I wonder what the criteria for being 'relevant' actually is ? Obviously, an inconsequential blogger and some no-name commentors are allowed to hold opinions but not a group of lads who've made a career of putting their own opinions to music.. ?
I wonder if the author understands what irony is ?
You numpties above do realise she's talking about being more savvy about getting attention for games which don't fall into the typical genres like fps, tps, etc.
She's talking about indie games like papers, please and games like Katamari Damacy. Games which are hard to describe using traditional methods.
But, hey, it's on Vice and there's a Womans' picture at the top...
Where in the article does it mention GG or absolutely anything to do with it?
@imalwaysright
Yet, you're here, clicking on the story, commenting on it, and generating heat for it. Which will help get it more attention and be seen by more people - some of whom will watch the video.
As well as being completely irrelevant to the actual video. It's quite impressive that the mere mention of her name has such power.
@tinynuggins.
All manner of things. Operating sytems, internet browsers, media players.
Look up 'Microsoft litigation' on wikipedia and you'll be there for hours.
You realise while some of you are fighting pitch battles and defending each game as if your life depended on it, Druckmann and the folks at Crystal Dynamics probably had a quick chuckle and then got on with their lives.
It's a big deal about PDP because he was the only one named by the FTC in their report. They mentioned others were also at fault but they weren't named.
I'd suggest it was, in part, the FTCs way of warning smaller youtubers about what the rules are by making him and WB an example.
Or, you could say, the previous games were good games and considering bikinis and suchlike weren't a major factor in that success, why is not having them in this game causing him such a concern ?
Is he really worried about 'SJW's, or is he trying to get publicity for a franchise which has fallen out of the public eye since its peak in the PS1/2 era ?
Maybe if you made a better fighting game, people wouldn't give a s**t about what the fighters are wearing?
Or maybe, since more allegedly 'objectionable' content has come out unedited, he should look to his own publisher for censoring him (or more likely, adding it later as paid DLC and using this to drum up publicity by winding up the whiney-kids who think someones stealing their cartoon boobs)
When did gaming suddenly become so full of self-righteous, sanctimonious muppets ?
Every day there seems to be another tedious flurry of outrage about some imagined or innocuous sleight against the great god, gaming.
You know what. It's a side by side squashed up video on youtube. It's not a fair graphics comparison for either platform. But then, maybe that's why the video is titled, "Overwatch PS4 v PC GAMEPLAY comparison" ?
"And to dismiss metacritic's hold on the livelihood of developers as "not their problem" implies they are ignorant to the whole thing. Metacritic are purposely vague about the weight they put behind sites"
But there's the rub. If you were a suit for a multi-million pound publisher, making decisions that could affect the livelyhood of your staff and company, would you really put your faith in statistics which have little merit, because you have no...
I think the whole mess is just another example of gaming needing to grow up.
Metacritic, like any other similar site (e.g. rotten tomatoes), isn't beholden to any developer or publisher. How they choose to rate games is entirely up to them.
There's nothing to stop us setting up Lookatallthesescores.com tomorrow, and decide rather than aggregating the actual scores sites give games, we use our own 'secret algorithm' (involving throwing darts at a boa...
I wouldn't bother.
I mean, most normal folks can understand that it's fairly easy to confuse the two slivers, especially if you use the controller most of the time. It's easy to forget.
But then, the original article was on Polygon, which means a lot of muppets feel duty-bound to poop on it from a great height, no matter how innocuous it actually was.
@jb227
It can 'allude to', Justin saying he's played some of the game, but he's not far enough into to feel he can judge it fairly, unlike the reviewer who has played it, in depth, for a lot longer - and according to said review, completed it.
I.e. It's not a statement regarding the review, it's him excusing himself from giving a more thorough opinion because he doesn't feel he's played it enough, yet.
What peurile dross.
Please note, should this blog get pulled it'll be because;
a: it's a rambling, incoherent mess, trying in vain to pull together disparate points to unveil some greater truth.
b: this is a gaming site and the mods have repeatedly told folks to take this bs elsewhere.
i.e. nothing to do with 'freedom of speech'
Except he made the comments before he started working for Nintendo according to the article.
So, it's stated that he wrote these tweets before he joined Nintendo (Not that the game actually has anything to do with Nintendo other than appearing on their platform - the games have featured on Playstations as well.)
So, basically, it's a bloke having an opinion about something and some folk have taken exception to it. I can't see where the problem is supposed to lie.
You make it sound like the only reason this is a story is because some internet numpties have spent the last two years digging and digging, trying to find almost anything to make her look bad, failed, and so tried to spin something inconsequential into the crime of the decade...
But, it's not about her, it's about ethics in video game journalism...