Link hasn't been female. Aside from a little video game mythology there's no reason for him not to be, and it'd make people who have had to play as a male character for 20+ years feel that much more excited about the next game without hurting anyone else.
Why does there need to be a reason beyond that?
I'm no feminist, but I think you've just argued against yourself there.
"WHAT?! CHANGE A CHARACTER THAT HAS NO IDENTIFIABLE REASON TO BE MALE?! WHAT NEXT?! THAT THEY'LL CHANGE CHARACTERS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE PERSONALITIES?!"
I mean, if there's no reason not to change it, and it might make people happy, there's no good reason not to offer it as an option.
But no, you're right, only the people you disagree with h...
Internet trolls are the worst. Full stop.
I'd be just as angry if it was exclusive to PlayStation. Nobody is disagreeing that it's a smart move for Microsoft; as I said in the article it basically makes Xbox One THE place to play Tomb Raider no matter what happens elsewhere.
It's a dumb move for Square Enix.
Why? Why are you happy now and wouldn't be if it was available on everything (as it should be)? Other than knowing there are a bunch of Tomb Raider fans who now won't ever play Rise of the Tomb Raider, what has changed?
@iamnsuperman
Oh yeah, I don't really see how it works out in terms of the future. It's just the only way this decision actually makes sense to me.
The reboot did well over 5 platforms and, what, a year and a half? Square are banking a lot on day one sales and that shiny feeling of being an exclusive.
Tomb Raider struggled at launch because of how much money Square put into marketing. I'm wondering if Microsoft has offered to cover the advertising on top of a basic fee. That'd make the at least 50% drop in sales worthwhile to them, because they wouldn't need such a long tail of sales to make the game profitable.
That makes sense to me, but it'll still kill the franchise long term.
@Kayant
Yeah, it was more about what went wrong with the launch and squashing rumours than it was promising anything big.
Honestly, I think he spent more time debunking what other people were making up than he did promising anything.
There was never any reason to think he was lying. I think most people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, considering that he wasn't claiming anything overly far-fetched (like most "insiders" make the mistake of doing).
That's not to say it's wrong to take everything he said with a pinch of salt though.
Yeah, it's a big seller, but a lot of people were asking why anybody would ever pay £170 for a game, even if it comes with a statuette.
Guess there's enough people out there who are happy to do so, and this proves it.
@thezeldadoth
I'm not sure we're in a place where we can say it'll perform better, not generally anyway.
Mod support would be a huge dealbreaker though, you're right.
@Ravensly
You're right, I misread the quote.
Usually I'd agree, but maybe not in this case. Since they're already saying it's made for consoles first, and that it's going to play very "console-y," I don't see how it'll be much better on PC, outside of maybe it having mod support and presuming the average person doesn't have a monitor that allows for above 1080p.
While that's a sucky problem, there's actually two teams working on the console/iOS updates. They could release the coolest PlayStation App ever and it wouldn't really have any direct effect on the PS4.
When they said surprise, I think they probably meant "Oh, the cardboard box is back... how utterly unexpected."
But, hey, if they want to break the internet, that'd be a hell of a thing to announce, huh?
It's a vastly overlooked feature for those of us in relationships. Same with having trophies pop for both accounts when playing co-op on PS4 - nobody seems bothered actually implementing it.
"but why should I read articles I don't like because of HOW they are written?"
You shouldn't. That doesn't mean those articles don't have value though.
"Consider the example from above again, if the author would have been able to state the misogyny aspect in a more accurate and less biased way, I might consider the article as worth reading."
See? What you're saying is it's a bad article because you ...
"So why is it that I have to be told how to read a review and not the author how to write it in the first place?"
Because you can't expect anybody to write specifically for you? Critics write about potential problems in the game, no games writer - with the exception of Jim Sterling, who plays the gaming community like a fiddle anyway (and look how many people say he's the "only trustworthy journalist") - is saying that their opinion is set in stone...
@Ezz
The writer doesn't have to be into the genre, so long as they can review it objectively. It makes no difference at all.
Funnily enough, I've worked with several sites that have internal writer's guides covering just that.
But then editors are willing to give their writers the benefit of the doubt, or know it's a big title and would rather publish sooner rather than later, or are caught up in the hype themselves and would have fired the writer if they'd given Bioshock Infinite anything less than a 10/10...
It's a mess, and I personally try not to work with s...
I like that way of looking at it, but I do wonder if we'd ever give any other game the benefit of the doubt in that way.