It's fucking wild that a phrase used to describe the potential American invasion of Syria is being used to sell video games. We live in hell.
The US already has "boots on the ground" in Syria, i.e. US troops. And while this might be the first time you've heard the term, it's pretty well-worn at this point. You can find early-internet articles online pondering if (Bill) Clinton should put "boots on the ground" in Bosnia.
Though it would still be an anachronism re: WW2. First usage of the term was in 1980.
I was excited to see it but it just didn't grab me. I can't ever remember leaving the theater less impressed with an MCU movie. Probably doesn't help that it came right after Ragnarok, probably my favorite MCU film.
Who do game outlets work for? Who is their audience?
If you view them as primarily existing to serve developers and publishers, then yeah : don't cover a studio if you don't like them.
But if you view them as serving their readers/viewers, then they should cover games that are noteworthy, even if they don't care for the people making them.
Every few months I think to myself, "People seem to like Destiny, I should give it a try." Then I read something like this.
It's hard to overstate how inconsequential Bright Engrams are in Destiny 2. They are basically premium cosmetic packs that you can earn by playing (in D1 you had to pay with real money for premium stuff). None of the progression in the game is tied to anything that Bright Engrams drop.
If you feel like you would be compelled to buy Bright Engrams (for example) to get an alternate skin for an exotic weapon, then maybe you should stay away from Destiny 2. Otherwise it doesn't really matter.
Log in to comment