@rednival: "The problem is that Sony has nothing to lose. They are the king of the hill in the console market. I believe they have convinced themselves that the only parties that benefit from cross-play on consoles are their competitors."
"We're always open to hearing what the PlayStation community is interested in....and will cordially tell them to **** off when their wants conflict with our agenda. "
I'm not really into sports games, but smb2 might be fun. I don't like the Metal Gear games, Vanquish is a bit too...."japanese" for my taste,but Streets of Rage was/is awesome.
@ollie_sr: I'd argue that most of those people don't actually know what racism is or what constitutes something as being racist. The term is so over (and wrongly) used, it's practically lost any meaning.
"I think it's just because that's a dated way of reviewing games and all other media."
- no, it absolutely is not... first off, the comment is not about "all other media." It is specifically focused on games., and games being technical in nature, it is the foundation of what reviews should be based on. A good story or emotional response can have a drastically different response by players, if the controls are clunky and the optimization is shit.
"How do you review something like Braid, which "technically" doesn't have as much realistic graphic prowess as something like Far Cry? Does Braid's score get lowered because it's not a technical feat?"
- you are not understanding what "technical" means here... It is not being used to describe achieving the most life-like visuals possible or accomplishing any "feat." "Technical" in the context it is being used here, is referring to utilizing the tech to the best of your ability, to best match your vision and/or to deliver the best experience from a technical standpoint, meaning controls, gameplay, sound, visuals, etc.
What you are talking about is graphics vs aesthetics.
"Are objective game reviews even really possible to begin with?"
- yes, they are, because again, they are technical in nature, which essentially just boils down to numbers. But the issue isn't if it is possible, it's "would people actually care?" It wouldn't be entertaining to read a review like that, so instead, they stick to opinion pieces, which come off as more down to earth or "human."
"In the case of Far Cry 5 you can't really ignore the story and context of the game. A game that takes place in a cyber punk universe would be a totally different game compared to the one made in cult-filled Montana. Even if all the mechanics were to stay exactly the same, the story and setting matter. If Wolfenstein II was about shooting candy at Care Bears on the moon, is it really the same game? It's hard to be ignorant of context because as a player, you too are taking in the context."
- and this is the subjective element of games. Where things like emotional response and atmosphere come into play. I'm not saying these aren't essential parts of games, only that in the discussion of objective reviews, it's largely irrelevant.
Review the game on how it performs as a technical product, and just mention the setting or story and let the player decide from their if it's worth playing, if it makes sense, if it's immersion-breaking, etc.
"My hunch is that you don't feel comfortable seeing or discussing politics in entertainment. Which is fine. I understand. But criticizing "subjective game reviews" isn't going to do much."
- No, it absolutely isn't going to do much, but nonetheless it is still an absolutely valid criticism.
The NRA has a lot of influence in congress due to lobbying, as well as both direct and indirect actions on their part, that contribute to the current political/social climate on the issue. For instance, The NRA has effectively killed federal funding for gun violence research.
As a result of the NRA's lobbying efforts, governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990's.
Prior to 1996, the CDC funded research into the causes of firearm-related deaths. After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence, Republicans sought to remove all federal funding for research into gun deaths.
At the behest of the NRA, Republicans successfully removed all federal funding to the CDC that would have gone into researching the effect of guns and the root causes of gun violence. That funding was eventually reinstated, but has been decreasing since, and the CDC re-designated the money to conduct research on traumatic brain injuries.
Back in its heyday, The NRA's purpose was simple - advocate gun safety and protect the 2nd amendment. Now they lobby congress and work to promote gun sales for manufacturers.
There has a connection between aggressive behavior and video games, but due to lack of evidence, there has never been any connection between violent, criminal activity and video games.
H0RSE's comments