I’m not. Redfall was developed by Arkane Austin. This is developed by Arkane Lyon. Lyon’s last game was Deathloop, which was good. In addition, they already confirmed that this is a single-player action/adventure game which Arkane is much more familiar with than a co-op loot shooter.

That’s not necessarily true. Has CoD ever won anything at TGA? LoL? Fortnite? The indie categories are neither the biggest nor the most successful games either.

Arkane making a Blade game was... unexpected. I thought they were going to announce Dishonored 3 but this might actually be more interesting? I’m intrigued by their take on a superhero game.

It’s a bit of a conundrum. If TGA was purely an awards show, how many people would actually watch it? Big game reveals are the primary reason people watch the show. If some good games and developers can gain broader recognition between the trailers, is that a bad thing?

Why was it even so wishlisted? Was it premise alone, which has already been done (and screwed up) to death?

Not sure this qualifies as a scam. A scam would be if they crowdfunded the game, then spent the money to invest in crypto and didn’t actually make any game. The Day Before is a real game that you can play right now. It just doesn’t live up to the hype.

SEGA is leaning hard on nostalgia here. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Disappointed that they didn’t call this Trespasser but I’ll take it anyway. It’ll always be a spiritual successor to that game in my mind. Hopefully Saber doesn’t drop the ball.

Kind of surprised that this wasn’t announced at all on the actual show. Seems like it would have made more sense to announce it during the GotY acceptance speech.

What makes it morally bad? Acquisitions can provide numerous benefits to customers. The Activision merger will have the following benefits:

I mean, you can say all that but it doesn’t actually amount to anything. If you want people to do (or not do) something, you need to provide a compelling reason to them. If you can’t answer the question “why” beyond “because I say so,” that’s not a compelling reason.

Defense of what..? I’m just asking whether or not you consider that particular example to be an acceptable usage of blackface.

That’s kind of the whole issue. If MS doesn’t have a monopoly and the acquisition won’t give them one, then regulators don’t care. That’s why they approved the deal. There’s simply no legal case to be made against the merger. “Big mergers are bad mmkay” isn’t a legal case but apparently the FTC wants it to be.

I don’t think any company technically has a monopoly in the console market, though Sony is getting close with like 43% of the market share. Regulators don’t care about what you do unless you have a monopoly or your actions will give you a monopoly. MS doesn’t have a monopoly and the acquisition won’t give them one so…

Reuters’ story on the situation says the FTC lawyer Imad Abyad argued in front of a three-judge appeals court panel in California on Wednesday, December 6, that original attempts to block the deal were held to “too high a standard” by requiring the government agency to prove the deal was anti-competitive.

Racial appropriation? It was cosplay. She was accurately cosplaying a black male character. Does that qualify as gender appropriation too since she was portraying a male character? If she cosplayed as Black Panther, would that be okay simply because no skin would be visible? What if she changed her skin color…

That’s not the obvious answer because it’s not an answer. Why specifically should she have not done the cosplay? What specifically about it was racist? Using the correct skin color of the character being cosplayed is not racist. If you believe otherwise, please explain.

Sorry, but I don’t believe people should or should not do something simply because some people might be offended. There needs to be a logical basis for that offense. There is no logical reason why a cosplayer should not be allowed to accurately represent a character unless the character itself is a racist caricature.…

From what I understand, she created the suit. She didn’t buy it.

But if a black woman chooses to straighten her hair without any outside pressure, does that constitute cultural appropriation? Or is cultural appropriation exclusive to white people?