15820 réponses à ce sujet

[FKA_Servo]

That's not even mentioning their pseudo articles that resemble personal blogs, barely related to gaming, if at all. There's countless Patricia Hernandez articles. Such as "How I Became The Victim of Child Molestation" wherein she claimes a one year old raped her, as well as "Why Was There No Women In The Opening Scene Of 'Saving Private Brian'?" Even the gaming related ones are ridiculous, like "Should Killing Female Gamers In online Games Be Considered Rape?" It's all clickbait rubbish, and the fact that people like her even have a job at a major gaming site should be setting off alarm bells in people's heads.

 

Seems like every one of these articles you mention is a photoshopped joke article. None of them are actually real. It appears there's even a know your meme page dedicated to them. Interesting - and a little cringey - seeing how credulous you guys actually are.

 

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" I suppose.

 

Late edit: because I remembered that one of this movement's formative events, the Kotaku review of Depression Quest, which you also mention in your post, didn't actually happen either. It was not covered by the reviewer accused of the whole thing, nor does it seem to have been reviewed by Kotaku at all. So maybe cross check with your Ethics Tribunal next time you post to ensure you actually are posting factually and Ethically.

[slimgrin]

Seems like every one of these articles you mention is a photoshopped joke article. None of them are actually real. It appears there's even a know your meme page dedicated to them. Interesting - and a little cringey - seeing how credulous you guys actually are.

 

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" I suppose.

 

If anyone is inserting reality, it's you. I've seen my share of political pandering and slamming gamers on the sites he listed. And I mean on the actual sites, not photo shopped fakery. 

[FKA_Servo]

If you say so.

[Xetykins]

Seems like every one of these articles you mention is a photoshopped joke article. None of them are actually real. It appears there's even a know your meme page dedicated to them. Interesting - and a little cringey - seeing how credulous you guys actually are.

 

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" I suppose.

When you agreed about polygon's review of the game being oppressively misogynist, I guess you can argue that you are inserting your own reality too, which frankly is nowhere near what's really happening. In fact, it's quite the opposite looking at it as a self-respecting female. I guess it would stop being misogynist,racist or sexist IF it fills the quota. Bugger the story , just cater to everyone. Sigh..

[FKA_Servo]

That's an inspired interpretation of what I actually said.

If I had any personal objections to, or substantial criticisms of, the content this game, please believe me when I say I wouldn't have spent going on 150 hours playing it.

[Xetykins]

That's an inspired interpretation of what I actually said.

If I had any personal objections to, or substantial criticisms of, the content this game, please believe me when I say I wouldn't have spent going on 150 hours playing it.

I can't be arsed to scroll back. But anyway, you can play a game forever and still forms your own view about it. That is fine. But when you brush off the player's reactions about that review and branded them as "rediculous", my statement above stands.

 

If there was never a big player shtstorm about that review, what would that tell the devs? That next time they can't make the game they want since people are not defending their game from being a bullseye for someone's political agenda. I dread that so much.

 

Thinking of how ME fans rised up against those kinds of reviews, was beautiful. The devs appreciated it and so they continue doing what they do best.

[FKA_Servo]

I can't be arsed to scroll back. But anyway, you can play a game forever and still forms your own view about it. That is fine. But when you brush off the player's reactions about that review and branded them as "rediculous", my statement above stands.

 

If there was never a big player shtstorm about that review, what would that tell the devs? That next time they can't make the game they want since people are not defending their game from being a bullseye for someone's political agenda. I dread that so much.

 

Thinking of how ME fans rised up against those kinds of reviews, was beautiful. The devs appreciated it and so they continue doing what they do best.

 

Well, because I am unfailingly magnanimous, I forgive you for mischaracterizing my post.

 

Anyway, since you can't be asked to scroll back, I'll just note that if there was no hysterical reaction to that review, the takeaway from the playerbase, the developers, and everyone would be... zilch. Absolutely nothing. I promise you, it would not matter, and in fact, it continues to not matter. Which is one of the points I was attempting to make in the post you misremembered. It's a single reviewer, from a single outlet, with what's apparently an unpopular and not widely shared opinion. A review that I hadn't even heard of, despite my following that sort of news, and in spite of the huge influence it's apparently had. One review in a literal sea of reviews that either don't touch on his position and possibly even refute it. And some posters seem to regard this guy's opinion as an existential threat to... something? Why does that register as a threat to anyone? It's a ridiculous reaction.

 

It is kind of funny that people harp on and on about irrelevant these reviewers are, yet FREAK OUT when one utters an opinion on a certain subject, though. Maybe the reasonable thing would be to ignore them?

[Zatche]

If there was never a big player shtstorm about that review, what would that tell the devs? That next time they can't make the game they want since people are not defending their game from being a bullseye for someone's political agenda. I dread that so much.

If players just ignored a review with a negative opinion, in an ocean of positive reviews, I don't really think it would tell the devs anything.

[SnakeCode]

Seems like every one of these articles you mention is a photoshopped joke article. None of them are actually real. It appears there's even a know your meme page dedicated to them. Interesting - and a little cringey - seeing how credulous you guys actually are.

 

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" I suppose.

 

Late edit: because I remembered that one of this movement's formative events, the Kotaku review of Depression Quest, which you also mention in your post, didn't actually happen either. It was not covered by the reviewer accused of the whole thing, nor does it seem to have been reviewed by Kotaku at all. So maybe cross check with your Ethics Tribunal next time you post to ensure you actually are posting factually and Ethically.

 

Ironic. 

 

As I said, it's all archived if you care to look for it, of course you won't however. I've found you lot actively avoid information that goes against your world views and ideoligies. Much easier to believe the straight white (mostly male) journalists calling a group of millions upon millions misogynists and racists. A group filled with women, ethnic minorities, many of whom came out against the narrative being spread by the "progressive" media. They were all either promptly ignored and/or called sock puppets.

 

As for Oppression Qu... oops, meant Depression Quest, my bad. I meant the copious amount of coverage and advertising Grayson gave it. All without disclosing he was banging it's creator and might be a tad biased, but then again, Kotaku have already claimed they don't care about that kind of thing.

 

It's rather funny that shortly after that certain movement began, almost every gaming website both major and minor (save the two previously mentioned) updated or seriously revamped their ethics policies. Even IGN. 

 

"B..B..But, it's about misogyny!"

[Xetykins]

Your post prompted me to go read Polygon's review of the game, and it seems like the reviewer liked it it a lot, while noting that there are some issues (a fair statement - there are), and that it reflects his own opinions (which should be obvious). 

 

 

 

 

Well, he said it was oppressively misogynist, which isn't inaccurate 

 

My opinion of the game vastly differs to yours and that reviewer's view. And people has the right to express their opinion on his work ( his and Moosa). I'm glad ME and TW crew did not bow down to their opinions. Well ME sort of did with the underwear shower, but still not afraid to create Jack and sexy characters. And I am more than ok with that.

[Wolven_Soul]

Reviews are opinions, yes, but that's not always what ticks people off. Take for example said Jim Sterling's reviews of TW3 and FO4. I have issues with those, among others.

 

   He gave Witcher a score of 8.5, saying that performance issues and some odd design choices keep it from being a perfect game. I'm fine with that while I might disagree with it, it's his opinion of the game.

   He also gave Fallout a score of 9.5 and gives the game a lot of praise. I'm fine with that as well, he just likes the game more. Different strokes and all that.

 

So why am I a bit salty about those reviews? Individually they're fine, but it's when you compare them with each other that the issues start to show.

 

In short: the same rules don't apply to both games. Witcher gets criticized for something and Fallout gets a free pass from the same issues. He barely even acknowledges their presence in the product and just waves them aside as irrelevant. How is that professional? And that's what I want when I read reviews, professionalism. If I wanted just an opinion on something I'd ask a random bypasser.

 

That Angry Joe review that was previously linked? Far, far better in comparison to a consumer looking for information about a product they consider buying.

 

Yeah I have to agree, and I never thought I would say an Angry Joe review is better than a Jim Sterling one, but there it is.

[Wolven_Soul]

I've seen my share of political pandering and slamming gamers on the sites he listed. And I mean on the actual sites, not photo shopped fakery. 

 

Man I remember when all those articles saying that 'Gamers are Dead' were coming out.  There could be little doubt about how coordinated that was.  I remember being really incensed about those.

[FKA_Servo]

My opinion of the game vastly differs to yours and that reviewer's view. And people has the right to express their opinion on his work ( his and Moosa). I'm glad ME and TW crew did not bow down to their opinions. Well ME sort of did with the underwear shower, but still not afraid to create Jack and sexy characters. And I am more than ok with that.

That's true of course, and I have the right maintain that you're granting an unrealistic amount of power and influence to a single reviewer saying mean things - and to regard the ocean of tears it apparently spawned as ridiculous. A single review wouldn't make the developers "bow" to anything. And due to the timing, I'm quite comfortable attributing the change in tone in the Me and DA scenes to a culture shift imposed by EA once they acquired them - and abandoned after only a few years because of how unpopular it proved. It wasn't due to a couple of reviews, or a hysterical Fox News segment either.

Not that it matters, but as it happens, I don't really agree with that reviewer, and nowhere have I even said I actually agreed with that reviewer. And considering we've both been among the most prolific contributors to this thread, if you're going to attribute something to me, it would be nice if you had simply asked me to clarify. Especially if, when you do end up quoting me, you edit out half the sentence (forget about the subsequent paragraph and all the surrounding discussions), eliminating crucial context. Honestly, after the many pages we've written here, I think our positions on the power wielded by game reviewing bloggers might actually be our biggest difference in opinion.

On that note, hopefully the thread can move back to a more productive direction. Sorry for prolonging it.

[bEVEsthda]

On Topic:  - No, don't be more like TW3!

 

I'm sure I've said it before in this thread, but I'm doing it again.

TW3 and its creators are very impressive. They certainly have my respect. They have a lot of styling choices down much better than post-DAO-Bioware. And I get that lots of people love playing that kind of games.

But I don't.

 

Now I'm going to start up 'Expeditions:Conquistador'. It's a little, unpretentious indie-game in the sort of genre as 'Sid Meiers Pirates'. It doesn't even claim to be an 'RPG', but it has more role-playing than TW3. It also has tactical, turn-based combat.

[SnakeCode]

"Unpretentious indie-game." Isn't that an oxymoron?

[TmTapani]

On Topic:  - No, don't be more like TW3!

 

I'm sure I've said it before in this thread, but I'm doing it again.

TW3 and its creators are very impressive. They certainly have my respect. They have a lot of styling choices down much better than post-DAO-Bioware. And I get that lots of people love playing that kind of games.

But I don't.

 

Now I'm going to start up 'Expeditions:Conquistador'. It's a little, unpretentious indie-game in the sort of genre as 'Sid Meiers Pirates'. It doesn't even claim to be an 'RPG', but it has more role-playing than TW3. It also has tactical, turn-based combat.

 

I guess that depends on your definitions of rpg and role-playing. What makes an rpg? What is role-playing? I suppose that there are two main camps with that. One of them plays games basically as "themselves", just thrown into different situations and roles. That includes Bethesda open world rpgs, DA:O and DA:I, among others. Having character creation features is the key there. Others consider role-playing to include playing as other characters besides "themselves", meaning that the character you play as doesn't necessarily have to be the same gender as you, or share the same opinions / convictions / world views as you do. Basically they are actors playing as someone else but usually do have some input on the character itself. Games like that include the likes of The Witcher series, or Deus Ex. They have characters that are (mostly) predefined, although sometimes the players can give them a more "personal" touch.

 

I do think both of them are right. I can enjoy both but I know there are people that can't. Does the indie game really have more role-playing elements in it in general or just more of the type that you prefer?

[KBomb]

On Topic: - No, don't be more like TW3!

I'm sure I've said it before in this thread, but I'm doing it again.
TW3 and its creators are very impressive. They certainly have my respect. They have a lot of styling choices down much better than post-DAO-Bioware. And I get that lots of people love playing that kind of games.
But I don't.

Now I'm going to start up 'Expeditions:Conquistador'. It's a little, unpretentious indie-game in the sort of genre as 'Sid Meiers Pirates'. It doesn't even claim to be an 'RPG', but it has more role-playing than TW3. It also has tactical, turn-based combat.

You like fetch quests instead of side quests that contain story that can prolong the quest and/or giving various choices and consequences? You'd rather have static npc's who are just filler, instead of a wide range of life happening in a village? You'd rather not have more areas to explore like water elements? Okay.

Good thing you have a more comprehensive array of unpretentious indie games to play! All these hundreds of pages of us asking for DA to be an exact clone of TW3 have been in vain.

[Ryzaki]

But the thing is most (if not all) of the stuff I see you guys saying they should be more like Witcher 3 they've already done in previous games?

 

So it's more like why aren't you asking BW to go back to their roots instead of asking them to emulate CDPR? They were doing the stuff you're asking for before the Witcher 3 came out so like...yeah.

 

It's why the title just feels meh to me and why I think a lot of people look at this title and are like "ugh"

[TmTapani]

But the thing is most (if not all) of the stuff I see you guys saying they should be more like Witcher 3 they've already done in previous games?

 

So it's more like why aren't you asking BW to go back to their roots instead of asking them to emulate CDPR? They were doing the stuff you're asking for before the Witcher 3 came out so like...yeah.

 

It's why the title just feels meh to me and why I think a lot of people look at this title and are like "ugh"

Because CDPR did it better? Just a personal opinion of course.

[Ryzaki]

Because CDPR did it better? Just a personal opinion of course.

 

You think the Witcher 3 did choice and consequences, side quests actually having meaning, and a world that reacts to your choices, villians and so forth better than every single BioWare game? Fair enough in that case. I personally don't see it at all (especially if we add Baldur's Gate 2 to the mix since we're going with all BioWare games.) but okay.

[TmTapani]

You think the Witcher 3 did choice and consequences, side quests actually having meaning, and a world that reacts to your choices, villians and so forth better than every single BioWare game? Fair enough in that case. I personally don't see it at all (especially if we add Baldur's Gate 2 to the mix since we're going with all BioWare games.) but okay.

Villains maybe not but everything else? Yes. Baldur's Gate is a low blow as I consider that to be the apex of the (old and long gone) Bioware games but even that series didn't have the impact that the Witcher 3 had on those things. Side quests do have meaning in TW3, even more so than in BG or DAO. In fact TW3 is the only game among those that really has some reaction to the choices that you make during side quests. Choices and consequences ? Have you even played TW3 at all? You can fail in that game. YOU. CAN. FAIL. IN. THE .GAME. THAT. YOU. PLAY. That's something no Bioware game has ever done. Hell, that's something most of the games you can play have never done. Everything in the Witcher series besides maybe villains and character creation are better than in Bioware games. Only the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape:Torment offer any real competition to it but come on, those were 17 to 15 years ago.

[DragonRageGT]

All I can hope for is that EA keeps their hands off CD Projekt. (as there were some rumors about it)
Hearts of Stone alone is a better game than anything I can think of. And that is only a DLC (they say 10 hrs but it was more like 50 hours for me)
After 1,550 hours with TW3 and having played the previous witcher games many times as well, there is only one game that I put of the same level. Dragon Age Origins (which gave me some 2,000 hours of amazing fun). Now, TW3 has set a new standard for RPG with its awesome level of detail and care for written quests and sidequests. Any game without the same level will suffer the comparison. IMHO

[Ryzaki]

Villains maybe not but everything else? Yes. Baldur's Gate is a low blow as I consider that to be the apex of the (old and long gone) Bioware games but even that series didn't have the impact that the Witcher 3 had on those things. Side quests do have meaning in TW3, even more so than in BG or DAO. In fact TW3 is the only game among those that really has some reaction to the choices that you make during side quests. Choices and consequences ? Have you even played TW3 at all? You can fail in that game. YOU. CAN. FAIL. IN. THE .GAME. THAT. YOU. PLAY. That's something no Bioware game has ever done. Hell, that's something most of the games you can play have never done. Everything in the Witcher series besides maybe villains and character creation are better than in Bioware games. Only the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape:Torment offer any real competition to it but come on, those were 17 to 15 years ago.

 

So you don't consider companion reactions to the side choices...actual reactions? You don't consider a side quest making a latter decision easier/harder a consequence? (Also if we're bringing all BW games into this SWTOR has OPs have reactions based off you doing planatary side quests. Hell pretty sure Oricion has this as well with the Dread Masters mentioning if you sprung them.)

 

And yeah I played TW3. I stopped because I got bored but I played some of it.

 

Also I really really hope you're not saying failure states to quests are something new. Cause that's not the case at all so not sure what the emphasis is for. Hell Fallout 4 I failed some quests by dwaddling (Damned times missions.) In most BW games however it's not a failed state but a complete state with a different outcomes which works fine for me. That said you did include all BW games so BG2 does count and that does have fail states.

 

You're saying Witcher did combat better than every single BW game? (because that's included in everything) Uh...not even remotely for me. Maybe if ME3's combat was like ME2's but since ME3 exists BioWare has beaten CDPR at combat. I found ME3's combat far more enjoyable (I can actually play just for the combat. No way in hell would I play Witcher 3 for just it's combat.) Character relationships? Eh. I value that more when it's with a character I have influence over. Even when it's railroaded 4 choices. Personal preference of course. Writing I'd give to Witcher 3 over every BW game except BG2 and hell it only wins over JE for me because of everyone acting like it's a damn shock when my full CF character is a douchebag. (ZOMG NO WAI). And they watched me do all the douchebaggery things to so it's extra dumb.

 

Also only BG series and PT offer any real competition well that's not the case for me I value character creation, playing my character, a good story, humor, companions and exploring the world with an AI buddy kicking ass and in that front Witcher 3 only meets a few of the points. It gives me very little I crave and not enough to play it for the hours it wants. What was there was wonderful however it didn't overcome to meh feeling I got.

 

I value BW games for their NPCs and my ability to interact with them in a somewhat malleable character. This has been BW's strength since BG2. It's also why I feel their villians (when done properly) can be so utterly impactful. It's a far more personal experience. (And it's also why I can put up with the combat when it's...not so great. Where's without that personal connection I just put Witcher 3 down cause I wasn't trudging through that combat.)

[panzerwzh]

Villains maybe not but everything else? Yes. Baldur's Gate is a low blow as I consider that to be the apex of the (old and long gone) Bioware games but even that series didn't have the impact that the Witcher 3 had on those things. Side quests do have meaning in TW3, even more so than in BG or DAO. In fact TW3 is the only game among those that really has some reaction to the choices that you make during side quests. Choices and consequences ? Have you even played TW3 at all? You can fail in that game. YOU. CAN. FAIL. IN. THE .GAME. THAT. YOU. PLAY. That's something no Bioware game has ever done. Hell, that's something most of the games you can play have never done. Everything in the Witcher series besides maybe villains and character creation are better than in Bioware games. Only the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape:Torment offer any real competition to it but come on, those were 17 to 15 years ago.

Agree, TW3 for me is as legendary as Fallout2, Morrowind and Planescape:Torment which really offer unique and close to perfection RPG experiences. It is really sad to see certain other company's products got own in almost every perspectives of RPG. 

[TmTapani]

So you don't consider companion reactions to the side choices...actual reactions? You don't consider a side quest making a latter decision easier/harder a consequence? (Also if we're bringing all BW games into this SWTOR has OPs have reactions based off you doing planatary side quests. Hell pretty sure Oricion has this as well with the Dread Masters mentioning if you sprung them.)

 

And yeah I played TW3. I stopped because I got bored but I played some of it.

 

Also I really really hope you're not saying failure states to quests are something new. Cause that's not the case at all so not sure what the emphasis is for. Hell Fallout 4 I failed some quests by dwaddling (Damned times missions.) In most BW games however it's not a failed state but a complete state with a different outcomes which works fine for me. That said you did include all BW games so BG2 does count and that does have fail states.

 

You're saying Witcher did combat better than every single BW game? (because that's included in everything) Uh...not even remotely for me. Maybe if ME3's combat was like ME2's but since ME3 exists BioWare has beaten CDPR at combat. I found ME3's combat far more enjoyable (I can actually play just for the combat. No way in hell would I play Witcher 3 for just it's combat.) Character relationships? Eh. I value that more when it's with a character I have influence over. Even when it's railroaded 4 choices. Personal preference of course. Writing I'd give to Witcher 3 over every BW game except BG2 and hell it only wins over JE for me because of everyone acting like it's a damn shock when my full CF character is a douchebag. (ZOMG NO WAI). And they watched me do all the douchebaggery things to so it's extra dumb.

 

Also only BG series and PT offer any real competition well that's not the case for me I value character creation, playing my character, a good story, humor, companions and exploring the world with an AI buddy kicking ass and in that front Witcher 3 only meets a few of the points. It gives me very little I crave and not enough to play it for the hours it wants. What was there was wonderful however it didn't overcome to meh feeling I got.

 

I value BW games for their NPCs and my ability to interact with them in a somewhat malleable character. This has been BW's strength since BG2. It's also why I feel their villians (when done properly) can be so utterly impactful. It's a far more personal experience. (And it's also why I can put up with the combat when it's...not so great. Where's without that personal connection I just put Witcher 3 down cause I wasn't trudging through that combat.)

I haven't played SWTOR beyond a few hours so I can't really comment on that. Sorry.

 

The reaction that your companions have to your choices? First of all, TW3 doesn't have companions so the games aren't aren't really comparable on that front, Second, even if they were, do the companion reactions to the side quest choices have any effect on... well.. anything? Besides banter? No?

 

I'm not talking about failing a single insignificant quest because of a timer/your choices, I'm talking about failing the whole effing GAME because of them. No reload/try again spam until you succeed, you just reach the end of the game and FAIL.

 

I haven't even mentioned combat. Well, I did say everything bar a few things were better in The Witcher. But why are you even comparing a co-op shooter (ME series) to a solo sword medieval fantasy slasher? Eh? Even if you like one system over the other they aren't really comparable.

 

A quote from you:

 

"Also only BG series and PT offer any real competition well that's not the case for me I value character creation, playing my character, a good story, humor, companions and exploring the world with an AI buddy kicking ass and in that front Witcher 3 only meets a few of the points. It gives me very little I crave and not enough to play it for the hours it wants. What was there was wonderful however it didn't overcome to meh feeling I got."

 

Well, TW3 doesn't have companions. Or a character creation system. Or Ai buddies. No wonder that it gave you only a few of the things that you crave. But the other things TW3 had plenty of. They might not have been centered on your personal tastes but they were there.

 

It seems to be all about personal connection with you, doesn't it? You NEED to be a character that is YOURSELF, that much is obvious. Sorry but TW isn't about personal power fantasies, it's about the story of a man seeking his fate and daughter. If you need companions to enjoy a character and a story then you're in the wrong place. Or in the right one since you prefer Bioware/EA's approach to them.