Not owning a PS3 doesn't make someone's claim of representing gamers fall flat. How someone would think it does makes no sense. Also, from what I've seen, he does put in a decent amount of research; more than most reviewers on the "journalist" sites like IGN.
John Marston's death in Red Dead Redemption choked me up, but didn't make me cry. Same thing with Ezio's final speech at the end of Revelations, The Warden's funeral in Dragon Age: Origins, and the ending of MGS4
Thane's funeral in ME3's "Citadel" DLC and the final confrontation with The Boss in MGS3 were the only two I can think of that got me to really tear up.
Many like to stay narrow-minded and stick to extremes; if they opened their minds a bit, they would see that many of those they called sexist are speaking in terms of it being difficult to relate to the main character because the way their mind connects to the game is akin to a form of role-playing; they guy is trying to put himself into the shoes of the main character.
However, if the other side opened their mind a bit then maybe the market wouldn't be so saturated with ...
Same here; it's very refreshing to play a game where the main character kicking everyone's butt around is a woman for once rather than "bad-ass male marine #7654".
Not really, PS3 still does but barely. You cannot compare a game that just released to a game that released a couple years ago when it comes to graphics. It just means that the PS3 fanboys going on about how PS3 keeps going forward in graphics while ignoring that the XBox is as well are nothing more than blind fanatics.
"XBox is the worst console ever"
Guessing you've never tried playing Nintendo's Virtual Boy console; that is far more worth that title than the XBox is considering it is actually, you know, a quality console that is surpassed by an even better quality console.
"Three generations ahead of XBox"
Yeah, clearly another blind fanboy. PS3 is a great console, but it isn't THAT far ahead of XBox.
EDIT: Nvm; commented on wrong topic
Male gamers are barely in the majority by a percentage that is in the teens at the extreme highest nowadays, so you can't really say we dominate the market. No, women did not only care about those things; women can, do, and always have cared about the same things men do and vice-versa; believing otherwise shows a lack of understanding of how both men and women think.
Who is demonizing the industry or men? At most (from what I've seen), all they're doing is demandi...
I think he is calling the reasoning ("games with male protagonists sell better") behind why they're turning down the idea of a female protagonist strange due to how iconic and popular Lara Croft is. Meaning they basically have no real reason beyond being blind to what their customers actually like.
Which is why I often refer to those games as Square games as opposed to Square Enix games; not long after their acquisition of Enix, they began sucking (especially after 10).
Props where they're due, though; they've been doing pretty well as a publisher when you consider Sleeping Dogs, Hitman: Absolution, Deus Ex: HR, and Tomb Raider. The games they publish are good or great, while it seems the ones they develop suck now.
I thought they were biased towards whoever is pulling out a checkbook?
So long as the game is competently done. It needs to be written very carefully, with the making of the writing, characters, and the game world being very focused on maintaining internal consistency with previous titles. If done right, internal consistency can actually make the game a far more personal and intimate experience.
Anything to make PC elitists feel better about themselves while making mature PC gamers feel embarrassed by the elitists.
@Eyeco
A studio other than R* North made RDR, I think it was San Francisco iirc. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't their only game done on PC for this and most of last gen been GTA? I don't recall seeing any of their other games on PC.
Saints Row's narrative and things like that are merely different enough to distinguish themselves from each other. SR is more about just being silly and playful with it's comedy, while GTA is more about being satirical and realistic with it's own. When you get down into the game itself, the two are pretty much identical.
It's more like "I gotta choose between Playstation All Stars and Super Smash Bros!"; identical at their heart, but with just enough...
Two reasons why I'll pass on it:
1- SR3's biggest draw was purple dildos while SR2's was the silliness perfectly balanced with serious and good writing; SR4 being released barely a year and a half after, plus the fact that they made a SR3 DLC into SR4 instead, shows it will be more of the same (if you're realistically optimistic).
2- Grand Theft Auto 5. Rockstar is going to wind up pounding Volition into the dirt and past a few layers of crust...
I would say "many", not "most" as it is likely just most of the gamers you personally have met. Many have no real personality or style, while many others do.
Maybe if it wasn't just over one year since SR3 released and if SR3 didn't completely suck in comparison to SR2.
Not a single game I've played had a single instance of misogyny, and I've played close to 100 games from this generation alone. Sure, I've seen some pretty bad characterizations of women (usually overly fixating on stereotypes) AND of men but never have I seen misogyny or misandry.
Maybe people need to stop incorrectly assuming everything is misogynistic when they don't know the damn word. Crack a dictionary before using a word you don't know, or prepare t...
I was not interested in SR4 after SR3. SR4 details came out, made me more disinterested; and this has made me even more so.
If anything, Volition is at least consistent in how they run their biggest franchise into the ground.