I think, especially in a thread like this, sometimes you need to stop and take stock. I've been in one of those pesky thoughtful moods. Trying to think how precisely to word this, but I think lately I've needed to remember it's useless to be outraged over the kind of thing that makes it into this thread. Sometimes things get frustrating and you say or feel things you don't really mean. It's a useless outrage anyway, just like whatever misplaced outrage has managed to graft itself onto the nameless mass of Who's Ruining Video Games. It all starts seeming like a self-fulfilling prophecy a little bit. You risk becoming an Arthur Gies of counter-outrage. So the comments are stupid. Sometimes you gotta read them, anyway. At least have a laugh. Try not to be outraged at pointless things. There are way too many. Basically what I'm feeling right now. After all, these people are getting so angry about trivial things. And guess what, here I am in danger of doing the same thing. Booby games are alright. Sometimes games have localization changes and its not the end of the world. It's all just video games. Comments gonna comment. Also since it's Thanksgiving* and we're all supposed to be thinking positive, hey video games are pretty fun or we'd be doing something else. *At least for red-blooded non-communists.
Yeah it's a great game. I think if there is any lack from having blank characters as heroes it's made up for with the NPCs easily. It's very different from DQ8 in a lot of ways, but I enjoyed it almost as much or as much. It's just different reasons. Whereas I loved exploring the vast world of 8, 9's was smaller, but also had stuff like quests to do and vocation classes to tinker around with that made stuff in between advancing the story plenty of fun. I actually got way more into alchemy in 9. Maybe because I didn't have to wait for a damn pot. Some of the quests could be frustrating though, yeah. Like especially ones that require you to battle enemies in very specific ways 10 times. Fiddling with those was a bit obnoxious.
I just think it doesn't make sense because GamerGate has nothing to do with manipulation. It's merely blatant, crass yelling that overwhelms by sheer volume. The bad stuff, anyway. (And I still think if you're a reasonable person with legitimate concerns I'm still gonna shake my head for you associating yourself with such a stupid, stupid name. I get it. Watergate was a thing. That doesn't mean you can just staple it to whatever you feel like and have it make sense.) As for the other thing. I think to a certain extent you have to remember that only one person from an outlet writes the review. If that person just happens to be the one person on staff that -really- likes a game, well in every other conversation it's gonna seem like people have shifted their opinion. Now you could get into a conversation about putting people on reviews that are pre-disposed to like a game and whatever, but... I mean it would be like if Patrick (back in the day) wrote a review for Yoshi's Woolly World for Giant Bomb and then Jeff craps all over it and you'd be like, "Well Giant Bomb sure changed their minds fast!" I'm picking a more blatantly obvious case with distinct personalities so you probably wouldn't do that, but I mean even other places that feel more homogeneous are made of individuals.
Yeah, I read the first page and was like, "okay, so I see how this is linked to feminism and the current topic of sexual assault, but what's that got to do with Gamergate?" Then I read the second page and was like, "Oh, that was sudden." The term Gamergate is almost meaningless anyway, I suppose. It's increasingly unclear what it's supposed to be shorthand for. Then again I suppose it always was, because it never made any sense. But I still feel like sexual assault is a fine term without dressing it up with nonsense words. More important, the article makes no substantive ties between the show's themes and ONLINE harassment, which has lots of its own very specific issues and would be at least much closer to Gamergate than this, which seems to more closely echo the ability of privileged men to get what they want and get away with it so the parallel if you'd make one seems to be the in-person harassment and assault by, say, a boss or star football player.
The article isn't really my issue. It's just the best one I could legitimately find. Unless you wanted me to link what Breitbart has to say about the matter. That's why it's here and not the copy edit thread. It's what's going to follow that's the issue.