If I could recall the url for the article on here, I would post to it.  As for myself, I am in favor of games attempting to do good storytelling, however, I do believe in cutting slack if they don't quite make it there, but are a lot of fun.  I don't know anyone playing Borderlands or Diablo for the great story.  I do also get a chuckle out of people looking for games to meet their need for good stories.

Yeah my copy came this morning. The sexism comments are joke as sad joke at that.

Yeah... I also love the people bringing up the videos taken out of context and when you play them within the context of the game it all makes sense... really all of the complaints this review had only last for the first quarter of the game... which only makes you think... did they play all of it or just a few hours in

No, you can't just go "It's out of context", unless you ALSO give us what the context is supposed to be. Otherwise it's a weasel term.

No one owes "you" anything. The issue of onus probandi always rests with the "side" making the positive claim. If you assert that a game is sexist, then you'd better play that game if you want people to even begin taking you seriously.

Bayonetta is a horrid counter-example, by the way. One of the most hyper-sexualized female protagonists in the history of video games is not 'better' from a feminist standpoint, and the ill-informed judgment of this female ignoramus does nothing to alleviate that fact. On the other hand, Mikami's games have always reveled in the bloated, the camp, and the perverse. If the subversive side of his games is intentional or not could be debated, of course, though I would hardly think the same could be said for the feminist side of Sakamoto's games.

1. I wrote "us", not "me". So that part of your reply is invalid, since it goes off something I didn't write.

2. The positive claim is that the scene makes sense.

3. The thread is about someone who had played the game. Did you forget that part?

I am a little flabbergasted as to how you managed to misinterpret what I just wrote. I used the word "you", as in 'your little collective', and noted that you, apparently, have a disposition towards speaking out for this collective. I subtly pointed out how conceited this is. In other words, speak for yourself, dude.

That's not a claim at all. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

So? You're making assessments and producing 'defenses' for your 'side' as if you had access to other people's thoughts - let alone the game. You're just being hypocritical, now.

"I used the word "you", as in 'your little collective'"

But you put "you" in quotes, which makes the context looks like a quote, or at least a paraphrasing. That's why I interpreted it.

Furthermore, the comment in the first place was invalid, since it acts as though discussion points are to be earned or deserved, which is not how discussion works. Someone doesn't hold back explaining things unless people are owed somehow. One explains because that is required of a discussion.

Haha weasel term, no its part not being a douche and spoiling the story of a brand new game the other thing is... play the fucking game that's the context

That's still not good enough. By asking for context, I'm clearly asking for spoilers. I'm clearly asking to be told why what looks like Samus acting in a way that goes against everything in the series is not what it looks like.

And "play the game" is NOT an acceptable answer, not just for me, but for the rest of us who don't even want to touch the game from what we've seen.