I'm not offended. The context about who rubecube is talking about is obvious. ResAlien then takes it further and applies the label to all "gamers". Straight from r/ChapoTrapHouse.
If you mean alt-right, misogynistic, homophobic, racist morons, call them out for it.
Apologies for having attacked your people. I thought saying “self identified gamers” would be clear enough but I was wrong. Yes just the pewdiepie defending ethics in gaming journalism losers is who I was referring to. Sorry.
haha I don't self identify as a "gamer". The problem is when you spread this nonsense on a non-dedicated board where not everyone knows that you aren't talking about *all* gamers.
At the very least, I now know I'm not as miserable as you. Have fun owning the gamers by defending million dollar corporations and buying crappy games with predatory microtransactions.
It's quite interesting to see the effectiveness of the strategy that game companies have adopted in the face of their actual controversies within the gaming community on non-hobbyists or casual video game players. I can only attribute it to motivated reasoning. I barely play any games myself, and even I notice the microtransaction model having changed the structure of major, popular titles even over the past few years.
The public relations strategy appears to be "these people complaining about our game design practices are all a bunch of neckbearded losers living in basements who are just upset that there aren't as many scantily clad women with large breasts on their screens anymore. Pay no mind to them, as we continue marketing tried-and-true addictive gambling concepts to children and teenagers. They can't go to a real casino yet, but they can buy loot boxes!"
It's exceptionally scummy and manipulative. Jim Sterling is a ranting weirdo "self identified gamer", exactly the sort of person who we're being asked to discount and ignore, but he's usually right (despite the hyperbole and dramatics).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 04-25-2019 at 11:48 AM.
It's quite interesting to see the effectiveness of the strategy that game companies have adopted in the face of their actual controversies within the gaming community on non-hobbyists or casual video game players. I can only attribute it to motivated reasoning. I barely play any games myself, and even I notice the microtransaction model having changed the structure of major, popular titles even over the past few years.
The public relations strategy appears to be "these people complaining about our game design practices are all a bunch of neckbearded losers living in basements who are just upset that there aren't as many scantily clad women with large breasts on their screens anymore. Pay no mind to them, as we continue marketing tried-and-true addictive gambling concepts to children and teenagers. They can't go to a real casino yet, but they can buy loot boxes!"
It's exceptionally scummy and manipulative. Jim Sterling is a ranting weirdo "self identified gamer", exactly the sort of person who we're being asked to discount and ignore, but he's usually right (despite the hyperbole and dramatics).
Rational people can possess the ability to both be critical of microtransactions and of the neckbeareded losers complaining about the increasingly inclusive representation of females in video games. Wild stuff, I know.
Rational people can possess the ability to both be critical of microtransactions and of the neckbeareded losers complaining about the increasingly inclusive representation of females in video games. Wild stuff, I know.
You first attributed review bombing for the game due to gamer bros being upset with MK's "progressive agenda" and following it up with "Actually now seeing people are also pissed off because it's an "always online" game, which is actually fair."
That was always the main criticism. Nobody takes the former party seriously.
You first attributed review bombing for the game due to gamer bros being upset and following it up with "Actually now seeing people are also pissed off because it's an "always online" game, which is actually fair."
That was always the main criticism. Nobody takes the former party seriously.
Rational, right?
The first 3 reviews I saw when I had posted that were bitching about SJWs. I clicked through and saw that there was more to it. Take it up with metacritic's algorithm. It's not like this is an isolated incident of gamer bros going full nerd rage about this stuff, nor was I attributing it to gamers as a whole but it seems to have struck a nerve with you.
The first 3 reviews I saw when I had posted that were bitching about SJWs. I clicked through and saw that there was more to it. Take it up with metacritic's algorithm. It's not like this is an isolated incident of gamer bros going full nerd rage about this stuff, nor was I attributing it to gamers as a whole but it seems to have struck a nerve with you.
By default these reviews are ordered from most helpful to least helpful. All the reviews you are complaining about are at the bottom of the list because they are the least helpful. Not even the people review bombing like them.
Apparently correcting misinformation is "striking a nerve". I'm just taking it too seriously, right?
I'm not sure what I said or how I said it that makes you think that, besides disagreeing with the groupthink on the previous page, but okay. I'll make sure to respond in all caps in the future just so I don't confuse myself.
Rational people can possess the ability to both be critical of microtransactions and of the neckbeareded losers complaining about the increasingly inclusive representation of females in video games. Wild stuff, I know.
That doesn't seem to be what's happening. Not surprisingly given the general lack of nuance in any subject that becomes political, people who are on the outside of the hobby create a monolithic representation of what they think being a "gamer" represents, and it's dominated by the caricature painted in the wake of gamergate.
Video game companies seem to have capitalized on this, playing up the "culture wars" aspects while downplaying the frankly evil, tobacco-companyesque business practices that currently drive the industry, often with the help of certain water-carrying "reviewers" who are essentially industry propagandists who could make the Oilers media blush.
Anyway, it's not my hobby, so I don't care if it's a totally screwed up subculture, aside from the exploitation of kids (and even there, first world problems etc etc). But it is interesting to see how easily the narrative is manipulated. It doesn't take a whole lot of time to pull back that veil, either, but understandably, unless it's a pastime you care about in more than a passing sense, you can't be arsed.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
By default these reviews are ordered from most helpful to least helpful. All the reviews you are complaining about are at the bottom of the list because they are the least helpful. Not even the people review bombing like them.
Apparently correcting misinformation is "striking a nerve". I'm just taking it too seriously, right?
Yeah, they were further down the page on my second viewing so I'm guessing they got usurped by the more helpful ones. Doesn't change the fact that the idiots making the SJW comments are complete dorks.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I'm not sure what I said or how I said it that makes you think that, besides disagreeing with the groupthink on the previous page, but okay. I'll make sure to respond in all caps in the future just so I don't confuse myself.
Here's a hint: In these kinds of discussions, the person accusing perceived opponents of "groupthink" is butthurt 100% of the time.
All I did is point out that the context of ResAlien and rubecube's comments were pretty obvious. And it's ridiculous that you've taken it upon yourself to represent all "gamers" and angrily rail against comments that were never directed against all gamers in the first place.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
That doesn't seem to be what's happening. Not surprisingly given the general lack of nuance in any subject that becomes political, people who are on the outside of the hobby create a monolithic representation of what they think being a "gamer" represents, and it's dominated by the caricature painted in the wake of gamergate.
I mean this is stereotyping is pretty standard for people who are on the outside of any subculture isn't it? If you're an adult fan of anime, pro-wrestling, comics, etc., you pretty much know that mainstream society thinks you're some kind of loser.
Quote:
Video game companies seem to have capitalized on this, playing up the "culture wars" aspects while downplaying the frankly evil, tobacco-companyesque business practices that currently drive the industry, often with the help of certain water-carrying "reviewers" who are essentially industry propagandists who could make the Oilers media blush.
I don't disagree with it, but to the people who are actually spending $ on the hobby, it's blatantly transparent.
All I did is point out that the context of ResAlien and rubecube's comments were pretty obvious. And it's ridiculous that you've taken it upon yourself to represent all "gamers" and angrily rail against comments that were never directed against all gamers in the first place.
You aren't trying to censor me. You are trying to make my position look invalid and blinded by emotion.
That you've taken my position as one where I'm trying to represent all gamers is asinine. I remarked a post literally calling "self-identifying gamers" as pathetic losers in a thread called "The Video Game Thread v3". So back off when you say the context was obvious.
However, I am familiar with ResAlien's posting style, his anti-gamergate shtick, and he wasn't mincing words.
All I was trying to do was point out that the real criticism for this game is the microtransactions. Yes, a tiny minority of "self identified gamers" are complaining and review bombing the game because of its politics. The vast majority are criticizing it for valid reasons.
CHL just worded it much more eloquently, but the party rallying against the game for political reasons and party trying to blame its poor metacritic score on entitled, butthurt gamers are equally invalid and embarrassing. It hurts the community, and developers just get away with these garbage microtransaction designs.
Hard to tell from that trailer if they added enough new content to replay a 100 hr game. I always hear good things about Persona 4 Golden but never played it since it only came out on the Vita. Wish they would re-make that for the PS4/PS5.