I don't get this review. I like Mike Mahardy and have a lot of respect for the what he has to say - but I really don't care about the political implications raised in a video game. Far Cry 5 got a load of abuse because of it's villains and protagonists. Wildlands, which I've just started playing, seems to have upset some people because it shows the team up against a drug cartel in Bolivia, trying to take the fight to them to stop (or at least slow) their drug production and transportation. But because it mentions a real country it gets slated? I mean, Bolivia does have a huge problem with the cartels as do many of the countries in that region.
It's not like that worrying part of the CoD game a few years back where you wander through an airport mowing down countless citizens. I don't know if you can kill the citizens in Wildlands, I've not tried it, but the game is about killing the members of the cartel. Just because the problem the game is aimed at exists to a much greater extent in that region than most others Mike and this other guy are talking at length on the psychological issues involved and giving the game an early black mark; I mean, does it matter? If the game was about countering hackers and online fraudsters would people be upset if the majority of the game was based in Nigeria, Russia or China? If the basis of the game was the fight against the IRA, I'd fully expect most of that game to be sited in Northern Ireland.
So now Breakpoint is based is a fictional country / island - which is fine - that really doesn't matter. I just don't understand why people should be concerned about where a game is set if the issues and problems around which that game is based are genuine problems in that particular country. As long as the game doesn't suggest that the vast majority of people in Bolivia are actively involved in drug use and production or that everyone in Nigeria is involved in online scamming...
@BadJujuEA: Apparently the average cinema ticket price in 1998 when Titanic came out in the UK was $4.03...the average last year was £7.22 (and depending on where you went it would be a lot more than that too), which is a 79% increase (at least).
So if Titanic made $2.187bln in 1998 (to be fair I'm sure it made a fair bit of that since that year), that amount would be worth more than $3.9bln today.
@jimmarko21876: Absolutely right. Plus - I mean, inflation moves pretty slowly compared to the increase in cinema ticket prices.
Apparently the average cinema ticket price in 1998 in the UK was $4.03...the average last year was £7.22 (and depending on where you went it would be a lot more than that too), which is a 79% increase.
So if Titanic made its $2.187bln in 1998 (to be fair I'm sure it made a fair bit of that since that year), that amount would be worth more than $3.9bln today.
@chippiez: Agreed. It was almost like a play where people (mainly girls as you said) would go back 4 or 5 times each...and convince their husbands / bf's that it would be in their interests to go with them.
MS, do you really feel obliged to try to avise people what they should and shouldn't say online?
Hey, instead of saying "you f#@king pr1ck - I'm gonna somethingsomethingsomething yo' momma!!" try saying "oh jolly good show! you were much, much better than me in that last round. Well done!!"
@rtehrani: Exactly. It's staggering the number of people who don't get this basic logic. I assume godmachine0603 is either very young, an MS-hater or a bit slow. Or all of these.
mpl911's comments