I am honestly not sure what you are talking about. Did you reply to the wrong person?

Pro-tip: language evolves. Just because you cling to a definition doesn’t mean the common definition doesn’t change.

Pretty much. A fan is, at its core, someone who loves something enough to adopt it as part of their identity. This isn’t necessarily bad, per say, but it does introduce an ego to a thing that normally doesn’t have one, and that brings highly destructive and selfish consequences with it that I feel outweigh any good…

Definitely wasn’t EGM, I had “subscriptions” to them due to it being handed out like candy at Gamestop for decades. Nintendo Power didn’t do it either, my friend subscribed to them the entire run and I’ve read most of them (god that fun guy pun to mark the end of articles was bad yet so good).

The game is buggy to a level that I would call unacceptable. But to just say “They have more people on their team than other games with less bugs had” like that’s the only factor that matters is reductive.

As said, you don’t have to be a fan to love something, share it, discuss it, etc. Being a fan crosses the line into making something a part of your identity, and thus introduces a personal ego element.

I mean, you’re basically saying you’re not a fan. Being a fan means actively engaging in the fandom and sharing in the larger community. If you’re casually discussing it but not going out of your way to advertise your love for the series, you’re probably not a fan. You just love the series, which is totally cool.

Please, you could put the sun under the collective keisters here and nothing would happen except a few hundred lit farts.

Sure, it’s the people who would call themselves fans. That’s why they’re fans. If you don’t consider yourself a fan, you’re obviously not one. That’s kind of the point.

A fandom’s toxicity is only as deep as the ones who end up running them, but ALL fandoms are echo chambers because by definition, they are FANS. An inherent quality of all fandoms is circular logic, and that will always, inevitably, lead to exclusion and like-think.

/glances at name of article author

...except that these reviews are for the PC release of Cyberpunk 2077, as it states in the article. There’s no generational excuse here either. It’s merely CDPR hyping up a slapshod product that, at best, is a passable game with a big budget. I have not played it myself, obviously, and that opinion is formed by…

The thing is that all releases aren’t equal when it comes to bugs. There will always be bugs, yes, but when teams of ten or less can release a 20 hour game in two years with only a few bugs, I can rightly criticize a team of dozens if not hundreds for being unable to provide similar ratios with much bigger budgets,…

I don’t like composite scores either, but when I write reviews I like to score various categories. Story, music and sound, main gameplay, side gameplay, multiplayer (if applicable), replayability, and overall polish. I let each score stand on its own with no aggregate score at the end, so people can know what I think…

Of course, the far bigger issue is that a loud proportion of Cyberpunk 2077 purchasers (and indeed any other big-name game) don’t want reviews at all. They want reassurance. They paid for this game nearly two years ago, for whatever illogical reason (“I’m supporting the massive multi-million dollar company!”),…

“I’m just holding the money!”

I've yet to see movements start in news blog comment sections either.

I think you replied to the wrong person, friend.

I mean... Sonic Boom (the cartoon) wasn’t bad. And the movie did really well, so I guess it makes sense. Still. -Tim Allen noises-

There may not be harm, but there certainly isn’t benefit either. Unless you plan to actually work in a movement or lobby for that change, it’s effectively an echo chamber.