Gaming

2950 readers

668 users here now

!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.

Our Rules:

1. Keep it civil.

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.

2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.

I should not need to explain this one.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.

Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.

Logo uses joystick by liftarn

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

280

A comical old game review for the Sims 2, ripping them for microtransactions. (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Gullible 92 points 4 months ago (1 children)

When the review was first published in 2007, it was reported that Electronic Arts were not happy with the review and complained to the magazine's publishers and editors, resulting in the reviewer no longer being asked or allowed to write reviews for any more The Sims titles.

And the world became a worse place for it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I enjoy dark satire as much as the next person, but it's pretty easy to explain why a magazine would not want him to write again after that. They got a fictional tale about a man beating his wife than killing himself when they asked for a review of sims DLC lol

[–] Gullible 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

There are two conversations to be had, really. Should EA have had any say over who writes their reviews in unaffiliated magazines? No. Absolutely and unquestionably not. (They definitely do today) Was the article a good review? It was certainly a provocative display of seething hatred for a dlc and the one who delivered it. In that respect, it was good. You certainly know where they stand.

Now the bonus third conversation, is encouraging self harm acceptable when it’s aimed at indescribably wealthy people ruining an industry for their own personal enrichment? I’d say no, personally. Executives drive the cocaine trade and its collapse would mean the end of executives, and they drive the cocaine trade.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I really do get all of this (with one caveat), but if I was running that magazine, EA pressuring or not, I would have to have a talk with that writer. I also imagine this is not the first time they had done something like this. I feel like we are missing a lot of context.

I do not agree we should encourage self harm because of somebody’s social/class status or wealth.

[–] Gullible 1 points 4 months ago

Depends on the magazine and time period whether this would be considered particularly crass. In 07, it was far more acceptable to suggest someone faceless kill themselves. Online etiquette hadn’t become mainstream yet and game magazines were rife with extreme toxicity. Coupled with the fact that the editor let it through, I’m pretty sure EA had a lot to do with the reviewer’s removal. The writer, who continued in the industry elsewhere, has vocally asserted exactly that. Their reviews for sims content packs are scathing but others are reasonable, for perspective. Look up steve hogarty pczone articles if you care to confirm.

And I agree, anyone who isn’t actively ruining society should feel safe within it. Video games aren’t worth any level of moral outrage.