Answer to both questions:

Well, games on a phone (at least in my case) are for sporadic times when I'm sitting around waiting for something/someone, and I'm passing the time. I could go a month between picking up the game again, so I can see the use of a reminder as to what you were doing, instead of just trying to remember.

It has just as many games as any other console ever released this early in its life cycle.

You've not played the game yet you declare it a "steaming pile of shit"? Why even bother commenting?

People can't do anything without getting hated on in some way or another.

Spewing impotent death-threat vitriol because a video game disappoints you? No, I don't think that's fair at all. I don't think it's "passion" either. I think it's a sign someone lacks proper social skills and needs therapy.

He specifically says that if you think a game is flawed, you should criticize it. What he's saying is that it should take the form of thoughtful, constructive feedback, rather than in the form of things like "the people who made this game must be a bunch of gay cocksmokers plz die and stop making shitty games".

It's a larger problem than just gaming, unfortunately. Society in general seems to be losing its ability to treat people with any sort of courtesy or respect. This is most obvious on the internet, but you see it in real life too (most notably in politics, where some people seem completely unable to merely disagree…

I just play games and I am sick of the haters and trolls. The worst is that these trolls genuinely believe they are entitled and justified in their behavior. They think they get to sling mud if they aren't entertained. Or make personal attacks if they are disappointed. It's like they never learned how to communicate…

The whole thing has a pretty embarassingly 'middle school' mentality about it - from the 'grittiness' the 'cool' beer Luigi is popping, Mario's macho muscles, and the generally ugly/amateurish execution. Peach's design is just the most glaringly stupid aspect of that.

Always important to excessively sexualize whatever woman is involved, whether it makes sense or not.

Once something is for adults, women have to be hypersexualised and not be considered people in their own right.

Isn't that a bit excessive?

To the few "men are misrepresented too" posters I've seen, and to those who will no doubt post similar arguments, please listen to the following very carefully:

I don’t think anyone is expecting titillation and exploitation to ever disappear from popular culture. But we really should expect more from it, at least more variety than what we usually get especially when big money is involved.

I feel that there's a difference between the way in which the sexes are exaggerated. Men are exaggerated so as to be power fantasies, whereas women are exaggerated to be sexual fantasies. Both, in other words, are exaggerated for the benefit of men.

Men aren't being exploited, it's positive features that are being exaggerated - e.g chest, biceps etc. which represent power or strength. It gives males a powerful figure to aspire to.

Whereas for women it's their sexual features which are exaggerated, making them an object rather than someone powerful who achieves…

I read Rafael for news, not prose.