What is with this article title?
Yeah exactly this. There's nothing to the idea that BioWare is "blaming pirates" for the problems with Mass Effect.
The Polygon story is about BioWare addressing incorrect information that was circulating about who worked on the game. If you think that's "blaming GamerGate" that's...an interesting perspective.
And you said they are "blaming piracy" for the game being a buggy mess. This article isn't about that at all. It's about pirates not getting a game update, which is standard practice.
When did they blame gamers or piracy? All I've seen is BioWare taking responsibility for the state of the game and releasing updates, like this one, which improve it.
He's an interesting twist on the Krogan formula, and different from Wrex and Grunt in some important ways.
Death threats are not covered by free speech protections.
A "good" title should 1) Accurately describe the content of the article and 2) Bring in views to the article, if you want to mean "good" in a business sense. This title does both.
The article is clearly opinion and even the word "good" can ONLY ever be an opinion. Changing the title to be longer and more awkward shouldn't be necessary for anyone who has ever encountered any written editorial content.
Yeah, I understand why people want to just wave this criticism off, but if you actually read the specific examples and look at the video...those are real things that are really in the game, that could clearly be better than they are.
To be totally fair, the first few hours of Dragon Age: Inquisition are the worst part of that game too, and can be confusing and frustrating in the same way it sounds like Andromeda might be. So there's totally a chance the game gets better after the initial learning period is done, and the author mentions that repeatedly.
Sure, more views and longer play-times will give us a more complete answer. Absolutely. But lots of people in these comments are just waving this criticism away like it's nothing, from some random site looking for attention. That's not what this is.
This article gives me more reason to be concerned than a random user review, is all I'm saying. But of course, wait and see.
Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a legit site that has a long history of good takes and really cares about PC gaming. It's worth looking into who they are before dismissing this article.
It would be good for you to read the article. The distinction between "toy" and "tech" made in the article is more one of marketing and production, not of the nature of the device itself.
The article also, ultimately, concludes that Nintendo's strategy isn't necessarily a bad thing.
There is a single "winner" for gaming disappointment of the year, and several runners up. The title is written correctly.
A large part of the No Man's Sky section of the article discusses the update and how it improved things, and how the disappointment is really more of a problem of marketing and PR and community engagement, rather than fundamental issues with the game itself.
Scores have been a part of game reviews since the very earliest days, haven't they? So maybe it's Metacritic, but it isn't "scores" that are the problem?
Blizzard is doomed for sure.
We were having weird HTML issues that wasn't showing the full rock list... but it's listed now, including the Judas Priest track.
It's "valid" in the sense that it's a company looking to make more money, and deciding that it can make it happen.
The new MST3K episodes are fine and fun and the goober kid from Star Trek is on screen for literally less than a minute of a single episode.