Who in their right mind would buy this? Scorpio is going to kill it in power, and it can't even play 4k media! Might as well wait for the inevitable upgrade where Sony puts a proper 4k Blu Ray drive in there.
I wonder if people would be defending Ubisoft if they blatantly stole some art from Naughty Dog and used it in their next AC game? Something tells me... no.
@timepasser: Ah, I'm just sick of seeing this SJW nonsense in gaming. It doesn't take a smart person to look up statistics, see logical fallacies and point out double standards. Although if I were a wee bit smarter, I would put Gamespot on the same level as Kotaku and Polygon and move on with my life.
@dani3po: I take it you've been throwing a fit at the multitudes of loin-cloth clad male barbarian type characters in gaming for a while now, then? Or is it only "objectification" if it's a female character?
Like I said earlier, this is the Gamestop review of Dragon's Crown all over again, and just like in that review, they can't help but using scantily clad characters for their banner and thumbnails, despite complaining about the exact same thing.
@xantufrog: I never said they couldn't rate the game fairly "because one of their former employees worked at the company that made the game", I said it's ironic how thoroughly and obviously GamerGate won the ethics battle, as evidenced by that very disclosure. GS didn't necessarily rate the game wrong at all, and the KvO disclosure and the milquetoast SJW whinging about pixel-bewbs are unrelated in the context of this review, but connected in the larger culture battle going on in gaming between authoritarian regressive ideologues and the average consumer. I was more pointing out the fact that it's absurd to dedicate two out of ten paragraphs of a review to point out what is, to most gamers, a non-issue. It's extraneous to the actual quality of the game, and hence the review. If people want a feminist perspective on video games, go to a specialized site, last I knew, GS catered to the mainstream gamer... at least in theory.
Now, are you done putting words in my mouth?
Edit: What I actually said, since my original post seems to have vanished (funny thing, that) is:
"What an odd review.
They continue the SJW nonsense of pretending that anybody really cares about having sexy women in their games (We don't. There are like about twenty of you who do, you all are just really loud.) At a glance of the game's characters, there are plenty of lean, hunky men adorning the game, albeit less scantily-clad and less prominently, but that's probably due to the fact that the develop (correctly) realizes their audience is primarily male, and caters to that audience. Is it cliche? Sure, but unless you find something inherently wrong with sexuality (being sex-negative feminist or buying into the popular, gender-biased view that sexy women in media are inherently objectified, and that this somehow magically affects real-world attitudes despite a lack of any compelling evidence) there's hardly any reason to bring it up more than a single paragraph evenly describing the aesthetics of the character, much less devoting two paragraphs of an already-short review walking the line of pretending not to care and finger-wagging disapproval.
But... the end of the paragraph also shows another interesting development: A disclosure of possibly conflicting interest. Is there any clearer a sign that GamerGate won the ethics battle, even if puritanical prudes are still trying to shame developers into covering up their pixel women to protect them from the visual ravages of male gamers... an idea so profoundly conservative that it's hard to imagine how anybody advocating this position can't possibly see how this is exactly what a Saudi Arabian Imam or a 1950s stereotypical Christian conservative would approve of?"
Haeravon's comments