I find it kind of weird that this is framed like a novel solution and discovery process when this has existed since the early 2000’s in other tactical FPS games.
Did the author do no research into the competition/precursors before going down this path?
Riot has a habit of doing this. See their "technical blog" about their reworked League Client where they basically reinvented Electron but worse. The client is still heavily complained for its poor performance and stability by the playerbase years since.
I don't disagree with you, but Valorant is the first and only FPS played by millions of people, so I can see why its presented this way. The vast majority of the audience has no prior art context, so Riot can get away with it :)
I have to assume that what you mean by this is "for millions of people, Valorant will have been their first and only FPS."
That may well be true! The knee-jerk response you're getting from others is because your statement sounds like you're saying "no other FPS game has ever had a million+ players."
Pretty sure overwatch got millions in its hey day. Not to mention call of duty, counter strike and the many clones of COD/CS. Though I'm not sure if the likes of Free Fire concern itself too much with the purity of competition.
I wonder if pay to win elements reduce the number of cheaters? Some of these CS clones have equipments you can buy in the lobby that offer smaller hitboxes, higher health, better gun etc. Would that offer enough convenience/highs for these people to not stoop to hacking?
Did the author do no research into the competition/precursors before going down this path?
Did they lie to make it seem more impressive?
Whatever the case, it’s odd.