Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense

[Houseman]

Who says Mass Effect got gradually worse?

Both professional and user reviews on Metacritic.

Metacritic says:

ME2 - 94, 8.9
ME3 - 89, 5.9
ME:A -72, 5.0

What about Nike and the Colin Kaepernick ad campaign?

I think they succeeded (in that they didn't lose billions of dollars), because they didn't need to alienate their current audience and chase some new mythical demographic. Their audience was already largely on-board with the ideas from the beginning.

Not a lot of their audience got turned off by players kneeling, and same goes for the ad campaign.

I already mentioned Nike and Dove and why their campaigns succeeded while others failed in post 480

how has "progressiveness" lead to the series getting worse

I already said that there's a correlation between progressive activism and lower scores. It's not a direct causation.

Maybe it's a misuse of the budget, where they hire some progressive consultant (like Anita) when the money could have been better spent on some other area of the game. Maybe if BioWare didn't try to make every romance-able character bi they could have focused on making a better story. Nobody knows for sure, but there's a definite pattern.

 

[DJShaddycat]

Go figure this thread would end up going political eventually.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone takes gaming journalism serious at this point. I think VideoGameDunkey did it best when talking about game reporters and the like


Just use user reviews for the games you consider buying (Unless the game you're considering buying is an EGS exclusive...)

 

[Casual Shinji]

The point is that Nadine shouldn't have been able to win in a fight against two men.
But she did, because someone was being a political activist and made her a feminist Mary-Sue.
And that's no good.

Dude, she lost. I don't know if you actually even saw this scene, but it ends in Sam holding Nadine hostage at gunpoint, because they beat her in the fight.

Can the people crying Mary Sue over this character at least get this fact straight.

 

[Iron]

Yet outside of a rushed ending narrative due to development time constraints, ME3 was the best of the series.

edit: Just realized it was Houseman who made the original claim, you were just giving your opinion. My bad =/

lol we're not the same person

 

[Houseman]

Dude, she lost. I don't know if you actually even saw this scene, but it ends in Sam holding Nadine hostage at gunpoint, because they beat her in the fight.

This is false, and a quick look on youtube can prove it.


Sam was able to crawl towards Nadie's gun that was had fallen. This wasn't BECAUSE they beat her. This was DESPITE that SHE beat THEM.

NEITHER SAM NOR NATE COULD LAND ONE SOLID HIT ON HER. EVER. The only time anyone got close is when Nate grappled with her and pushed her into a wall.

The floor collapsed, they were scattered, Nate crawls towards the gun, Nadine kicks Nate before he can reach it, and Sam crawls in from off-screen. That's the sequence of events here.

If I pull a gun (or two) on Mike Tyson, can I say that I beat him in a fight? That's essentially the argument you're using here.

 

[BrawlMan]

Go figure this thread would end up going political eventually.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone takes gaming journalism serious at this point. I think VideoGameDunkey did it best when talking about game reporters and the like


Just use user reviews for the games you consider buying (Unless the game you're considering buying is an EGS exclusive...)

I actually already posted that video way back, but thank you.

 

[DJShaddycat]

I actually already posted that video way back, but thank you.

Ah, sorry, I must've missed it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

This is false, and a quick look on youtube can prove it.


Sam was able to crawl towards Nadie's gun that was had fallen. This wasn't BECAUSE they beat her. This was DESPITE that SHE beat THEM.

NEITHER SAM NOR NATE COULD LAND ONE SOLID HIT ON HER. EVER. The only time anyone got close is when Nate grappled with her and pushed her into a wall.

The floor collapsed, they were scattered, Nate crawls towards the gun, Nadine kicks Nate before he can reach it, and Sam crawls in from off-screen. That's the sequence of events here.

If I pull a gun (or two) on Mike Tyson, can I say that I beat him in a fight? That's essentially the argument you're using here.

If she beat them Sam wouldn't have been able to get the gun, he was still in the action. And this wasn't a fair boxing match, this was an already unfair advantage for Drake and Sam. The argument is that Nadine shouldn't be able to beat both of them at the same time, and she doesn't. Nate is able to get the drop on her when he drops on her from above as she's busy with Sam, and then Sam is able to get the gun and gain the advantage. That's Nadine losing the fight because she couldn't handle both of them at the same time.

And the reason she was able to kick their asses so thoroughly is easily excusable by the fact that she was most likely raised as a soldier due to her father being one, and Nate and Sam already pushing or exceeding forty, as well as Nate not having been in action for at least three years, and Sam being a heavy smoker.

But you know what, fine, yes, Nadine is presented very much as 'look how awesome and badass she is', but you know who else was presented like that? Talbot from Uncharted 3, except WAY worse. Nadine is pretty much a less terrible, more visually interesting version of Talbot. Talbot is ten times the Mary Sue that Nadine is, yet he never gets brought up in the 'never should've been able to beat Drake' discussion. Certainly not by the crowd who cries Mary Sue. Or hey, remember Kai Leng? So politically motivated, him beating Shepard because the plot demanded it, right?

This all comes down to 'a woman beats Drake in a fight: IMPOSSIBLE'. Remember in Uncharted 2 where Drake beats and shoots the shit out of a dude on a train, but then the guy comes to life and starts throttling Drake who is incapable of escaping his grasp, because the plot demanded it? Yeah, Drake has lost because the plot demanded it more than enough before Nadine, but it suddenly became an issue when Nadine, a woman, did it.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Both professional and user reviews on Metacritic.

Metacritic says:

ME2 - 94, 8.9
ME3 - 89, 5.9
ME:A -72, 5.0


I already said that there's a correlation between progressive activism and lower scores. It's not a direct causation.

Maybe it's a misuse of the budget, where they hire some progressive consultant (like Anita) when the money could have been better spent on some other area of the game. Maybe if BioWare didn't try to make every romance-able character bi they could have focused on making a better story. Nobody knows for sure, but there's a definite pattern.

The ending of ME3 is why it got lower scores, which has nothing to do with progressiveness. Andromeda is apparently just a shit game cuz it's a shit game.

You're really going to argue that money spent on a progressive consultant, which you have no proof of, is the reason games are getting worse? Plus, this consultant money would be a small drop in the ocean of money that is the AAA budget. AAA games notoriously waste money on pointless stuff like Bethesda wasting millions on some famous actor to voice a character that dies early on and having shit voice acting for the majority of the characters. Indies and AAs are making better games with less money.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Agema]

Maybe it's a misuse of the budget, where they hire some progressive consultant (like Anita) when the money could have been better spent on some other area of the game.

A major game costs the same amount to make as a movie blockbuster these days. If they're playing with $50 million or more, sure as hell the few tens of thousands they might pay a EDI consultant won't make a difference. Although honestly, their company should already have an EDI lead somewhere in it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The ending is part of it, but there are more flaws with ME3 that docked its score with critics. Among them were the lackluster side missions (eavesdrop on someone, find something for them in a priority mission, give it to them for a canned line and xp), the inclusion of Cerberus as a major antagonist and Cerberus often eclipsing the Reapers as the main antagonist. Progressiveness absolutely has nothing to do with it, ME3 was just not as good a game as ME2.

I also doubt progressiveness had anything to do with EDI being turned into the most typical looking sexbot for reasons unknown (but known *wink wink nudge nudge*).

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The ending is part of it, but there are more flaws with ME3 that docked its score with critics. Among them were the lackluster side missions (eavesdrop on someone, find something for them in a priority mission, give it to them for a canned line and xp), the inclusion of Cerberus as a major antagonist and Cerberus often eclipsing the Reapers as the main antagonist. Progressiveness absolutely has nothing to do with it, ME3 was just not as good a game as ME2.

There's tons wrong with story you can point out concerning the entire series. I recall there being a long-ass thread on the old forums about plot issues with ME1 and ME2 (IIRC) and definitely before ME3 was released. The reason I was never on board with Andromeda was because if you don't assume the Reapers (or something else) isn't doing what the Reapers are doing in our galaxy for every galaxy, the entire crux of the plot completely falls apart. I personally couldn't care less about the side quests in Mass Effect because one the things I liked best about the series (at least 2&3 as 1 wasn't on a platform I had) was all the quests were important and not filler garbage. What I would consider the "side" quests of Mass Effect would be like the loyalty quests that were so much more than just a typical side quest, they were basically optional "main" quests. I think ME2 had you running back on forth on the Citadel for its side quests.

 

[Houseman]

If she beat them Sam wouldn't have been able to get the gun, he was still in the action.

"If Mike Tyson beat me, I wouldn't have been able to pull a gun on him. The only way Mike Tyson could have beat me is if I were completely incapacitated and unable to grasp or aim a gun"

This is essentially your argument, and it is ridiculous for reasons that should be obvious. Pulling a gun on someone does not make you the winner of a fight. It is how you AVOID a fight.

And this wasn't a fair boxing match, this was an already unfair advantage for Drake and Sam.

And yet, neither of them could land a single hit on Nadine, despite them having an unfair advantage.
You're proving my point.

Nate is able to get the drop on her when he drops on her from above as she's busy with Sam, and then Sam is able to get the gun and gain the advantage. That's Nadine losing the fight because she couldn't handle both of them at the same time.

No, the floor collapsed due to Nate falling on it from some height and they all landed in different places. She had no control over that. Sam just so happened to land in a position where he could crawl to the gun faster than anyone could react.

That's not losing the fight. That's the equivalent of pulling a gun on Mike Tyson, after the floor collapses underneath him.

You're really going to argue that money spent on a progressive consultant, which you have no proof of, is the reason games are getting worse?

Yeah, it's a possibility.

Another possibility is maybe they said something like "women and minorities respond better to mindless fetch-quests, backtracking, and decisions that don't matter, so lets put more of those in!"

Indies and AAs are making better games with less money.

One would think that indie "woke" games would be good then, right? Or at least not universally bad, right?
And if appealing to wokeness was so profitable for all these major publishers, then shouldn't indies also have a share in this pie?

So where are these games and how successful are they?

Gone Home?
Revolution 60?

 

[Iron]

The Disney Star-Wars trilogy, and especially the Solo movie, proved to be a total flop. Ghost Busters was so bad they're making a new one with kids just to pretend it didn't exist. New Men in Black was a flop. I'm only bringing up stuff I watched, which was mostly a remake of older stuff which I watched.

 

[Casual Shinji]

"If Mike Tyson beat me, I wouldn't have been able to pull a gun on him. The only way Mike Tyson could have beat me is if I were completely incapacitated and unable to grasp or aim a gun"

This is essentially your argument, and it is ridiculous for reasons that should be obvious. Pulling a gun on someone does not make you the winner of a fight. It is how you AVOID a fight.



And yet, neither of them could land a single hit on Nadine, despite them having an unfair advantage.
You're proving my point.



No, the floor collapsed due to Nate falling on it from some height and they all landed in different places. She had no control over that. Sam just so happened to land in a position where he could crawl to the gun faster than anyone could react.

That's not losing the fight. That's the equivalent of pulling a gun on Mike Tyson.

Which is why all three parties swore not to use guns beforehand. Oh wait , they didn't, because all these characters are mercenaries and use guns in nearly every damn fight, because none of these people are fighting for honor in any sort of fair way. Nadine even starts that fight by holding Drake at gunpoint; does that mean she didn't win that fight? Also, Drake pulling a gun in that fight didn't stop Nadine from rushing him at the start. I don't get why you're bringing Queensberry rules to a universe where everyone shoots and blows eachother up.

But if you're so desperate to bring Mike Tyson into this... If both me and Mike Tyson get into a life and death fight on a desert island while looking for treasure, and I manage to get a hold of a gun and point it at him, then yes, I win that fight. I manage to stop him from beating me to death, so that's a win for me or certainly a draw. Either way, Mike Tyson is the losing party in that encounter.

And no, neither Drake nor Sam could really land a hit on Nadine, almost like she's a fiercely dedicated soldier and fighter, as opposed to Drake and Sam whose whole thing is that they're jack of all trades, hence not being as skilled as Nadine in straight-up hand-to-hand combat. And they still manage to overpower her twice, due to there being two of them. But I guess Mike Tyson says otherwise.

 

[Houseman]

Which is why all three parties swore not to use guns beforehand. Oh wait , they didn't, because all these characters are mercenaries and use guns in nearly every damn fight, because none of these people are fighting for honor in any sort of fair way

So if I pulled a gun on Mike Tyson, you would say that I was able to beat him in a fight.
That's all that needs to be said. Your argument is ridiculous, disingenuous, and discards all meaning of the word "fight".

 

[Casual Shinji]

The Disney Star-Wars trilogy, and especially the Solo movie, proved to be a total flop. Ghost Busters was so bad they're making a new one with kids just to pretend it didn't exist. New Men in Black was a flop. I'm only bringing up stuff I watched, which was mostly a remake of older stuff which I watched.

You mean the new Star Wars trilogy didn't make a fuckton of money? And Ghostbusters would've been equally as bad if the actors were replaced by Jonah Hill, Danny McBride, Dave Franco, and Kevin James. Also, I can't be sure, but I don't think people were too psyched about Men in Black 3 either. That franchise was out of steam before the fourth movie. It's like blaming wokeness for Terminator: Dark Fate sucking and ruining the franchise, as if Genesys, the McG one, and Rise of the Machines never happened.

You didn't mention it, but I'm assuming this is about the ever misguided 'get woke, go broke' claim.

So if I pulled a gun on Mike Tyson, you would say that I was able to beat him in a fight.
That's all that needs to be said.

If it's a fight to the death and Mike Tyson already pulled a gun on you first, implying guns are fair game, then yes, you win that fight.

 

[Iron]

You mean the new Star Wars trilogy didn't make a fuckton of money? And Ghostbusters would've been equally as bad if the actors were replaced by Jonah Hill, Danny McBride, Dave Franco, and Kevin James. Also, I can't be sure, but I don't think people were too psyched about Men in Black 3 either. That franchise was out of steam before the fourth movie. It's like blaming wokeness for Terminator: Dark Fate sucking and ruining the franchise, as if Genesys, the McG one, and Rise of the Machines never happened.

You didn't mention it, but I'm assuming this is about the ever misguided 'get woke, go broke' claim.
If it's a fight to the death and Mike Tyson already pulled a gun on you first, implying guns are fair game, then yes, you win that fight.

I mentioned it earlier, I said that the Gillette campaign and its aftermath convinced me it's true. Oh, they also rebooted Charlie's Angels. That was just sad.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I mentioned it earlier, I said that the Gillette campaign and its aftermath convinced me it's true. Oh, they also rebooted Charlie's Angels. That was just sad.

Because Gillette is broke now? I guess they're only selling to me then, that's nice of 'm.

And yeah, that Charlie's Angels reboot does look terrible, but then it's hardly the first one, now is it.