, plz. 

 Criminally Overlooked: Titanfall 2

Look, I know I glazed COD above, but since the OG 360/PS3 COD games, they've done F all with the franchise. I mean, okay, MW19 DID modernize the franchise a bit. But most of those PS4/XB1 era games were complete and utter crap. And a lot of the space themed ones were especially crap. Advanced Warfare, Infinite Warfare, some of the lowest points of the whole series. But wanna know who did it RIGHT? Titanfall. Titanfall and Titanfall 2 were like COD advanced/infinite warfare with GOOD mechanics and mech fighting. ANd yet, they barely got any success, and they fell off quickly. While the franchise eventually found its footing with Apex legends, a Titanfall inspired battle royale, yeah, this franchise should've popped off a lot earlier, and it should've been more popular. It's a shame it died like it did.

 Favorite Protagonist- Doom 2016

 I don't like protagonists in video games often. But if I had to give it to one, I'd give it to the doom slayer. he's just so bad### and commands so much respect. In 2016, you hear the demons reading stories of his accomplishments, and it's just like....yeah, this is one guy you DONT wanna mess with.

 Favorite Antagonist- Far Cry 3

 While he's not the MAIN antagonist of the game, Far Cry 3's Vaas is just...well...insane. In a good way. he's just so evil. You wanna hate him so bad, you wanna kill him. They even made like 30 minutes of promotional material for the game mostly centered around him. He's the best I could think of.

I know someone else's video I watched went the Portal route and said Glados. I'd one up that and say my runner up is Wheatley. Because Wheatley is just so stupid, incompetent, and insane that it makes you WANT to put glados back in charge. Glados is great, dont get me wrong, but she's Hillary Clinton, while Wheatley is donald Trump. 

 Best Soundtrack- Red Alert 3

 C&C games always have banging sound tracks, but Red Alert 3 really outdid itself, between the main theme, hell march 3, red rock, grinder 2, etc. Honestly, all the C&Cs have good music, but this one just outdid the others, despite being a relatively mediocre entry in the franchise. 

Runner ups include stuff like Advance Wars, Doom, Black (2006 title), and Halo. But nothing really touches Red Alert 3. 

 Best Multiplayer- Battlefield 6

 There's a reason I wanted to focus on single player games to some degree. Multiplayers come and go. I could say Battlefield 4 or Bad Company 2 are the best multiplayer games ever made. But BC2 is shut down, and BF4 only has a few servers active. Those games were great, don't get me wrong, but right now, BF6 is the hottest thing. The best multiplayer game was gonna be a battlefield game. battlefield offers a combination of good gun play, large maps, chaotic battles, and large scale warfare. They are known for their "battlefield moments" like the "rendezook" when someone basically is being chased in a jet, ejects, snipes the pilot of the plane that shot them down out of their cockpit, and then gets back in their jet. it's insane. No series has ever given me the high that battlefield typically has. Except maybe Planetside 2, another runner up. but that game is less active today, and feels dated, so I wouldnt recommend it either, even if I was addicted to it at the time.

Honestly, you wanna get into these kinds of games today, battlefield 6. Battlefield's back, baby, in all its past glory. 

 Not usually my thing, but....- NFL Blitz 2000

 So, I'm not a sports guy, but there was a sports game I loved back in the day and it was NFL Blitz 2000. Basically, it's like simplified football, except the violence is the point. You just stomp the guy with the ball, throw them around, jump on them after they're already down, and be an unsportsmanlike ###. it was fun AF back in the day. I dont play sports games otherwise, but I liked this one.

 Turn my brain off- Unreal Tournament

 Yeah, for a while, if I just wanted to "play something" but not think about it too hard, Unreal Tournament with bots is my game of choice. You can just throw bots in a game while shooting things to your heart's content. Even more so, UT is a super fast paced multiplayer game, so the more you turn your brain off and go by instinct, reflex, etc, the better you do in my experience. Kinda like ultra instinct from DBZ but for video games. So yeah. It's my ultimate "don't think about it, just shoot it" kind of game.

Best with friends- Mario Kart 64

 So, this was the ultimate "play games with friends" game as a kid. I played it split screen, it was fun. Nothing matches the experience. I could also go with pokemon trading card game, but that's also like...a card game, you didnt play the video game ones back in the day, you played with real cards. Various FPS games could apply but they either didnt age well or its hard to get the guys all online as you get older. I kinda wanted to go with the in person touch, since games used to be made for split screen.

For a newer more PC oriented vibe, another runner up is sonic all stars racing transformed. Had some fun with online friends with that one back in the day.

Best Retro game- Doom 2

 The OG dooms, with the right game engines, still hold up today. They're over 30 years old, but still feel quite modern and timeless all things considered. I honestly think they deserve the spot for best retro game. 

Older Sonic and Mario titles also arguably deserve this spot. I know one guy i watched put super mario world, that's a strong contender here. Likewise, being the sega kid I was, sonic 3 & knuckles and sonic 2 also belong on here. But I went with sonic 3 for the next one. 

Nostalgic childhood game- Sonic 3 & Knuckles

 So, you know Sega used to have a magazine? And I remember getting a couple free ones from them hyping up genesis games at the time. Sonic 1 and 2 were some of my first, and favorite games, but I dont think anything ever touched Sonic 3 & Knuckles. It was just perfection as a sonic title. It was super hyped, and MAN it lived up to said hype. For nintendo kids, mario might get it, but for me, it's sonic, always. 

The only game since that even scraped the floor of these heights for the series was sonic mania tbqh. 

 Game everyone should play- Portal 2

 Honestly, it's portal AND portal 2, but I wanted to end this with a wildcard recommendation. A lot of people like different games in different genres, but by this point, the portal games are cheap, they're different, they're accessible, and have hilarious dialogue. So, I'm gonna go with the portal games for this one. 

And yeah, that's my list. Some people can agree or disagree with specific entries, but yeah.