Generally, weekends are super busy with three highly sporty daughters – GB trials last week and next! – and there is little opportunity for gaming. Such is family life. Weekends get a solid 7 out of 10.
As a university lecturer, 7/10 is 70%, which is a 1st class honours degree. In the US, 7/10 is a pass with 8, 9 and 10 being a C, B and A respectively. In gaming terms a 7 means average. Only 85% or higher on Metacritic gets the PR guys and girls their bonuses
From Horse Armor to Mass Layoffs: The Price of Greed in Gaming. Inside the decades-long war on game workers and the players who defend them.
maybe a real enemy is people who use terms like "the real enemy"
there can be more than 1 bad thing, t's not like a kids show with 1 big bad
Executives seem to often have an obsession with perpetual revenue growth. There is always a finite amount of consumers for a product regardless of growth. Additionally, over investment is another serious issue in gaming.
honestly, the "real" enemy of gaming, is ourselves
if nobody bought horse armor, shitty dlc would have died almost overnight
if we stood firm and nobody bought games from companies that were bad with layoffs, it would be solved
we're the idiots supporting awful business practices, we are the ones enouraging it
Greed and greedy people have and always will be the main issue for everything wrong in the world. Everything is a product to be exploited for monetary gain. Even when there are things that could help progress us along for the sake of making our lives easier that thing must be exploited for monetary gains. Anything that tells you otherwise is propaganda to make you complicit.
I've never thought "DEI" (although the way most people use it doesn't match it's real definition) is the problem with games. Good games have continued to be good when they have a diverse cast, and likewise, bad games have continued to be bad. There isn't a credible example I've seen where a diverse cast has been the direct cause of a game being bad.
Matt Miller: "Every subscription to Game Informer now raises funds for St. Jude. We want you to know what that means."
I subscribed to this not knowing about how some of the proceeds go to St. Judes.
Really cool that some of the money goes there.
Even if people don't subscribe to the mag, it might bring people to the charity.
Though Unearthed Arcana's content primarily consists of subclasses and spells, WOTC's latest UA drop is set to shake up Dungeons and Dragons' future.
It's weird. They really shouldn't matter. And I know this. I have seen some of my favorite games get lousy reviews while (imho) terrible games get wonderful scores.
Sometimes I will see a low review score and then dismiss the game. Why? I don't do this with anything else: not movies, music, or even beer (yes, beer has ratings, beer advocate is one of the more popular places to read them.)
So, why do we place such emphasis on one person's opinion? I often wonder how many great games I have missed out on because I saw a low review score.
The best way for me to hear about a game is actually to read through user reviews, but even then you don't know who is writing them and for what reason. We know publishers employ people to go on the internet and play up their products... so why do scores matter.
I'm going to have to make a resolution to start ignoring them. Especially the incendiary ones.