Varik wrote: » Whatever about Eurogamer proper, but ****ing Digital foundry had to include a comment about it.
Kirby wrote: » Digital Foundry? As in the performance comparison guys? WTF would they have to say about it?"The frame-rate here dips to about 40fps but we can't help but think it would be higher if there was more diversity. As we know, black men are easier to render." Ridiculous.
Kirby wrote: » If the guy is literally the devil.....what has that got to do with the game? Why can't they just judge the game on its own merits?"Oh well the guy is racist so we cant review the game"....I just don't get this sort of attitude. If Michael Jackson had been found guilty instead of not guilty, I would've still thought his music was amazing. Seperate the Art from the artist. It's easy.
Bambi wrote: » He's retweets people including, James Woods the actor and notable alt right nazi apparently? He has a problem with socialism, given that he grew up behind the iron curtain? Outrageous stuff.
Lone Stone wrote: » yea that review is bull ****. Sure like i remember in the 80's it would be rare to see a black person in dublin ffs well by rare i mean a very small population compared to now, my uncle was black from a place called kourasou and people would stop and stare and say "its a black lad !" :eek: was even worse in the 60's when my anty introduced him to the family so i find it hard to imagine how the 1400's bohemia would be a more diverse society.
Billy86 wrote: » Utah, Rhode Island nor Massachusetts were never part of the USSR? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Woods#Early_life
Bambi wrote: » Your man Vavra, not Woods
Kirby wrote: » If the guy is literally the devil.....what has that got to do with the game? Why can't they just judge the game on its own merits?
wnolan1992 wrote: » Because games are art, and it's valid to take into account the artist behind the art when critiquing it. If it's not an issue for you, fine. It's not an issue for me either. But just in the same way people may choose not to see a Mel Gibson film or watch House of Cards again, some people do care. And this attitude that video games should somehow be exempt from that is obnoxious. Reading the Eurogamer review, I think it's mostly fair up until the last line. The hard turn it takes in the latter third I'd put down to poor writing more than anything. I think he could have addressed the issues of race much, much better than he did in the review, but given the creator of the game's leanings, I think he was right to discuss it. That said, when you read two thirds of a review that lavish praise on the game highlighting only a few niggles, it's ludicrous that he flat out says he wouldn't recommend the game.
The Specialist wrote: » Your first points would hold weight if he was the sole producer of the game, but it was made by a team of 70. It's extremely unfair on those people to have all the work they put in negated because someone has a problem with the views of 1 out of 70.
There is no issue with race given the time the game is set in (there are some really enlightening posts in the comments section from people who actually live in the region and know the history of it well). It's a fabricated snag point to build his personal vendetta against Varva around (and we won't even start on the "historian" he consulted, a.k.a Dave from down the pub who read a history book once).
exposes the author for the hypocrite he is to bring his personal opinions in to a review of a video game.
The Specialist wrote: » exposes the author for the hypocrite he is to bring his personal opinions in to a review of a video game.
bigphil2 wrote: » A review is EXACTLY the reviewer's personal opinion.. Why would someone elses opinion on a game anger so many people? Its ridiculous..
The Specialist wrote: » A review should be about the product, not a soapbox for him to display how "woke" he is. Extremely unprofessional.
bigphil2 wrote: » I disagree,but thats my opinion,if he liked many things about the game but concerns over the tone stopped him from recommending it,he would be unprofessional to.. A:leave out his explaination and not give it the Recommend award or B:Recommend the game even though he didnt personally feel it was deserved. Also all the people crying over his review need to decide if his opinions made them enjoy the game any less or not?
johnny_ultimate wrote: » A review is a critical, subjective response to any given work - it can be whatever the reviewer damn well wants within those broad parameters. Games being considered mere ‘products’ is itself IMO a deeply limiting view, but that’s a discussion for another thread some time
wnolan1992 wrote: » That said, when you read two thirds of a review that lavish praise on the game highlighting only a few niggles, it's ludicrous that he flat out says he wouldn't recommend the game.
The Specialist wrote: » But there's nothing wrong with the game, his issue is completely fabricated on the idea that "there might have been black people" in that time and so they should be in the game. Pure tokenism that does not reflect the reality. And his opinions are precisely the reason I am going to pick this up and support the studio, simply because I cannot stand people like him and his PC bull****.
GoldenLynel wrote: » Reviewers have the power to influence whether or not someone will buy a game. If they don't exercise responsibility with that power then they should be open to harsh criticism.
In summary, I would like to say that for me at heart it was always about the freedom of speech and the freedom of opinion and thoughts
Colonel Claptrap wrote: » More clicks = more revenue. Reviews of the gameplay are ten a penny. This author has driven a lot of clicks towards his article by differentiating it from the rest.