Leaderboard

Doing the type of analysis that I know how to do with sports would never be thrown out there on a major website free of charge, and wouldn't want to charge anything for it so I wouldn't do it. I mostly do it just for personal fun. But yes it can be hard to predict sports, that's why I only go with theoretical chances. I don't think anyone is going to rule sports competitions in favor of 1 opponent having a 100% chance or more of winning, meaning that's why there is sports betting odds and stuff like that. I personally don't even understand the sports betting odds and how they factor that stuff because I have my own system which ended up being pretty accurate. I recently got a pretty good prediction rate on Hockey games last time I did it for fun.

Well in certain areas it is simply not legal and have been too lazy to look up what's going on with it in my area. I've never even made a gentlemens bet, so I just analyze the stuff for fun. Sports betting in my opinion is not simple, though. I personally take a relatively complex look at things, but just use my knowledge to make predictions or fun. Pro-Football for example: I haven't looked at any of the other teams in the NFL and know virtually nothing about them, but I would give the Tampa Bay Buccaneers over a 30% chance of winning the entire season via Championship/Super Bowl Title and then Tom Brady probably retiring, but that 30% chance is based on what I currently know about the team. After the first 2 to 5 games; to keep it simple let's say first three -- I could make a better prediction because Tampa Bay literally has a new head coach this season because the other dude quit/retired. Current coach is the former Defensive Coordinator called Todd Bowles, and he is allegedly (or at least is just for the pre-season) calling all of the defensive plays (meaning he is doing double the workload). Things I look at is his social media accounts or any proximities to him that may indicate he is tired, as well as his face. Does his face look tired? Has he had a recent divorce? Many successful athletes have wives and a strong family unit, like Tom Brady does. If he starts getting tired pulling double duty then they may have to hire a defensive coordinator mid season -- which could throw off the entire season and quite frankly throw it out, but this is based on extensively knowledge. Hiring a mid-season defensive coordinator is Super Bowl or Bust. Meaning he would be fantastic or a complete failure. Predicting outcomes is not an all or nothing type of system, whoever predicts things like that I would say doesn't know how to do it properly. It's better based on percentages or similar factors. I personally play fighting games, and the way people rate a character on a tier list in a fighting game involves both science and opinion -- although the "opinion" usually constitutes the opinion of a professional and the professional having the character in his hands while executing the characters potential in an optimal situation (getting as much out of a combo as possible, etc.). Another thing the pros do is take the characters at an alleged optimal setting and then run a "first to 10". Let's say we have Mortal Kombat 11 with Sub Zero and Scorpion in the "first to 10", with each character optimized in the hands of a professional. If Scorpion won 7 of the matches and Sub Zero wins 3, then you would call the MK11 Sub Zero/Scorpion (what we call a "matchup") to be a 7/3, obviously in favor of Scorpion. Patches, also known as title updates, can obviously affect a 7/3 matchup situation, and title updates can be -- and are often -- affected by people. Sometimes you just have flatout teenagers whining about how "broken" and "too good" a character is, then they will lobby a development team. The team can potentially then change properties of a character making him or her worse, and lower said character on the tier list. I do football matches and certain scenarios in football with a similar system to fighting games. Tampa would be a top 5 favorite to win the Super Bowl this season, but their first matchup (which I haven't even looked at yet) would be a 50/50 in my view against Dallas Cowboys at home, or a 5/5 in fighting game terms, but I use the 5/5 setting as a total tossup situation meaning it's a 50% chance for each team to win the game. I could look at the game closer and get a better opinion, but you also have to view the opinion of sports broadcasters and view their arguments as almost like lobbyists or attorneys arguing a case. Some of these "lobbyists" claimed that they "wouldn't be surprised to see Los Angeles" win the Super Bowl like the next day after Tampa did it, and I had a feeling he was correct. Strong prediction, but Tampa was the first team in NFL history to ever win the Super Bowl in their own stadium (stadiums of which are randomly assigned), and then Los Angeles basically did the same thing the next year with a back to back situation. Smells like fraud to me so I may be too lazy to even draw up predictions this year.

Please tell me if I'm wrong about this, but if I'm reading this right you're saying I'm correct... and then proceed to say that laziness is still a factor? What I'm saying is that laziness is not a factor in game development. Lazy people don't exist in the game development: they all got fired about a decade ago and were replaced by younger people who can work harder for less money, in a never-ending meatgrinder. Indeed, but it's not often that happens. A lot of work goes into them, and sometimes due to time constraints or budgetary concerns, among other reasons that the current version of the boss has to be the final one. The lead developers of World of Warcraft would use raids as some sort of currency: "we could do that... but it'd cost a raid tier." So they wanted players to choose between content other than bosses, or bosses exclusively. Apparently not enough people thought both was an acceptable response to such an asinine statement, and that's why the game's tanking subscribers: everything before bosses exists solely to get you to fight the bosses until the next string of bosses comes out, and when those bosses come out the past ones mean nothing. In WoW's case one still needs to put a lot of effort into the bosses though: a bad boss now means lost subs, even when it'll be irrelevant tomorrow.

**SPOILERS** (Maybe) The entire point of the Assassins Creed games from the beginning -- literally the whole fabric of the story arc -- was to take Desmond Miles (a person from the modern day era) and send him to the past through a holographic re-living of the past in order to acquire information and context for the present-day events. Desmond has since been replaced by a plethora of randoms and now the modern day sequences I basically ignore as much as other folks like you do. Modern day stuff could be excellent, it's just that the developers choose not to take the risk at this point. If they removed any reference to the modern day at all, the games themselves would be essentially be random tours of random historical places. Even when you play as Alexios or Cassie in AC Odyssey, you find the original network of the Knights Templar and track them down. And that's like a thousand years before Desmond was dealing with the pharmaceutical company in the games modern era in the first game; the company of which both created the Animus and was a Templar front. So the context is still there. The satanic looking devil being "cult" members in Odyssey developed into a modern day drug company; why am I not surprised.

I think he meant more so that he would take money to reset his stats in COD, but I could be wrong. I know it's against Activision's rules & terms and conditions sell your account for any reason. I know people have sold their accounts, but it's something that could result in that account getting banned. I disagree about the stories in COD games. If anything the single player modes are often where the stories shine. The last Modern Warfare game for example had a fairly decent campaign. It was still COD all the way through, but it was interesting and at times depressing. They know how to create campaigns with interesting stories, it's just that they haven't done much of anything new in a long time. And yeah, with AC, it's helped a lot to release a new game every 2 years or so. I think it helped the franchise recover somewhat, but I still think there's a lot of fatigue when it comes to AC games, even with them taking it slower to release new games.

I'm out of the loop so I didn't know you could sell your account or stats. Thing is that COD isn't really heavy on a complex story and grand innovation like Assassins Creed, so games like Assassins Creed can release every 2 years at this point with excitement from people unlike COD. The current system of Assassins Creed is downright spectacular, and ties together several elements of other popular games. Valhalla's system, which I'm guessing is based on Odyssey although I haven't played Valhalla yet, is certainly going to change and shift around in the future. The new Assassins Creed games are practically guaranteed to have a great reception by fans, but the only thing the AC people did wrong was throw out the Desmond Miles/current day part of the story in terms of how complex and relevant it was. At some point you would think the Assassins Creed developers are going to have to go full Sam Fisher mode and have the series involve modern day sequences involving armies and intelligence agencies like Fisher was, because the Templar's came from BC era and go all the way to the modern day except the gameplay currently does not touch on the modern day as much as it used to. It's kind of like "Check Out Historical Exhibit #1 This Year", and in two years comes Historical Exhibit X. More reasons why I should be made an AC executive.

No they don't (OK, publishers maybe). This goes for @Kane99's response with laziness too. There's time constraints, changes in priorities, being overworked, and more and more cases of sexual harrassment cropping up. Try making a boss battle when you need to sleep in the office, working depressed and frustrated to the point of injury and being treated sexually inappropriately while nothing happens about it. Laziness is an intellectually lazy response to the failings of gamedev. I'm sure devs fully appreciate the importance of a boss fight being memorable and necessary, and if they can't deliver there's no doubt in my mind there's reasons why they can't deliver on that experience. Speaking of gamedev, I wonder if bosses are left toward the end of the development progress or storyboard creation, and that's why they get less emphasis unless it's a boss rush game? That they'd rather get the beginnings and ends sorted out, especially story-wise, before focussing on the fights between.

Call of Duty; but that's just my personal preference.

E-sports people obviously take less physical risk than physical sports people because video games are not physical sports. However, there's not that much risk in physical sports these days, especially due to how some of them were played in the past. Basketball players have practically no risk on the court, and I'm not talking about the cases where players just fall over and faceplant out of no where (I know why that's happening but won't discuss it here). Basketball is just one massive cardio triathlon. Players would be tested before entering pro-basketball to see if they have any risks, and if they're told that they dont, then that's all they have to do is run around on the court the whole game and basically fool around with the ball a little bit. Pro basketball people have good cardio and very fast hands/arms -- the latter of which is similar to blockers in pro-football. You can have 350 pounders in football that have extremely fast hands.

Virtually never; only if I need a guide to a video game or a video game's story. Every once in a while uploaded competitive play (that's not LIVE). Stuff with competitive play I usually either figure out myself, or already know the majority or what I need. With fighting games, alot of the combos you see on youtube either don't work in a real fight or have been patched out of the game somehow (due to a certain property in the combo being slightly changed). I think it's best just to achievement hunt to learn a game competitively so you can slowly do it from the ground up, but I don't achievement hunt anymore.

There's arguments to persuade people; I've gone that route sometimes. Such as I have like 57 competitive gaming #1 Ranks and several world records, therefore it is not a waste of time for me personally. I'm not NECESSARILY bragging about that, I just throw the facts at some people who say gaming is a waste of time. It also increases IQ, or has been said to by studies. Some stories and games are fun to entirely absorb yourself in to for leisure, which probably reduces stress. Lately I don't argue and could literally care less what other people think about my gaming stuff provided that their negative comments are avoidable (meaning not shouted at me over an megaphone all day at work or something ridiculous). There are people in the world that have some pretty terrible and destructive habits, and video gaming isn't one of them. I'm also a competitor and have received plenty of nasty criticism. In retrospect, I can say that 99% of the criticism or more has largely been non-constructive -- meaning that it has no ability to help or assist me in any way, therefore it's basically tossed out and always has been. I can think of like 2 or 3 instances where other people in my competitive field were friendly and gave me actual pointers, aside from groups I was in when I was younger where me and the other dudes just simply traded information without even being critical. Ask question to friend, get answer type of stuff.

I think it's great. Not really as good as people make it out to be personally but still great. I felt it was kind of TOO big, and didn't feel as much as a dungeon crawler as the previous Souls games were, which is something I really like. I know most people like that about it, as most seemed to just want "Dark Souls but open world" and for them it's probably a game they can enjoy forever due to its sheer size and replayability. I also appreciate how videogame-y it feels, as I'm not a fan of when games are overly cinematic. I can just turn it on and whack my sword at ghouls for a while. It's exactly what most fans of the series wanted, which is why it's getting so much praise. I'd call that regularly hyped rather than overhyped.

I really like Chocobos, and they're kind of the mascots for Final Fantasy games I'd argue? Lots of iconic monsters but it even gets its own games with a unique look. Other than that I really like Slime from Dragon Quest, and Rathalos.

The short answer is: 🖕

I forgot about Cattails, the developer send me a code of it on switch because i backed their kickstarter campaign. You obviously play as a cat but you can get married aswell, it may be worth checking out if you like harvest moon/story of seasons and stardew valley. I probably should play it myself first before suggesting a game but you know it's got good reviews everywhere and there is a sequel coming in the near future aswell :

Street fighter EX of the ps2 era had it's own fair share of mundane but in a good way though. It's get slow at times and the fights too predictable and easy but when cracker jacker hits you with a baseball bat so hard you bounce off the moon and back to Earth and that was a really cool addition compensating for it's predictability.