The problem is the predictable end to it.

My above statement only applies to US think pieces on international titles.

Having lived through that time, I’d disagree. The Square Enix fans existed in massive numbers since the days of NES. And while you’re comparing things to Ultima, those were PC titles of which in my experience very few American fans knew about, unless they already knew Ultima existed.

I mean I don’t really have any thoughts on this because I think this is just the other edge of the sword. I don’t think JRPG as a term started as anything other than local US fans using the term to differentiate their Square Enix and Phantasy Stars from other things on the market.

I mean, maybe as Democrats they should stop showing up every 8 to 16 years and start showing up every 2 years so this could have been done legislatively rather than blaming Biden for not Executive Ordering something too big for the office?  We all knew this is why it took him so long to do it - he knew if he did it…

The international aspect is - I admit - tough.

I would have loved an ending where you can liberate Miquella and play out Malenia’s story differently (which still requires you to defeat her - just maybe not to death.)   With Malenia - she feels like a character who would be locked into a specific course of action until knocked out of it because she’s been around so…

Not really sure how you square that with the last 30 years which has predominantly catered to more liberalizing forces than conservative forces when we’re talking about entertainment.

Dimitris point is also bullshit.

For me there were three main factors working against Horizon this time around. I completely discount the Ubisoft/Open World critique because Elden Ring happened this year. I chalk it even being brought up to Youtubers like videogamedunkey whom aren’t really forced to be logically consistent. This is sort of like…

Iraq yes.

Sure. The US (and the South) had a very real problem of large populations of white and black people and politicians ready and willing to use those issues in a way that benefited them.

There’s a shocking amount of naivete that goes into believing your treatment when you are a novelty would match what you would be as a minority. It’s the difference between “visitor” and “problem in need of solving”.

Having watched debates like this play out continually for 2 decades and change, I no longer buy the simple answers on it because too many people who have supposedly been raised differently (Joss Whedon comes to mind) tend to participate in the same stuff.

Listen Comrade -

*Sigh* - we’re talking about the rules of the legal system here, not an abstract equality of outcomes.  I’m sorry if I didn’t specify but it didn’t seem necessary.  Since 4 people like your comment, obviously such a distinction is necessary.  It’s even dumber to have that argument when we’re talking civil, not…

I agree with you regarding mergers in general.

I don’t think people need an explanation as to “mergers are bad why”. The issue with this particular issue is “why Microsoft?”

Also the American consumer. GM/Ford have been perpetually by decade guilty of one thing or another. But if you want to support American auto which is a big deal for some people, you have traditionally had to go to them.

Isn’t this just “prestige horror” all over again?