He's right. There is a whole army of people out there that are armed and ready to pounce on any celeb for saying something they don't like. Actually, it doesn't have to be something they don't like. If they think someone else won't like it then they'll complain on behalf of that other person. Whether it is needed, or not.
When did people begin to have a tendency to be offended by literally everything? There's an ad in the UK for insurance about a woman that crashes in to a pet shop. You should see the complaints on that.
And then I see yesterday that Taylor Swift is complaing because someone made a joke about her on a netflix show. People need harder shells.
Social media is just a platform for people to complain. If I were a celeb I think it would be safest to just steer clear. Look back to the 80s and 90s, without social media, and you'll find that people weren't this offended, or at least there were just a few being offended for everyone. We've had comedians like Eddie Murphy and Frankie Boyle. They said sensational things but there wasn't an army of social media complainers ready to attack.
The age of political correctness sandwiched by social media. Oh joy.
And we'll have gamespot backing the safe bet each and every time because they know they don't want to be the ones targetted by the social media armies for having a wrong opinion about something. I'd rather they had an opinion really.
Bill Burr as an standup comedian: "I'll say what i want"
Bill Burr as an actor: "Now i have to watch what i am saying"
PS-And yes,why do some controversial articles have comments disabled and some not,GS? What are the criterais for those decisions?
I have wondered the same thing with some of the controversial articles GS have posted on this subject. They seem keen to have their viewpoint in every article though. I lost track of when GS went from a video games site to a commentator on social politics.
@viffex: No, it's the internet that has them as similar games.
Anyway, if my little advert gets the game a few more accounts I've done my job. I have no problem with OW...I hope it's successful...just thought I'd return the Overwatchers hijacking Battleborn threads thing. :)
Play Battleborn...it's great. Also...Orendi said she'd eat your eyes if you don't!!
@vinion2000: Perhaps there's just too much of people feeling the need to categorise a game rather than just playing it. I had a discussion with someone else on another forum about what genre of music a song belonged to. We couldn't agree. The human species has this obsessive desire to categorise everything in to neat little pigeon holes. The problem is it isn't always that easy and it can lead to bickering.
The best term I've heard for both games is 'hero shooter'. They then both have inspiration from other sources.
@loafofgame: Oh I'll be the first to admit that I do like Battleborn a hell of a lot, but I also have no problem with Overwatch either.
If they gave Battleborn a 5 and did a perfectly good job of reviewing it, including discussing everything it had going for it, then I'd say fair's fair. I, myself, will say Battleborn has some faults.
The fact is that I don't think Gamespot did treat the game fairly.
At the end of the day I was annoyed at things when this review went live, but I have calmed down. I'd just hate to see a game, that I believe is refreshing and unique, fail. I do hope Overwatch succeeds, but I also do believe that Blizzard could put out a right stinker of a game and the gaming press would do somersaults to lavish praise upon Blizzard and the game. That's the nature of the beast that is the gaming press, I feel.
So, yeah, everything you say is probably correct. I'm just going to move on and enjoy Battleborn for as long as I can though. Hopefully it'll maintain a healthy population for a good amount of time.
@ycranger: You know some people might just take that comparison to suggest that means Overwatch is dull and unoriginal.
I think Overwatch has its strengths and Battleborn has it's strengths. My disappointment is directed at the way Gamespot goes about it's journalism, and its resulting integrity, and is in no way me saying that Overwatch is a bad game. In no way do I think it is. If there was no Battleborn then I might be playing Overwatch instead. I sincerely hope both games are strongly supported and maintain healthy player bases for the benefit of the people that want to play those games.
Or did you think I was here having a pop at Overwatch? I'm not so little as to want one game to fail to give the other a better chance, and nor will I slag that game off in as blatant and forced a way as you just have.
@edubb85: I doubt they'll have him review it, in order to guard their own backs. The guy whom I believe is reviewing it is on the Lobby video discussing the game. In that video he tries to make a distinction between the ease of learning heroes in each game, and, in my opinion, made a complete mess of what he was saying. Mr O'Donnell (or whatever his name is) was not at all shy about showing enormous bias towards Overwatch, in my opinion. I could tell where his eggs lay from the word go.
I'm not saying it's wrong for a journalist to have a favourite game. By all means they can prefer whatever game they like. However, when in the spotlight, they really should be appearing somewhat more reflective of what both games offer. Like you say, in one instance they'll state that Battleborn's characters quickly become stale, but then say Overwatch's similar characters don't. You could turn back time and swap characters over between these two games and no one would know...they're that similar in terms of their heroes. Contradictions are glaring.
Why I continue to discuss this, I don't know. Doubt it'd get me anywhere, but I'd hate to see a bloody good game suffer to bad journalism.
holifeet's comments