Not one that I think I would actually want, but one I’ve thought a lot about is absolute bodily autonomy in the same way that you can control any aspect of your body consciously but without deliberate thought then it’ll default back to unconscious control. Want to grow taller? Start kicking that system back into drive. Want to lose weight? Start absorbing energy less efficiently or burning more calories fruitlessly. Have a random pain? Start to monitor that area and sensing for any particular anomalies.

If the control can go all the way down to the microscopic level then you’d be a walking advancement factory for every medical field. The primary issue would be trying to make practical recreations of the medicines and procedures you’d help create, and even then you could try bioengineering cells to recreate your medicines and procedures. You’d also likely be able to effectively never age by correcting the errors in your cell reproduction. With enough time and effort you could probably spawn a clone of yourself to go out and continue to help others.

If you allow the caveat that this also works on anyone/anything that you can touch, then the limit for what you can cure or at least aid with is bound only by what you can touch, analyze, and solve in time.

Chun-Li definitely would.

Nightreign has essentially that with one of the bosses you can fight and it’s genuinely the worst boss in the game, imo. You spend 30-45 minutes building up a kit with your teammates only to be given a sword which is literally mandatory to damage the boss in phase 2. And even then basically all you do with it is charge up then fire off projectiles while the boss flies around in the sky. Easily the least interesting boss fight in the game.

That’s survivorship bias tainting your nostalgia. We collectively remember the passion poured into games like this but forget all of the the movie tie in games, cereal box games, unplayable tier of poorly made games, and games that were so mediocre to not even fall into the previous categories. Some of them get remembered but often more because of how exceptionally bad they were, such as E.T., Superman 64, Pepsiman, Phillips CDi LoZ, etc.

It’s easy to remember years like 1998 for games like LoZ OoT, Half Life, Spyro, StarCraft, Final Fantasy 7, Goldeneye 007, and DDR. It’s harder to remember the other 158 major titles released that year. While I don’t doubt there were at least some passionate people on the team of most if not every one of those titles, I’d sooner believe many of those titles were just being pushed out the door closer to release than they were passionate works from a team of faithful devs able to fully realize their vision.

I will agree that I think there’s a larger volume of no-passion games today that companies are just churning out to try to make a quick buck, but I think that’s more because it’s easier to do today than it was back in the day. I don’t think it’s because the devs of days past were more passionate about their titles. I will also agree that because of the aforementioned churned out titles that it can be harder to find titles made by truly passionate teams.

Source for my number of games released in 1998, by my own count as I didn’t see one listed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_in_video_games

Maybe I’m missing years of video game discourse but I don’t know what you’re talking about being alone on this hill. I’ve been using VR since the Google Cardboard and as long as you temper your expectations it’s been plenty fine since even all the way back then. The experiences on the Vive and Index are a bit clunky but otherwise I have fun with them every time I use them.

Tbh I’m in the opposite position. Don’t recall why or how, but I had BoF4 despite not being familiar with the rest of the series and still adore it. I recall once having tried out BoF3 but I didn’t get very far, likely had something else grab my attention so I just dropped BoF3 before giving it a proper chance.

Seeing several of these comments saying several people preferred it over 4 is making me think about giving it another shot.

Considering OP’s “KERPLOOIE SNOW” I’m pretty sure they’re aware of that and that was the joke.

Apparently “W” was originally written as “uu” as early as ~600AD, hence the name, however it still used Latin/Roman letters which hadn’t yet distinguished between u and v as letters. For at least 700 years, u and v appear to have been considered the same and interchangeable (so "Double U " could look like “uu” or “vv”) but it depends on your language whether it was verbally called a “U” or a “V” until the first recorded distinction between the two in a Gothic era alphabet written in 1386. The two apparently did still see some overlap in use until about the 1700s with the turning point appearing to be when the distinction between their capital forms was accepted by the French Academy in 1726.

tl;dr: “Double U” predates the distinction between “U” and “V” so it’s up to chance which letter a language called it before it stuck.