A game with customizable characters that doesn't allow you to create a female character is something very different from a game with a male or female lead.
The criticism isn't about the lead, but about the co-op characters that you can create yourself. How often have you played a game where you get to create a character but not pick its gender?
"Obviously the deal does have a duration. I didn't buy the IP in perpetuity." -- Phil Spencer
Multiplayer has always been a grind though, even before Microtransactions.
It comes down to asking yourself how important the game is for you. If you're pushing money into microtransactions after buying the game, you must feel that it is worth the money, otherwise you wouldn't do it in the first place.
I've never felt the urge to pay for things using optional (or compulsory) microtransactions because I don't really care about getting the best...
"Men are usually characterized as active aggressors, and women as passive victims"
Probably has something to do with the fact that men are more aggressive by nature and more likely to fight the threat, whereas women are less intent on violence and tend to attempt to get away from the threat, particularly because of their lower physical strength.
Whilst that's not always the case, if we're generalizing and need to create a set of throwaway NP...
Aren't these microtransactions completely optional like they were in Mass Effect 3? Why do people even care about it if that's the case? No-one's forcing you to buy anything. All I see are options in case you're lazy.
"would you bat an eye over a male who was accused of sleeping with female journalists? "
Yes, I'd have the same opinion of him as I would of a woman who cheats.
"And how do you suppose the male gaming community would react to a spurned ex-girlfriend tearfully shaming this hypothetical man with an obsessively comprehensive blog?"
No idea, probably not in favor of her, but then there's plenty of people not in favor o...
It's pretty simple really, PS4 is a more powerful system that was, since the first presentation, well received by the press and consumer due to their understanding of what gamers wanted.
Microsoft on the other hand slapped press and consumers alike in the face with their DRM ideas (that they later removed, but damage was already done), forced bundling of Kinect, high price point and clearly weaker visuals (e.g. resolution) than the competition.
"As if Beyond Two Souls: Beyond Garbage was not bad enough, Sony Computer Entertainment had to slate another obnoxiously terrible title that only serves to impress those deluded by its visuals and lackluster gameplay of button mashing melee and shooting mechanics."
Yeah lol, I think this quote tells us enough about the author not to take anything else he says seriously. Beyond: Two Souls might not have been groundbreaking, but 70% metascore hardly indicates "an...
In which case this would be old news? So either this is a repeat of news released in April, or it's a reiteration of the fact that a new Mass Effect game is coming to Ps4 and Xbox One, the first of which already had a rumor, and the second of which we already know.
I still don't see how this makes the listing "mysterious". It looks blatantly obvious to me, especially after you gave me this link.
How do we jump to "remastered trilogy", when there's nothing to indicate that? There is no listing for the confirmed Mass Effect game, so it's only logical to assume this represents the confirmed games.
Otherwise we'd have a listing for "trilogy" or at least a cover.
Why is this "mysterious"? It's the already confirmed Mass Effect sequel/prequel/spinoff that will release next year. Placeholder date is because no-one actually knows when it's supposed to release.
Why should I have to buy an Xbox to play a game that has historically always been multiplatform? I've played the games on PC since the first one, and now suddenly it's an Xbox exclusive? That's a slap in the face no matter how you put it.
I don't want to buy a $400,- machine so I can have "the best of all three worlds" or some bullshit excuse like that. If I cared about the Xbox lineup at all I would buy an Xbox One. But not like this.
"EA Never told us"? The game had SecuROM when it released. It's honestly not surprising that they haven't removed it just so they could give the game away for free.
I don't get people complaining about this. It's pointless, potentially funny DLC if you're into this, and if that's worth $2,- for you, then great! Don't like it? No-one's forcing you to buy it.
Pretty sure that would fall under the banner of parody, same laws used to allow for easter eggs. You don't always need explicit permission for those (hence the Masterchief helmet in Duke Nukem Forever for example).
But when you're clearly naming a franchise and allow fans to partake in a competition surrounding it, you're open to legal action.
Otherwise I could now open up a Halo competition and tarnish the brand, if I...
Strictly speaking they could make a deal with EA. But then again that's pretty unlikely. If a Pod Racer game is in development, I'm almost certain it isn't at Sony.
The world is too inconsistent, everything looks out of place because of it. This still needs a lot of work.
Then why are you reading and commenting on an article about it? Color me confused.
I suppose one could reasonably expect a tie in with the film. But then that's nothing but speculation.