It feels like a good Rare Xbox title from 2005 or 2006 in terms of camera controls and how it feels. It could be smoother, yeah, but in all honesty I think the people who criticize it like they do forget just how clunky the camera really was with Banjo-Kazooie and other Rare titles on the N64. Love those games to this day but that camera still gives me the skids...

*glares at Jet Force Gemini*

A couple other questoins:

1. Does the music loop properly, or does it end and then restart? (Listening to part of the soundtrack on YouTube, the music ends, but does that happen in the game?)

2. In Banjo-Kazooie and other N64 Rare platformers, the music would smoothly change instrumentation when you go into different parts of the level. (For example, if you go underwater, the instrumentation changes to harps, but the music otherwise continues from where it left off.) Does this happen in Yooka-Laylee?

The problem with a company being political is that a company is not just one person. The higher-ups who make the decision are responsible for the well-being of everyone in their employ, from the janitor to the CEO. The choices they make affect everyone and usually it's the people on the bottom who get the axe when the company isn't making profit as it should.

Of course being 100% apolitical is impossible; a company making solar panels will of course promote the benefits of solar energy, that is to be expected. But there is also political involvement that has absolutely nothing to do with the company itself. You will have a company like Mozilla virtue-signal how they support gay people, but to this day they have not implemented the outline algorithm. Because fuck blind people and assistive technologies, where you put your genitals has sooo much to do with how you use your web browser. It's just a smoke screen to distract from the real issues, and that's what's pissing me off.

I'm calling BS on that. Do you have a link or is this just a game of telephone. As for racial purity, there is a good reason for that: despite all the "one race, the human race" chanting, genetic distance is a real thing. Mixed-race people for example have a very hard time finding matching organ donors because their parents are closer related to some stranger on the street than their own child. There was a while ago the "Match for Lara" campaign because a half-Italian, half-Thai woman just could not find a matching donor for bone marrow.
http://www.match4lara.com/
You really have to think hard if you are willing to put your children though such a risk. We can all hold hands and sing song all day long, but sooner or later reality will hit us. Now am I a racist for saying that? Are you going to be judge, jury and executioner all in one?

You better get out of here with that honest, constructive review speak. I believe you're looking for a gaming thread. This here is a political thread.
/s

But in all honesty, just by stating I purchased this game my rep has tanked. I wish people could simply focus on games. They're meant to be fun, and honestly I think many of us play them to "take a break" from the real world and its business. It's too bad a few people are feeling the need to bring that here.

Leftist views are never political opinions: they're facts. Global warming is not a few, it's a "scientific consensus, therefore fact" (let's ignore both that it's not a consensus, and also that science and reality are not a democracy). It's a fact that religion is the root of all evil, too, because no one was killed in the name of any other ideology, like communism[/sarcasm].

Oh, in case anyone's wondering, JonTron's "racist statement" was how he was "incorrectly" quoting scientific data. Racism is implying a particular race is better than another. However, quoting facts about a race is not racist: they're fact. Otherwise, it'd be racist for me to say that "on average, people from the continent of Africa have darker skin than those from Europe." Data points to correlations, not causation. If you have a statement about the data, or how to solve it, and it's an issue that affects the people at large, yes it's political.

And let me go out on a limb here: where does free speech end? Is not the case for free speech to let idiots talk so that they expose their own opinions for what they are, so they can ultimately destroy their own argument, but then people with good ideas that go against the grain would have the opportunity for their opinions, which are good, to gain enough traction? That's the point of a republic, right? Everyone has a nice long conversation about any given issue, the ones with the stupid ideas shoot off their mouths and get ignored, while those with good ideas get a platform. Under that premise, as horrible as racism is, should it not too be protected and go under the banner of political speech? Why punish someone for a bad idea? I'm sure you have plenty, too, but your bad ideas are not the flavor of the week for execution.

The fact that we're talking about this is due to the fact that we felt so, too, until the company said they want this product to play by different rules. Most of my favorite games take stances in active opposition to my positions, but they still welcome my purchase and do not attack me personally: like Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. I'm a registered Republican, and that game comes right out and bashes Republicans with it's in game "Robert Thorn" advertisements. However, like i said, they aren't actively bashing their customers, so there's no need for a boycott or a long discussion about how it's a leftist game where the developers clearly lean towards conservative ideals, but don't realize it. We don't really have a thread on that, that i'm aware of, and the reason is because the many companies behind it didn't feel the need to actively make their product and company a political statement, but, rather, they were side jokes in the game. What's going on here is completely different: these guys are making politics the face of their own product right before release.

Actually, it is a scientific consensus.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&oldid=775295657

solar panels -> green energy -> OK
wheelchairs -> disabled people -> OK
games -> hidden political agenda -> NOPE

Thank you for illustrating my point. As i said before, neither science nor reality are a democracy, but i'll delve into this, anyway. Government owned. Anyone who does not agree, often does not get recognized. The studies cited are fairly unclear on their selection process. For example, the first study, rather than asking direct doctorate holders around the globe (like the petition project), they're basing it on published articles (and, these are politically motivated). We don't even know how these were selected, from where these about 12,000 articles came from, or really anything. Outside of the fact that wikipedia, also, is known to have moderators that are politically motivated and will selectively delete facts, we have the standard argument of anyone being able to edit at any time. Don't get me wrong, wikipedia is good, but if you're going to make an argument, don't cite wikipedia.

Meanwhile, scientific studies show that carbon dioxide consistently follows (not precedes) rising temperatures. Though, that would probably be a strawman, since the argument is that man caused global warming, not necessarily how man caused global warming. However, i think it's safe to imply this is where this would be going. Your source addresses this (and i'm drastically paraphrasing, here) by saying that CO2 causes global warming as well as being a result of global warming, therefore causing a snowball effect. Given that the planet enters ice age from a high enough concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (hence, the left supported opposite theory that our coal burning will lead to an ice age, however it was abandoned when the data said it is getting warmer) and the fact that H2O contributes more to global warming than CO2 (also a verifiable fact), i'm inclined to declare that this is a cop-out, and, at best, they're saying that there's not enough data to prove CO2 leads to global warming. TL;DR: refutation of the data saying CO2 cools, rather than heats, relies on circular logic.

You guys realize this is still a video game release thread, yes? Maybe make a thread to discuss global climate, or whatever else strikes your fancy? Just a thought.

The front page banner for this is already gone? :/

It's a thread for a leftist game, by a game company that went out of it's way to mistreat it's backers over political views. It has earned this disrespect. This game is a great example of game companies being out of touch with their customers. It also represents the downsides of crowdfunding software, even if it does work for other titles This game is no longer banjoe Kazooie 2.0, it's now a representation of peoples' hopes and dreams loosing their luster once they realize their childhood heroes have no decency for them. This is the 90s gamer equivalent of the beliebers getting spat on by Justin Beiber.

Funny thing, that. Judging by the reviews of the people who are actually playing Yooka-Laylee, and not spending their time engaging in ridiculous interbutts drama, the game is very much a worthy successor to Rareware's classic N64 titles, and aside from minor shortcomings, meets most of the expectations Banjo-Kazooie fans had for it.

Of course, in order to appreciate that, you'd have to focus on the actual game, not the random bullshit surrounding it. Priorities and all that. But I guess internet witch hunts and forum flame wars can be a fun hobby too. *shrug*

Well said.

The same can be said of the remaining beliebers as well.

I don't really like the new duo and characters as much as the ones in Banjo-Kazooie.
I think they aren't nearly as charming and memorable if not even a little annoying.
It just gives me the impression that they wanted to make Banjo characters without really making Banjo characters, because they don't own the IP.