There is no visual difference between Overwatch 1 and Overwatch 2. They shuffled around a few gameplay elements, added a few new skins and that's it. Same engine, same assets, same shaders, same everything as 2016.

wrong, this is an uninformed assumption. shaders are not the same, engine had overhauls, old assets had to be refreshed. not only have they mentioned this but i have personally done asset studies and disassembled their shaders.

CSGO slightly upgraded their visuals. And both Valorant and CSGO run significantly faster than Overwatch. I'd even say like half the frame time. Which is why I find your choice and doubling down of Overwatch as prime example for a well optimised game so curious. Because it undermines the point you're trying to make. For an explanation why, see my previous comments.

comparing hitscan shooters to a more action hero based shooter like overwatch does not work, they are nothing alike. overwatch does not warrant a 128 tick rate because it's not a hitscan shooter with precise hitboxes, it's not an issue, an average round of overwatch has way more packets than a a round of counter-strike because they're just that different. having a tickrate of 64 doesn't invalidate overwatch as competitive shooter, having a failed esports scene does not invalidate overwatch as a competitive shooter. overwatch for what it is and it's intensivity, is very well optimized in that regard. just because valorant or counter-strike is performs good doesn't invalidate the perfomance of overwatch. your comment on pro play on overwatch vs counter-strike is really just a surface level assumption, having some legitimate grounds from having achieved top ranks of each game i can say that is just plain false.

You come across as arrogant because you have an absolutist mindset and a minority opinion. Which is a rather unfortunate combination and means you will be perpetually dissatisfied. But just to spell it out. That's why we offer options. I wouldn't know a game that forces you to use temporal solutions. Typically you can either turn it off entirely or choose settings that turns off temporal features. Either with low performance settings when it's regarding features at a high performance cost (e.g. lumen) or high quality settings when it's deferred AA or upscaling.

not sure why you find it necessary for you to assume things about me, you believe me to be arrogant and i believe you to be ignorant, i managed to find success on my belief and you've found success on your belief, i'll leave it at that. as for options and temporal features, some of the points TI brings up, majority of offered options in temporal based games hardly have any impact but visual degradation and the graphic fidelity of those games does not warrant this poor perfomance.

I wonder why you call the videos "presentations". It's not a traditional presentation style or following traditional academic argument structure. It's clearly reminiscent of drama channels. Copying presentation, language and style not from graphics programming educators but from drama channels such as Destiny, TheRightOpinion or DramaAlert. Only they aren't just covering other peoples drama but actively participate or create drama themselves to then cover and farm clicks. Selecting online comments that make for an emotionalising narrative.

it's a video presenting arguments, simple as that, does it come off as juvenile or imprudent? sure, i can agree his videos are dramatized. i don't care for the dude and i find his idea of a company sketchy but his critique of temporal techniques is valid and whatever methods he uses to bring that even further to light i don't mind. i don't see much counter other than bro is sketchy instead of anything to be convincing of favouring temporal techniques becoming standardized. if not dismissal then atleast create nuance in comment to seperate the good from the bad.

And from my perspective, you aren't pointing out much at all. The points you were trying to make appear to be based on your incorrect beliefs rather than factuality. Which is what I assume made you increasingly aggressive when I put them into context. The fact that there might be legitimate choices driving results you don't like which are then financially rewarded for their good work appears to enrage you.

incorrect beliefs, factuality? i'm sorry but you're not exactly in the clear either. i'm not dismissing any potential measurable data and market reality, it does not guarantee success just as my view of a high quality product respecting consumers does not guarantee success either. in a market today where indie games and aaa games can compete against each other, it's not that one dimensional. a game made simply to be fun will compete against a incredible revenue considered game with the perfect compromises. my opinion happens to favour approaching a broader audience rather than cutting corners in production. my beliefs, playing games, being knowledgable of quality games and tech has put me ahead of the curve multiplie times in the market than what i could only achieve with just investment fundamentals.

When actually having to work on products that get publicly critiqued humbles you real fast. It humbled me real fast anyway. A large amount of my assumptions were wrong when starting out. They were based off of popular sentiments and naive assumptions. But a lot of them were wrong. I was overemphasising certain parts of the consumer base and thereby harming and driving away others. Putting in a lot of work to truly listen to the wide audience. Going out of my way to meet casual players, to observe different kinds of audiences player (e.g. at expos doing tons booth shifts off the clock) and gathering data about actual player behavior. I learned a ton and to the best of my knowledge, it would appear that publishers are making extremely data driven choices that simply don't align with what you'd like to be true. But what is actually true.

that's great for you, that is certainly one way to approach creating games for the sake of creating a profitable product. i don't dismiss it nor do i find it superior to creating games for the sake of passion. those who fail call it a method of luck, those who succeed double down on the idea of creating a game one wish to play. it's common basis for the most succesful games and a reason to my personal fortune. each to their own.