Well Jasmine you just drew the short straw. As a journalist myself I really try to defend an individual who writes a piece giving their opinion as they are attacked by their readers. I really can't do that here though, as every comment you have received appears to be an entirely justified response to your article.

I can't tell if you are really this ignorant about your own subject matter or if you are just trolling for views. Though it is true that negative attention is still a form of attention why would you want it?

The name of your article itself speaks volumes about your misrepresentation of the community of gamers. That is only the beginning though is it not?

1. "any self respecting gamer" Your title basically says agree with me if you wish to respect yourself, and consider yourself a "self respecting gamer." This isn't an "opinion" piece, you write your "opinion as if it is a fact.

Not to mention both within your article and in your responses you write here you have contradicted yourself, and acted as a hypocrite on more then one occasion.

You cite Modern Warfare 3 in a "how dare they" sense. How dare they claim their game offers the DEFINITIVE MULTIPLAYER experience? Right back at you, how dare you claim that your "opinion" holds so much weight so as to discredit any who disagree?

I can tell you with absolute certainty that the type of things you wrote in this article? Were you not working on your own site could very well get you removed from a team of writers. You more or less state (and then take back and or contradict) MULTIPLE times, agree with me if you are how did you put it? Assuming you are smart, and have excellent taste. Which also says agree or you aren't.

You make some interesting points in the article, the content isn't what discredits you, it is the way in which you present it as if your opinion is a fact, and the offensive (though possibly unintentional unless you are just trolling for views again I can't tell for sure) nature with which you do so.

You need to be called out on a few things as well, only because since you consider yourself a self respecting gamer, and wouldn't make these kind of mistakes were you truly in tune with your community you claim to represent so strongly.

Assassins Creed (1) - What the heck is this supposed to mean? Is Assassin's Creed 2, Brotherhood or Revelations called just Assassin's Creed? Why bother mentioning the 1? That is it's actual name it is apparent enough without it. Furthermore why put Sid Meier's name in ( ) is there another Civilization Revolution you fear we may confuse the title with? Finally Kane & Lynch 2, the only reason I bother mentioning this is that nothing I have said in this paragraph would bear any relevance whatsoever without pointing out that when mentioning every other title you gave very specific additions to titles that didn't require them, yet left them off here in Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days.

This comment isn't meant to rag on you but to inform, thus I also find it necessary to point out an obvious unfortunate bias here. To the half dozen people who have commented on how you disagree with him, or he is wrong or whatever. The writer is a girl. Though I disagree with her representation of "gaming criteria" or whatever this article is meant to imply. It is unfortunate that a video game journalist is automatically assumed to be a man. I apologize for that on behalf of my fellow gamers.

Again you make some good points in the article, but the way you went about doing so, destroyed any good points mentioned. Everyone got heated about your opinion as fact generalizations, and you lost all credibility.

although assassins creed 1 was repetitive its still a great game and one of my favorites of my collection

Wow.

Someone missed the whole point of Brink. Comparing the multiplayer to the single player? They were intended to be the same thing. Knock the game for being short on content, but it's kind of stupid to knock it for implementing an idea, that in itself, isn't bad.

I didn't think the game was that bad either. I got the platinum trophy and had fun along the way. I probably had more fun with it than some of the "good" shooters out there. It's biggest problem was that nobody played it. If it had a decent community, it probably would have been a lot more fun.

As for this...

"I most certainly did not pay £40 notes on a game that is essentially team deathmatch with an offline mode tacked on as an afterthought."

Let's just call the multiplayer mode which has more features, content, replayability, and modes than practically every other multiplayer game out there "essentially team deathmatch." You don't have to like it, but give it the credit it deserves. Few games come close to matching Call of Duty content-wise.

While we're at it, why do people seem to always ignore the co-op missions and survival mode? That's my favorite portion of the game.

Wait... does this mean I shouldn't respect myself as a gamer? Aw dang.

The author and I have different tastes in games, cause in my opinion none of those are bad games.

While I wouldn't recommend Brink to anyone cause it seems a majority of people hate it, I will say I really enjoyed it and have no buyer's remorse after getting it day 1.

It's only 1 of 4 platinum trophies I felt like it was worth getting.

I disagree with Assassin's Creed 1, but agree with the fact that the 3 to follow are all better than it.

For MW3, I enjoyed the Single Player campaign, but the multiplayer player didn't really do it for me. I'm back to playing Black Ops for multiplayer

Sweet, another author, article and website off my list.

Next!!!

Blocked the site. -_-

Disagree.

Can't say I agree with any of those choices.

I have tried four of them and own two of them.
And what self-respecting gamer skips the first Assassin's Creed? I'll just keep playing whatever I want... Battle-Cars and Prinny.

If you should ignore or skip any Assassin's Creed, it should be Revelations. Revelations was just boring to me. Ezio didn't have anything to do with the city he was in, he was just kind of there while the struggle belonged to somebody else.

AC1 was a great game. Sure it pales in comparison to 2 and Brotherhood but it still shouldn't be skipped.

I don't know about you but I'm having a lot of fun with MW3. Just because I play MW3 doesn't make me less of a gamer than the next guy. I also play Mario, Tetris, WarioWare, Final Fantasy, all oldschool and new. Heck just recently I bought and played the "first" Mario Kart on the SNES.

Some people just have to understand that, just because you play CoD, doesn't make you less of a gamer. Real gamers have fun with what they're playing rather than being fanboys.

Besides, when I respect people, I base them on what their personality is like, and what they do. Not what games they play. Sheesh

This article would be number one in an article entitled 5 Articles Every Self-Respecting Gamer Should Avoid.

lol fail

This article is "controversial" just for the sake of site hits. Let's not lie to ourselves.

Ugh...I'm so bored of the bashing on MW3.

We get it people you don't like the game but millions of others do. Can we move the fuck on?

There are much worse games than all the ones liste on there.

I seen Assassins Creed in the tag and didn't even bother clicking link

Wow. Just another site I will add to the "Not a chance" list as far as interesting content and unbiased opinions...

assassins creed is one of my favorite games.... screw this site..

I've played ALL of those games.

revolution was awesome on the consoles.. i thought it would be a mess, but its a solid 8-9 game. very well done. m

So should we just skip the first AC game that builds the context and the main foundations through which the sequels were developed and jump right into the second game without having absolutely no idea about the origin of the story?

It's true that the second game and the following sequels are better than the first game in terms of variety in gameplay but they still owe their success to the first game as it established the bare basics and the outline of the story which was quite unique and intellectually challenging, and thus the first one, not only for introducing such a creative and complex story and paving the way for some of the best games in the video games history but also for being one of the first true next-gen games in terms of graphics and overall world desing, needs to be well respected and acclaimed.

People are racist weirdos. I hate em. Also Ubisoft bending the knee for racist says something about Ubisoft... You care what racists think about your product!?!?

If they're too cowardly to do it because of internet backlash, they really aren't the ones to do it

Ughhh 🤢

Ubisoft afraid of incels with no life is so sad. Let the KKK cry harder. Waaaa! Let the racist cry, and bring it out. I love me some Wolfenstein and mowing through Nazis. It's a fun satisfaction.

What happened to controversy creating cash? You don't make all-time games by playing it safe.

This would have been funny....too bad.

The industry is very risk averse. It's been that way for quite some time. You get a few people still bucking convention, but it's not the industry standard we had that died off somewhere in the seventh generation.

The idea sounds interesting, but at the end of the day, I don't have it in me to play yet another Assassin's Creed game. A better move than Yasuke, I would say.

It’s because maga don’t want you killing their good old boys.

Just reading the comments about the game from folks on N4G I can safely say, good call Ubisoft!

but having 100s of ww2 and nazi themed games out is A-ok ha

but im glad that America aint the only country in the world. even tho one might say it is ha

Imagine cancelling the one game that actually would've put you in the good graces of gamers, but instead you create even MORE controversy on top of the giant amount you already had.

There is literally NOTHING wrong with this premise but apparently Ubisoft isn't smart enough to know that.

It's very ironic that they make a game where a black samurai that his existence have been debunked over and over again in the past few years with the scam of that historians book. But feel like they will be criticized for depicting the a place and time where black people were suffering and fighting for their lives and freedom. Companies will shoehorn characters but back off when it comes to their logical place