… and aren’t necessarily great for everyone. They cause a substantial number of people to feel nauseous.

If these achieve a similar effect without the downsides, then that’s both new and interesting.

I think fighting games are like religion - the one you’re raised with just makes sense, and all the others just seem like: “why would anyone spend their time with that!?”

I love Tekken. Played 1 a bit. Played 2 a lot. Played 3 a bit. Played Tag and 4 a huge amount at work. Played 5 a bit. 6 not so much. 7 lightly. And now I’m mainlining 8 and absolutely loving it. So I have to concede - after a lifetime sinking time into Tekken of one form or another, you can’t really take my views on it as anything other than completely biased.

But I love it. Every time I’ve tried to play another beat-em-up like SF or MK I’ve just ended up confused. I know, intellectually, that these are good games. But I just don’t understand the… texture of them. SF feels floaty, stuff happens but I don’t really understand what I’m doing or how it affects what I’m seeing on screen. MK feels oddly stilted, the way the characters move feels artificial, slow.

Only Tekken feels… real. Just the right amount of nimble. When I get hit, I know why I got hit. I can predict shit, and feel good when I block a load of stuff. I feel like only with Tekken can I worry less about the controller and more about the strategy, and the mind games.

King of Iron Fist all the way.

This is unrealistic. The process from start to a fully finished character is huge, and if you didn’t start until the game shipped then you’d be bitching that there was too big a gap with no interesting updates after the game came out.

Also a lot of the people working on this content won’t be the same people working on the last remaining bugs. As you get closer to release, you have a smaller and smaller group of people fixing things otherwise it causes too much churn and you start introducing more bugs.

That's a pretty dumb comparison. Are you suggesting that people who create stuff used to train AI are obligated to provide that education for free? People who create books/educational aids for teachers to use in classrooms still demand to be paid for that. Teachers are paid for delivering that education. The kids don't pay the teachers, as a society we tax people because education benefits us all, but the teachers are still paid (not enough!)

I’ve always thought that it ought to be analogous to the real world. There are places in the real world where you can be anonymous, and the internet needs that.

But there are also public places on the internet. In the same way that there are laws to stop you walking into your local town square and starting to yell racist shit, there ought to be something that stops you doing that in the “town square” of the internet - i.e. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. Or at least, there should be a consequence to that.

I think that figuring out some kind of threshold beyond which a site needs to require an official, publicly visible ID could be of benefit, but agree that people will always need the opportunity for online privacy.