potato_hamster said:
Tulipanzo said:
My two cents:
A review is supposed to be communicating to readers information that may be of interest regarding purchase. Now, since not every person thinks the same, those standard may vary.
To me, the fact that this dev let his own politics come in the way of the mission statement of the game, historical realism, is enough to give me pause. That the guy aligned himself with a known hate group leads me to avoid the game completely.
To you, this is not a problem.
This is fine.
What is not fine is you demanding the reviewer avoid mentioning the head honcho's politics, despite those directly affecting the resulting game, because you feel they are not a selling point.
It would be akin to ignoring that, say, MG Survive was mostly based on the work of a previous team, unceremoniously fired after their last project, because it makes Konami look bad.
The only difference here is you think him right
There are many reviews which completely ignore this; I dare say that Eurogamer are in the minority by just mentioning this.
It makes it all the more laughable that one review sent you crying back to the forums about the mean sjws. |
Where to even begin with this mess.
The dev let his own politics come in the way of his mission statement of the game? How? In the context of historical realism it would be incredibly unlikely at best for there to be black people in the area at that time frame, therefore it would make sense for there to be no black people in this game. But furthermore, even if that was not the case, even if black people were rarely but regularly found in Bohemia during that time, what specific politics of the dev prevents him from adding black characters to the game?
He aligned himself with a known hate group? Which one? As far as I know he hasn't supported the likes of Communist organizations, Nazis or Antifa. So which group are you calling a "known hate group"?
This is in no way the same as the rift between Kojima and Konami, and your comparison is frankly laughable. Did this dev put profits above the vision of the development team and force his team to release a game early? Did this dev effectively abuse his employee for months before release, preventing him from even directly speaking with team members? Did this dev prevent his employees from receiving rewards they earned due to fear that they might say something disparaging against them? No? Then it's not the same at all.
How about instead of giving your two cents you actually put some time into educating yourself about the dev, what his politics are, what the actual vision of the game was, what actual, named historians who are open about their credentials actually say, and what happened between Kojima and Konami. There's no excuse for being so blatantly wrong.
|
