It's not about my, or your, political views. It's about the logic of banning a site which frequently creates content that attracts people to come here and comment.
You know, folks that run these sites tend to like making money.
And, in the time honoured tradition, if you don't like it, go and make your own news aggregation site (hookers and blackjack, optional)
Kotaku has nearly 5 times as much traffic as this site does. If that is considered to be 'nothing of value', then where does that leave N4G and its community?
Maybe your belief that your view is the consensus on this site, is due to a combination of those who disagree with you just don't see the value in speaking up or they've left this site.
Personally, If I was running a site like this, I wouldn't want to ban sites purely on editorial content bec...
I shudder to wonder how you think the 'real world works'.
I'm not going to judge my opinions based on the amount of likes and dislikes of the comment section on N4G. There's a reason this place has been seen as a joke for years.
So, you're suggesting all the articles are written purely to generate traffic from 'real' gamers to complain about? None from people who hold this as some sort of opinion.
And, sorry, but one moron being an 'edgy' blogger doesn't invalidate either my, your or anyone el...
It's hard to believe we still need these articles...
If it's not catering to their idea of fantasy and escapism, wouldn't you suggest it's perfectly within someones right to complain?
If you don't agree with them, fine, but the fact this issue continually comes up suggests that a sizeable portion of gamers feel this way.
Firstly, let's assume Kotaku were 'caught lying for clicks'. You've responded by writing a sanctimonious article based on it for your own clicks, rather than do any of your own fact-checking - you're just as culpable.
Secondly, what's worse is none of your updates actually seem to come from anyone with any authority. So, instead of clarifying anything, the waters are just muddied a little further.
Those articles -in particular the Leigh Alexander one- were actually directed to developers/publishers/gaming press and telling them that their audience isn't, and never was, limited to those negative stereotypes and they should reflect that in the way they address them.
Sheesh, you've had a year and a half to actually read the thing.
According to metacritic;
95 out of 101 critic reviews are positive.
126 out of 151 user reviews are positive.
That's hardly 'entirely split'. I don't think most people are arguing that this isn't a good game, just the choice of platform and timing of its release.
I believe, whoever wrote the article is misunderstanding the quotes from Rare.
They were actually refering to why Rare haven't been making 'proper' games and focusing on Kinect stuff, and not that Rare had single handedly strong-armed Microsoft into forcing the Kinect onto systems.
I doubt there was a boardroom scene at Microsoft where some top exec said, 'so, we've crunched the numbers, done the market research on Kinect and it seems to be a bit i...
@Dragonknight
Every Street Fighter game has had a Teen rating (bar one, which was an E). Maybe Capcom want to keep attracting a new audience to their game and keep the franchise afloat, rather than rely on the more traditional 'gamer', who, if comments sections on sites like this are anything to go by, are fickle and likely to choose not to support something they've enjoyed greatly for years for purely cosmetic changes.
@Dragonknight
So, apparently, some SJWs were bothered about a butt-slap and are powerful enough to get a huge multi-national company to change the content of one of its games, despite their being no evidence of any sort of campaign apart from a few disgruntled comments on a selection of websites, and yet these all-powerful SJWs didn't get them to cover up Mikas' boobs or change Cammys attire. Two can play that game, LOL!
http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
As mentioned in the interviews from this thread, Capcom changed the game to make sure they got a Teen rating from the ESRB, not from external pressure from any mythical group of 'SJW's. Because if they didn't it would impact sales.
Same reason that countless other games and movies over the years have been similarly edited.
You'll be banging your head against a wall on this site. I'm sure some believe the entire world is controlled by a small army of 'SJW's who are given full autonomy to edit games before they're released.
You know, rather than Capcom saying, 'hmm, this risks alienating a section of our potential audience, if we change it subtly, hopefully, we can improve sales.'
You're forgetting the original FFVII had astronomical development costs in relation to the other games at the time.
For instance, the original Tomb Raider in '96 was developed by 6 people in a year and a half. The 2013 reboot took about 3 years with hundreds working on it - more when you take into account motion capture, voice acting, etc.
Or, the original Crash Bandicoot game had a budget of $1.7 million. Uncharted 2's was about 20 million.
Where the f*** are Sony pointing a gun to your head and saying 'this is the only way you can play Rogue Galaxy, et al, from now on?'
You still have the same options you previously had, using an old PS2 - for which the game was written - or the original PS3 (which including extra chips and COST MORE).
Sony are saying that this is the best way for them to offer the chance to play some old PS2 games on the PS4. It's not something to get mad about, it just is.
...
Embargoes aren't just about keeping the paying public from finding out a game's bad until it's too late. They're also there from a marketing stand point.
Controlling the timing the reviews can come out, means they'll all hit at around the same time. So, when folks come to sites like this, they'll see a page full of reviews. If they're all 8s, 9s and 10s, suddenly that game you were undecided about becomes a much more attractive proposition.
It might...
How do you, and the chap from the video, know it isn't better ?
All you're going off with the demo is a small slice of controlled gameplay, which was designed to show off a certain mechanic.
How do you know with any certainty that that would have worked across the entire game?
I'd suggest the main reason for this collection coming out, is for people who missed it on PS3 to catch up on the story before 4. Uncharteds big selling point has always been its single player, and they don't want potential buyers of 4 turned off because they think they might be missing something if they didn't play the earlier games.
"And as you pointed out, Kotaku's site traffic is much larger than N4G's (at least according to you), so not being on N4G would not suddenly stop making Kotaku money, it would simply make Kotaku less money"
Firstly, it's according to Alexa, not me.
Secondly, I'm not talking about Kotakus ability to make money, I'm talking about N4Gs.
Saying 'we're a news aggregation site for gamers' and then blocking one of the larger sites doe...