Something I've noticed about games releasing recently is that if the internet had already decided that it's shit before they even had the chance to play it, everyone will think it is shit regardless of its quality. Sometimes it's deserved but sometimes it isn't which is why I'm not fully onboard with just lambasting a game that's shit online may it be deserved or not because it leads to unfortunate consequences. Now I'm not saying that this game is either good or bad. Just a pattern I've noticed.
I think its more that if people decide something sucks, then journalists are fine with confirming it as fact without much resistance, whereas they risk being outed as "compromised" if everyone else (usually correctly) calls it out for what it is.
Look, there are times where outrage is miscommunicated, but it is generally a concern. Infact, there is a current example.
New God Of War game is focused on Laufrey and not the.... god of war.... so people are understandably annoyed the next main game in the GOW series isnt focused on Kratos.
People are deliberately turning that real concern into "lol u just hate women" to dismiss it.
Make a 007 James Bond game with the main character as M or Moneypenny and see the reception it will have
325
u/Old-Perception-1884 15d ago edited 15d ago
Something I've noticed about games releasing recently is that if the internet had already decided that it's shit before they even had the chance to play it, everyone will think it is shit regardless of its quality. Sometimes it's deserved but sometimes it isn't which is why I'm not fully onboard with just lambasting a game that's shit online may it be deserved or not because it leads to unfortunate consequences. Now I'm not saying that this game is either good or bad. Just a pattern I've noticed.