Vespair

I hate the remake's combat so much. So so much. It's so fucking boring. God why couldn't they have just kept the core gameplay mechanic the same?

I agree they don't have to be anti-consumer to be pro-developer, but my point is that that is how they are approaching being pro-developer - by limiting pro-consumer features at the behest of developers. Or perhaps I should be saying more actively publishers, to be fair.

I gave what I see as a significant example in my original comment. Not being able to see comments or reviews from those who have purchased games through the storefront is a problem for me. If a game has a bug or problem, especially if it is one that could potentially be tied to or unique to the EGS version, I would like to know about it. That EGS currently doesn't provide readily available user feedback when it frankly has been the standard as defined by steam, just doesn't for me.

So you have to ask yourself why they wouldn't include such a simple a rudimentary feature - the only result I can come up with is to appease developers who want to prevent being negatively impacted by bad reviews. Thus what we have is prioritizing the wants of developers at the expense of features which benefit consumers.

Some people prefer not to do business with entities whose business practices they don't support.

Steam doesn't engage in the same kind of strong-arming and anti-consumer practices, so it's not exactly comparable, is it?

I say this every time Epic comes up but it remains the same.

Steam is the pro-consumer storefront. Epic is the pro-developer storefront. What Epic seems to fail to understand is that by being so staunchly pro-developer, they effectively become anti-consumer. And as a consumer, I'm just not going to spend money on an anti-consumer marketplace.

When Epic considers adding necessary pro-consumer measures like actual user reviews so I can hear how a game actual performs from real end users, then and only then will I consider Epic a real storefront viable for consumers.

I can't decide if I'm proud or sad that this answer was buried so deeply into this post

This is embarrassing, bro

You're right; I have been unclear. Allow me to try to clarify.

My issue is specifically with the headline here using the word "political." This implies, whether by design or accident, that this inclusion in the game is BioWare specifically making a political stance to push some sort of politically-motivated agenda.

This is, 100%, not the case.

BioWare is a subsidiary of EA; the only agenda they care about is making money. This is not making some kind of political statement; this is pandering to ensure free media coverage and to attempt to appeal to what they see as a currently valuable demographic. Fucking blast them to hell for that, blast them to hell for their poor writing—whatever. But calling this political is doing exactly what I stated before: allowing the conversation to happen on the terms of gamergate/right-wingers who insist that anything in the entire fucking world that doesn't specifically cater to their own individual interests is somehow inherently "political."

edit: typos

I understand that, but my point is that there is no shortage of shoehorned comic relief characters, or awkwardly placed fanservice, etc. Critique the actual fault at play, bad writing, rather than letting the gamergate right-wing nutsos have the benefit of having the conversation on their terms. Make the headline "DA:tV falls short in the writing department, here are some examples" and include the flimsy way the character is written as the valid critique. Games are going to pander to us, that is what I was saying; when we place special emphasis on this particular type of pandering all we're doing is letting the right define the conversations we're having.

I may take slight issue with your last statement. To be clear, I’m not trying to have a “dishonest discussion”, I genuinely don’t understand the distinction and there isn’t really an article or anything here for me to clarify.

I apologize, I sincerely wasn't trying to imply you were being willfully dishonest or disingenuous, I was just trying to offer the correction to ensure clarity. I promise, I intended no offense and did not mean to imply anything about your character. I hope this clears that up and am legitimately sorry if you felt wronged.

I believe the objection is not to Snoop for his gang affiliation, but rather to the dance specifically which is being claimed as a more overt gang symbol, sort of like if they added the blood hand sign.

Of course I don't think this is even remotely an issue of concern for most of the reasons others have already commented on this post (it's a pop culture thing now, essentially), but I do think it's worth acknowledging the distinction between person and symbol here to be able to have honest discussion of the topic.