Yeah... that sounds like a great idea for preventing guns and violence in schools: Have people that were trained and experienced real life violence to act as guardians of school kids, and give them guns.
The rest of the lines are fairly common (if poorly expressed). Any government has people in charge of making others join the army or swaying public opinion, some by more devious methods than others.
I just think everyone's too wrapped up in "Being right" that they refuse to see the other side of the argument. Yes, there are some sketchy things that happen in games journalism, but I think people just want pounds of flesh more than anything. I guess to me, whatever points could be made from all of this are all drowned out in the screams of "I'm young and angry, and I don't know why!"
I mean, I've read my share of articles coming from all sides, but everyone's so convinced on their position, they refuse to hear any other sides of it (aka. like talking politics). Well, people wanted gaming to become mainstream. It just means we'll have mainstream problems.
I think the main problem with that is that the opposite sides are talking about/defending different things. This is not "one side says A, the other stands for -A". While, in the end, one side seems to stand against misogyny and defend people that gets harassed on Internet (and in real life); the other side wants to talk about professional disclosure and possible corruption due to extreme familiarity. The thing is: THEY ARE NOT OPPOSITE POINTS OF VIEW. It was initially used as justification, and then got popularized by an audience that wants it discussed. Both are important conversations, and both need to happen, but they are not different sides of the same argument.
Every time someone uses one argument as a counter point of the other one, they are just using a strawman (literally, hanging a strawman to direct the defense against it). It only hurts (both) conversations... At this point, one can't argue about conflicts of interests without being accused of misogynist and one can't argue about sexism without being accused of weak minded for jumping at the defense of a corrupt system. Needless to say, both points of view are stereotypical simplifications.
Half of their marketing campaign was about "remember these guys, they were revolutionary before...", and "this is from the guys that created FPS on consoles". And that not even counting how Sony made a huge marketing push selling Destiny as the ultimate justification of the PS4 (despite being in other platforms). The other half was about vague descriptions of the game.
It was inevitable that the game would meet higher-than-normal expectations. The fact it seems to be outclassed by many other games in many fields seems to make the "revolutionary" hype unearned.
I can definitely see it applied to a game like Fallout or Elder Scrolls. To have adversaries with agency, that sometimes can even try to ambush you, would give the random NPC of the world a different personality... At least, it would be better than the current random "you are the arch-mage, I want to fight you!" person...
I think the crew may see it as a game too similar to is predecessor to cover...
Didn't they cover Ultra Street Fighter IV, which is much more similar to its predecessor?
It is also much more popular. I think Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat get a pass because Jeff is a massive fan of those series. For them to cover every iteration of Persona 4 Arena would be to ask them to cover every iteration of Blazblue or King of Fighters.
Besides, I really can't stress enough how low-toned this release feels. Certainly less noticeable than the previous game. I even 100% the previous game, and weren't made aware of how close this release was until quite recently. By that time, during the last game, they even got a couple Atlus guys to make a QL with them. I believe its entirely possible they didn't noticed, and Atlus never sent them a review copy.
I think the crew may see it as a game too similar to is predecessor to cover... besides, few people even knew this game was released (I certainly weren't until I saw this thread), so it is quite possible it went right under their radar.
Personally, I don't think I will get this game until it gets really cheap. I am still burned by the last one having a 40+ hours story mode ending with a "to be continued...". After that kind of investment, I was expecting a little more closure.
That is odd. I was under the impression many Japanese developers were hard to keep up with the times, but Capcom is not one of them.
I am guessing they shelved that feature to have the game in time and within budget. Maybe they can update it later if enough people want it.
It never even occurred to me that it could be because of budget constraints. Not something I'd typically associate with a Capcom game! And if they were willing to shoehorn in a coop partner in RE6's Ada campaign (a coop partner so flimsily stapled in that he couldn't even interact with anything beyond killing stuff -- he couldn't even open doors), then there's certainly a chance they'll get around to patching in online coop for this if need be I imagine.
Yeah... maybe not budget, but on time with the promised release date. I sure can picture a project manager shelving the online component if they can't get the architecture running in time.
Log in to comment