It’s absolutely not, you’re just throwing a hissy-fit over nothing

What’s the end-result of this “dangerous” precedence, exactly? That they may be more interested in modding games (which already exists) or creating their own games because they see games as malleable and interactive as opposed to static and unchanging?

Not like that at all. What, I guess every time a story about a Skyrim mod comes out you cry about it too?

Exactly because it’s so much easier to do with Link than a bunch of other characters. Link is specifically a character that has very little definable traits, personality-wise.

As if the older generation is any better

I fail to see the difference. And, to say that this changes the story is absurd. Link being a male isn’t impactful to the story, like, at all. Maybe if this were like Witcher 3 and someone changed Geralt to a female by just changing the pronouns that’d be weirder and harder to explain, but this is about as harmless as…

The hyper-sensitive people are the ones who look at this and get angry. “A single kid somewhere has a game where the pronouns are changed and that’s it, I’M SUPER FUCKING ANGRY ABOUT IT AND OUTRAGED.”

What’s wrong with changing it so that the gender doesn’t matter? Hey, you don’t play Tomb Raider and think it’d be awesome if it was different, other people do. I play a game and don’t care about the intricacies of the math and min-maxing, other people do. I play a game and don’t care about being competitive on an…

So you’re just against the entire concept of modding then?

I changed the color of Triss’ hair in Witcher 3 to match what it was in Witcher 2. That make you angry too, fuckwad?

Says the person feeling woe about something so harmless

Absolutely, because we need more fantasy strategy games. The RTS genre is basically all sci-fi now, so even a DA RTS would be awesome. I just neeeeeed my fantasy strategy games

That wouldn’t be what this is at all

lol just realized who I replied to in the Deadspin article was you, so sorry for commenting the exact same thing to you twice in two different places. But yeah was gonna say...maybe it was him on vacation?

I posted this in Deadspin, but it baffles me that SBN posted this. Spencer Hall is the type of person who I could see completely shitting on this piece, so no idea why it ended up being OKed.

Yeah this is baffling. Spencer seems like the first person to veto a piece like this.

I will semi-defend SBN by saying it seems this was a freelance piece and not by their in-house writers...but...like you I have absolutely 0 clue how this got past people like Spencer Hall, who I would’ve 100% thought would have seen all the problems with this piece.

A 7/10 is useless without any context. Does the 7/10 tell you who the reviewer is? No. Does it tell you if the reviewer is reviewing it from a hardcore perspective or a casual perspective? No. Does it tell you what’s good or what’s bad? No. You need the actual review to make sense of what a 7/10 means...and guess what…

Really? An arbitrary 1-10 score also wouldn’t be that useful to determine value for a fighting fan or a casual player.

My thinking is that he could’ve easily figured out the length of the game with very minimal searching. It’s really on him. He didn’t HAVE to take a chance on a game and spend $18 on a game he didn’t know enough about. He EASILY could have searched “Firewatch length” or seen any review and see that it was a short game.…