|
by serial malcontent 09/17/2014, 4:31pm PDT |
|
|
|
|
|
Worm wrote:
I mean I'm probably wrong when I think things were dialed back in Tomb Raider because of E3 outrage. Though when I was playing and heard the nearly comic battle banter, all I could think of was the outrage over Catwoman being called a bitch by heroin addict child rapists in a video game(NPCs I mean). I'm also just as irritated by games afraid to have fun, certainly Tomb Raider would have been better if it had more Dinosaurs and WW2 Japanese Soldier Zombies instead of homeless people to kill.
I think I originally gained this brain malfunction when Assassin's Creed opened with a "We're definitely not pro-muslim or anything, we swear" disclaimer and was followed with the in-game apology of Animus garbage.
These are two legitimate issues out of at least fifty, and the responses to the rest are all over this site. We never go anywhere after kicking these ideas around so new disappointments are given a similar chorus of replies to the old or else just get a terse negative review, maybe two sentences max, because who has time to rehash the stuff that got us so jaded in the first place.
I just still cannot fucking for a millisecond believe that a bunch of dipshit sub 80 IQ reporters and screeching trust fund music scene drop outs are going to bring anything good or anything worthwhile into this sphere.
All this just looks like an extension of New Games Journalism and Art Game snobbery to me. So unfortunately I can't do anything but be a big fat retarded broken record about it.
Of course they're not going to produce anything worthwhile, they are here only to profit. The existence of journolists for various media sectors has been likely for a long time. Reporters compare notes just like professionals in any other industry. The mistake was to think that 'professional' meant anything aside from telling you these people make money off others for doing what they do.
You sound like a broken record because you've reached the end of the rope with this line of thinking. There is nothing beyond 'these people suck and won't improve things' when you're reacting to their individual actions. React to their behavior as a whole and a new line of thinking emerges: the media is feeding off of this systematically like it does with everything else, and now we're past the early stages like initial reactions and the decision to go on the offensive toward the customer. Next a bigger fish turns on these people, for profit, and sees if any larger body will be able to monetize this racket. There's no puppetmaster or anything of the kind, it's just the easiest way to keep money coming into the carnival. You win by not being a rube.
Breitbart isn't the Post or Times but it's a different weight class than Polygon and is steadily folding the mess into its issues, complete with statements about liberal and feminist misconduct.
What throws me is that you're pissed because these people lie, or create strawmen, or blow hot air over nothing, but you're not pissed at all that the lies are venal. They do it for the money. This is what money buys. Don't have a socialist revolution, but looking to the media market for anything better than a fatter bottom line is a futile gesture I always found mystifying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|