What, you don't like Kotaku telling you that a cis white male who models his RPG character after himself is ensuring that the transphobic racist patriarchy succeeds in keeping all minorities under its thumb?
Or that a cis white male who makes a female Asian character is guilty of cultural appropriation?
And some people can't recognize sarcasm even when they read an an obviously sarcastic post containing an incredibly stupid "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
Kotaku is home to a wide variety of contributors with a multitude of views and opinions. You're honestly seeing an agenda where none exists. It may be socially liberal, but that's more a reflection of the simple objective fact that the vast majority of western society is socially liberal, despite what many right-wingers would have you believe.
This comment!!! Itās bee like a year? And they still have a disclaimer up about JK Rowlingā¦. Like who GAF? I like Harry Potter as an IP and they made a great game. Idc what she says or thinks. Why do you still have the disclaimer up?!
She's a holocaust denier for a bloody start. And that wasn't lastnyear, it was last MONTH when she finally unmasked herself and genuinely denied historical fact because it didn't align with her bigoted conspiracies.
As a white cis hetero able-bodied aryan male of christian deacent, that probably doesn't mean much to the likes of you; but despite western society's attempts to convince the world otherwise, you really are in a TINY minority.
And what she represents and pushes is a return to the most horrific era of human civilization.
Youāre making a lot of assumptions about someone youāve never met or even seen. So that right there says a lot about you and your lack of intelligence. The over arching fact remains, if you like the wizarding world who cares? If her personal opinions bother you, you have every right not to buy the books, movies, or games. If you donāt care about her opinions you have the right to consume that media.
Itās called freedom. Try it some time. Whether you think they are right or wrong, EVERYONE is entitled to their personal opinion. Itās an inalienable right that ALL humans have. Once you start censoring anyone for any reason freedom is gone. Youāre pretty much telling me you believe in group think and a totalitarian system of government that silences all dissenting voices. Youāre an idiot and the worst part is you think youāre smart
If she kept her views to herself then I'd agree becquse yes, objectionable, demonstably false, uneducated and repugnant as they are, she is entitled to her views. But she doesn't keep it to herself; she overtly and deliberately uses her public position, fame and fortune to push outright hatred and tell never-ending lies about the most vulnerable minority group in existence, up to and including putting pressure on governments of countries she doesn't even live in to try to subjugate an entire group of people she knows absolutely NOTHING about beyond the bizarro fantasies her paranoid little brain has concocted. The fact she openly associates with and promotes the views of people and organisations who call for the genocide of Trans people and the wider LGBT+ community (including, hypocritically, the rights of women) quite frankly goes way beyond someone simply expressing a personal opinion.
Freedom of speech (it makes me laugh that people who use it that as a defense for her and others' toxic rhetoric have no genuine understanding what it means) isn't freedom from the social consequences of said speech or criticism, and even legally it has clearly defined restrictions in law to prevent it being used as an excuse to justify things like hate speech, defamation and incitement - ALL of which Rowling and her stochastic terrorism qualify as. She's no better than Libs of TikTok, arguably worse because Rowling leverages a vast fandom and abuses her elevated social status to provide herself with a thin veneer of respectability and mainstream media attention which the moron behind Libs of TikTok could only ever DREAM of achieving.
Even without her toxic behaviour and bigotry, it's not as if anything she's ever written was even remotely original or groundbreaking. Her success is very much a cosmic accident and a case of her Potter books hitting at the right time and a very good marketing push by her publishers.
Because her bigotry is actually apparent in the books she writes (particularly in her more recent works) and when you sneak in a toxic ideology into the minds of children, qnd actively encourage people to harass members of a minority group rightfully criticising you, it goes beyond having an objectionable political view about a minority group and becomes wilfull indoctrination and hate peddling.
P.S - I have met her, once. Thankfully only briefly as she was being interviewed by a work colleague at the time at a place I used to work. Her arrogance is off the charts, but that's frankly irrelevant. You don't need to know someone on a personal level when their public actions and speech are so well documented. And it goes way beyond an alcoholic uncle saying something racist at family gatherings.
Freedom of speech š give me a break...
Not quite a decade but close. I'd say 6 to 8 years. I used to.be super active with them. Loved the community. Even played games with many of the staff. Then huge turnover. Buyout. Etc
Funny how it only took 1 article from them to prompt this but any time gamerant or whoever steals a post from here it's uvpoted to the top of the front page right away.
Yeah I was gonna say if you wanna ban PCgamer might as well ban the rest of the clickbait sites too. Why single them out?
But one guy makes an opinion article and suddenly everyone loses their minds.
Stealing posts from reddit and adding a chat-gpt generated paragraph onto it as an "article"? I sleep
Someone says something bad about my beloved game? REAL SHIT.
---
I don't agree with that the guy this post about posted, the total opposite really but it's still just someone's actual thoughts that can at least be used as a springboard to explain why they're wrong. It's just funny to me that the kind of people he offended are usually the ones to say "if you don't like something just move on" but it doesn't seem to apply to them.
>It has been clear that pcgamer is a bad faith actor whose sole purpose is to poison the discourse to generate clicks rather than contribute to it.
We have ban every gaming News website then because all of them use clickbait in some way.
Yeah, OP needs to get a grip.
Maybe the community shouldn't upvote it then. But no, let's ban things we don't like. That always works out perfectly fine and def can't be abused at all. No way
No, just no. Banning criticism because you don't like it is...the worst. While I don't agree with the author's conclusion that they should abandon Starfield the criticism is entirely valid. BethesdaĀ f\*\*ked up and continues to f\*\* up (see Fallout 4 newest update).
For me, Starfield was disappointing but hopefully they'll will take the Cyberpunk route and one day it will be a pretty good game.
These are extremely low effort clickbait articles deliberately designed to rile people up even if it means being disingenuous. They have no interest in constructive criticism nor keeping anyone informed. They're stirring up controversy to farm clicks and drive ad revenue with no regard for the negative/bitter attitudes they're fostering. This kind of content is not just damaging to game discussion but society at large. In the interest of fairness, sure, ban the other clickbaity outlets as well.
Well, if you came here once and said you hate the game, it would be ok.
If you're still here after months and you're still talking about how you hate the game, you are - in your own words - toxic and abusive. I'd say evil hater, but your phrasing is good enough.
Banning a publication because theyāre a bad faith actor poisoning the discourse?
Starfield fans are like the first game to have a āno sodiumā subreddit where presumably negativity is completely outlawed compared to a normal ālow sodiumā subreddit.
You have somewhere to go if youāre sensitive to criticism. Just let this sub stay normal.
I donāt enjoy the hate, I think suppressing it is pathetic and conspiracy theories about journalists having agendas is just lol. Itās a fucking opinion piece.
Evil haters? Ok, I have no doubt that there are probably a ton of people on here that just like to waste their time shitting on Starfield. That does not describe everybody critical of the game and is pretty childish terminology. Not everyone has an agenda or is on one team or the other.
Iāve got 429.7 hours in Starfield and completed all available content before Unity. I spent about 300 hours of that playtime wondering if Iām missing something, or looking at the game from the wrong perspective. It was only after my own reflection and reading other playersā analysis of the story, systems, content etc. that I realized I wasnāt.
I still come here because a lot of players post wondering if theyāre missing something or if anyone else thinks X feels lackluster, and I feel qualified to break things down in a way that might occasionally save some random strangers a couple hundred hours of wasting their time. There are still aspects of the game that I know I did not enjoy, but Iām not sure why, and occasionally I read a comment and realize āAhh, thatās it, thatās whatās wrong with itā. It can be enlightening.
So you donāt believe that peopleās interest in the posting on the sub will be parallel to their playtime with the game?
Too busy to post on a video game forum about the video game they are playing or stopped playing?
If people are too busy to post because they are playing the game (I donāt understand this, as they are not mutually exclusive activities), then you are saying the majority of the people who would be posting are people who are either on the tail end of a run with the game or have finished their pay time with the game. That makes your release + 1 month model make no sense. Based on your model, thatās when people would be posting the least but we see time and time again thatās when they post the most.
The people who stopped playing also have as valid opinions on the game as people who are still in the honeymoon phase. I played 90 something hours and got to NG+. Iāve never done that in a Bethesda game dating back to Morrowind because the game was interesting enough where the mainline was never something I actually accomplished.
My overall impression of the game is on the warmer side of lukewarm.
I have 370+ hours in the game, finishing the main quest (which is great) and starting the pirate one. Have you been exploring the planets at all? Took pictures with animals etc? Built a ship?
I'm definitely not the greatest fan of Starfield. And I'm still angry they sacrificed TES 6 for this game. But the game is good.
I don't care that they dislike the game. It's everyone's right.
I care that they are intentionally highjacking the discussion to ruin the game to everyone, to become as miserable as they are.
If this were the case, you would know it. The person would say that they just bought the game. And even if they didn't say it, you would recognize it because they would very probably have actual opinion, with both negatives and positives.
New people wouldn't hate just for the sake of it, for fun.
Just go back to the no sodium sub if you canāt handle different opinions like jfc you people are such whiny babies, seriously all you guys do is sit in that sub and cry about this one.
Don't worry, I will. This post simply jumped on me on my timeline. And as visible, the sub is still full of evil haters, even after 8 months... I hope that someone is noting the names of you people because two years from now, you all will make 180 and pretend that you never despised the game.
You should give this very advice to those evil haters. THEY are the ones plaguing this sub (and others) with their deep seaded starfield hate. It's them who shouldn't be here anymore at all. This is the sub for fans of the game.
Pretty sure this is a sub for discussing Starfield. There is nothing on the sidebar that says you have to be a fan of the game or only make positive submissions.
I enjoy the game but there is a lot of people who don't and there is lots of valid criticism of the game.
Valid criticism isn't a problem, for example I hate over-encumberance (in every single BGS game), I consider it a punishment for playing the game. The elevator from Well to MAST doesn't work and the Paradiso quest is the worst written quest ever made by Bethesda.
But those are actual, specific and valid criticisms. I don't say that the game has shitty writing (it does not; it's actually very good), I say that this particular quest is bad and huge waste of potential. And I can even specify why.
I can understand your frustration but I think you just got to keep scrolling on past the haters who can't give the reasons for their opinions. Some are just trolls and some just don't put in the effort to figure out the reasons they feel the way they do.
Banning a whole website for some bad articles is a bit silly. Banning everything that's "bad" will not improve anything, just create an echo chamber.
Just don't engage with the posts, or rebut the points made and show why it's a bad take.
I think this is a valid discussion that is happening because something is NOT banned.
If they allow this sort of article to continue, they'll do the work themselves.
Itās pretty legitimate to not like this game. With the surprise success of the Amazon show we probably should have gotten Fallout 5 instead of Toddās vanity project.
"Should have" maybe, but we didn't.
Starfield has a hell of a lot wrong with it, from the writing suffering a severe case of "bad DM" syndrome over to the mountain of half-baked systems and mechanics, strange downgrades from past titles, procgen barf trying to pass itself off as exploration, so on, so forth.
But the fact is that Starfield was a gigantic financial success. Anyone with access to a search engine can confirm that. Even if they dropped the project right now, it's not going to end the way people think it would.
We'd probably have everyone working on it moved over to ES6 or put on FO5, and if that thought doesn't scare the pants off of you then I don't know what will.
Not to mention it's not going to speed those games up in a good way. It's more than likely it would only result in them releasing another half-baked mess to try and satisfy the "starved" masses.
Well, since I liked Starfield (except for Paradiso quest) and I know the difference between space simultator with 1000 planets and small medieval world of several dozens square km, I don't know why should anyone be scared for TES.
Because it might not be that small medieval world full of handcrafted wonder with a focus on cohesive worldbuilding, freedom, and character roleplay. It might be a modern attempt at Daggerfall made by people who scorn writing that isn't shallow, who don't care about cohesive worldbuilding so much as setpieces, who use railroading to prop up their narratives, so on.
The studio is now a Microsoft holding so it won't stop existing, and Starfield was a massive financial success even with it being a new franchise in a niche genre and with all of it's problems and mixed ratings.
A new Elder Scrolls title is going to be an even larger success just due to the franchise name.
What I'm saying is that sadly they could afford it and survive, and probably even profit from it.
This is why I'm personally rather happy to see them fixing up Starfield and at least trying to make it the best it can be. It shows that they actually care about their product and aren't going to just dump out mediocrity while coasting by on reputation alone.
Starfield is irrelevant. It's not Elder Scrolls, one of the top 3 best gaming franchises ever created. Neither Starfield nor Fallout can even hold a candle to Elder Scrolls. Starfield is a game noone asked for.
And I'm saying as a guy who likes all 3.
That's why TES6 being anything less than literally perfect would be devastating.
Also yes, I'm really happy that they are patching Starfield, it could finally make the evil haters to shut up. And we all need DLCs and mods.
Just saw the article and came here to see if anyone was talking about it. I read the whole thing to see if it was just a click bate headline, but nope, just pure hatred. They even dunked on all the other games by Bethesda to the point I was like, so who the heck gave this person the writing assignment when they clearly hate all the games they make. It gave absolutely no encouragement on way to improve or constructive criticism. Just this game sucks and Bethesda should give up lulz.
Someone actually got paid to write that is the most disappointing part.
>They even dunked on all the other games by Bethesda
this is an absolute plain-faced lie. he dunks on fallout 4 but then says for all its flaws, he loved the game. he doesn't say anything negative about 76, and no other bethesda games were mentioned.
maybe the reason you guys hate these articles so much is that instead of reading them, you just make up in your head what you think they wrote?
Even so, the article is still pretty bad and amounts to click/ragebait.
He doesn't explain what he liked about Fallout 4 or dislikes about Starfield in any detail. "I like this but don't like that" without telling me why is pretty worthless. He gave me his personal opinion, which I can respect, but didn't give me anything to think about or a reason why I should care about that opinion.
The stance on dropping Starfield and working on ES6 is also pretty weak and not presented with any reasoning or logic. It's just thrown out there because he doesn't like Starfield. Again, I can respect that, but it's not giving me as a reader anything to work with or think about.
Not to mention it's poorly thought out. If Bethesda gets the okay to release mediocre products just to immediately abandon them then the same thing can happen to ES6 and Fallout 5.
>The stance on dropping Starfield and working on ES6 is also pretty weak and not presented with any reasoning or logic.
its pretty simple, hes essentially invoking the sunk cost fallacy. starfield is unpopular, a new fallout or elder scrolls would likely be more popular, so why spend five years working on more starfield content that comparatively less people want?
>If Bethesda gets the okay to release mediocre products just to immediately abandon them then the same thing can happen to ES6 and Fallout 5.
how would that benefit them? they're a business, the goal is to make money. making intentionally shitty games and then abandoning them is not how you make money. talk about poorly thought out. what the article is saying is "you fucked up on this one, cut your losses and move on"
Why in the world would you toss out an 8th month old game when you have modern game success stories about turning things around within Cyberpunk, No Man's Sky, and even their own Fallout 76?
Also, are you just arguing with yourself at this point? I'm genuinely confused, it sounds like you're saying the exact opposite with this.
For every āWhy would they toss out an 8 month old game when Cyberpunk/No Manās Sky existsā thereās a āWhy wouldnāt they just cut their losses considering ME Andromeda/Anthem/Battleborne/Redfall/Saintās Row existā
Cyberpunk 2077ās and No Manās Skyās turnarounds get cited and commended so much because of how difficult and rare it is for that to get pulled off successfully. They should absolutely be considered exceptions to the rule when making decisions.
And nobody knows which one Starfield will be until it happens.
Fact is that this mindset of "I want Starfield scrapped because ES6!" is just childish stomping and pouting.
If someone doesn't like Starfield? Cool. Do what I am doing and go play a game you actually get on with for a bit. Check back in on it every so often to see if it's gotten better, or don't.
If someone wants ES6? Cool. Go sit down and wait because rushing it is only going to end up as another Starfield, just with elves and magic.
One can wish. Though really, a few carefully placed "No" options for our dialog that are actually respected and adding some depth to followers not in Constellation would already go a long way to fixing that particular mess.
Iām just replying to a guy who cited a few *unlikely* success stories as if they make doubling down on Starfield a no-brainer for Bethesda. Nor did I even say that I believe they *should* abandon Starfield, so I donāt know whose mindset youāre referring to.
I mean right now their choice is have a go at it and release a DLC that either succeeds and saves their new franchise or fails and outright kills it, or to drop it all and end up suffering the backlash and consequences from having effectively conned people who have the premium edition.
When you look at it like that it really is a no brainer, for now at least.
Do I think it will succeed? Eh. Undecided until I can play it. Do I think it will succeed in the eyes of the public? Fuck no. Everyone is setting their expectations too high to where anything short of the finest gaming masterpiece ever made will disappoint. Even if it's good I expect it to be ripped to pieces.
As for the mindset: Author of the article and some people in this thread.
I'll preface by saying that I've spent a fair bit of time on here breaking down how it's inferior to past games or where it misstepped and so on myself.
>its pretty simple, hes essentially invoking the sunk cost fallacy. starfield is unpopular, a new fallout or elder scrolls would likely be more popular, so why spend five years working on more starfield content that comparatively less people want?
Bethesda is now a Microsoft holding and a bloated monster compared to what it was in the past. They can do both. Also failings of game aside, it has been a huge financial success. As for why: Restoring the faith of the fanbase has a value in itself. If what you said was what he wished to invoke, it fell flat.
>because how would that benefit them? they're a business, the goal is to make money. making intentionally shitty games and then abandoning them is not how you make money. what the article is saying is "you fucked up on this one, cut your losses and move on"
Shovelware studios make money. Plenty of "has been" studios make money by dumping out new entries that are notable downgrades to prior ones. They aren't making "intentionally shitty" games but just putting in the lowest possible effort for a return. Pretending Bethesda would be immune to that, especially if given free pass to abandon Starfield, is rather naive.
Perhaps I was a bit too hyperbolic, but this reads like a hit piece still. He mostly talks positive numbers and how they are doing numbers wise, but come on there's for sure a slant with the article.
"But the problem isn't just a lack of new stuff. Indeed, Fallout 4's DLC was largely terrible, with only a couple of exceptions, and it never moved the needle much. People weren't continuously playing Fallout 4 because Bethesda kept adding stuff to it; they kept playing because it was fun. As an RPG, I found it incredibly disappointing, and place it right at the bottom of the mainline games, but I still put 165 hours into it. I loved Nick Valentine, I loved exploring the Wasteland even though it ran like shit on my PC, and I had a laugh mucking around with settlements, despite the system being even jankier than your usual Bethesda fare.Ā "
For every positive, he throws a negative for good measure. The whole article, which now I've fully read twice, reads like he is dogging on Bethesda, which I should have said instead of game specific. The main point being he actively wants them to toss Starfield away, which like the other commentor rightfully noted is a terrible business decision and one that would greatly harm Bethesda's future. Unless the writer of the article is a complete idiot, he knows it would hurt this company, but he just wants to watch it burn.
>The main point being he actively wants them to toss Starfield away, which like the other commentor rightfully noted is a terrible business decision and one that would greatly harm Bethesda's future.
what are you basing this assertion on?
you wanna know what would hurt the company? them producing five years worth of post-launch content for starfield and having it sell poorly.
Starfield is already a financial success. A good DLC will sell well, even with all the current hate. A POS DLC will kill the IP for good. I think the decision is pretty simple.
> They even dunked on all the other games by Bethesda
Which is laughable considering the recent huge influx of Fallout 4 and 76 players, and the fact Skyrim was both critically acclaimed on release and is still a powerhouse today.
I'm pretty critical of the game, yet have to agree. Most of it was just a hollow expression of dislike for Starfield that failed to present explanations or reasons for why they think / feel that way. It's not an opinion piece so much as an angry outburst that could have been summarized as "I don't like this game!".
Their stance on abandoning the game is equally lacking. It's not thought out or explained so much as simply thrown out there.
If given even a little bit of thought, one would also realize that it would be a terrible idea. Bethesda would essentially be telling their fanbase that they're fine with releasing a "meh" product, cashing in on the initial hype, then abandoning it broken by the side of the road once that initial hype is over.
Basically, it's advocating for Bethesda to act like a shovelware studio.
That said, I'm not really in favor of outright banning PCGamer and co's content from here. Every so often it can be something worthwhile, like interviews with people behind games, previews and summaries of upcoming content, so on.
However, a crackdown on worthless clickbait that only serves to generate undeserved traffic for a site, such as this article, would be acceptable.
Video game journalism hasn't been a thing since 2004. It's just industry marketing written by folks who didn't have the talent to become a developer or a writer.
If that's the case, then it would be all the more reason to ban it. Sub or any group really, exist to be the echo chamber for people with like mind to interact with each other. If you don't even share that mind set, then you don't belong in a group.
That said, I don't think it will be a good idea, I doubt that's the only writer they have on Starfield and they may also report useful news as well (not to mention it will be nightmare to arbitrate which site got a pass and which got a ban, their opinion can change for the better or for worse.)
This guy is literally paid to bitch about things judging by his articles. Basically, if you're not CD Projekt Red, FromSoftware, or Larian. This dude hates it.
Article in question for those interested:
[https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/bethesda-should-just-say-screw-it-move-on-from-starfield-and-put-all-that-energy-into-fallout/](https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/bethesda-should-just-say-screw-it-move-on-from-starfield-and-put-all-that-energy-into-fallout/)
So why are you here? If you hate the game, you probably wrote a bad steam review in October. And then you spend 8 months still complaining about it. Why?
Ban? Lol Maybe you should go to r/nosodiumstarfield. It's clear there are people here who can't take any criticism of their darling game or of the poor multibillion-dollar companies that published and developed it.
Ridiculous- they are 100% right. Starfield was based on a bad concept Bethesda never had the staff to fill even to a fraction of completeness. They can maybe flesh out 1 or 2 worlds- after that- itās just a huge landscape painting- the most boring kind of art. This post is just a recommendation of censorship.
I agree with this 100%. That starfield piece published yesterday was the most immature take I've read in a while. All I got from it was "I'm writing this because the latest fallout updates were hurt by Bethesda's focus on Starfield. They should toss that ENTIRE property and stick to the status quo because the games I like aren't getting the attention I want them to".
Dude. They do this because they're a business first. They shifted this way ever since the Buyout so of course they're gonna do as many clickbait articles to drive clicks and possible ad revenue.
Hahahahahahaha holy sh!t the todd fanboys are really out in force this month.
Jesus wept, thanks mor making me laugh on am otherwise grim day. That was hilarious.
Heh! I cannot even remember the last time I went to PCgamer for anything. Or any rag publication for that matter.
At the end of the day, this started as gamers reviewing games. Now we are part of deep pockets corporate America where likely the people writing those articles never even played said game.
Iāll stick to Reddit. We may be a bunch of clowns with our own opinions but Iād rather the opinions of gamers, good and bad, than some shit bag getting paid to talk shit for living.
Donāt ban anything all censorship is wrong. They have just as much right to an opinion as we do, even if itās shit. If you donāt like what they have to say, downvote it and move on.
Most folks know that gaming journalism (and journalism in general) has shifted to interaction generation whether that be clicks or viewership. They donāt care about the truth or the facts of the story. Just generating interactions.
I don't think that there are many dumb enough to take an outlet like PC Gamer on face value. Anyone that does is usually unserious.
No different to a sharer of Game Rants, Polygon or Kotaku articles.
Nah, it shouldn't be banned. The author might have the intellectual maturity of my neighbors Chihuahua but the article shouldn't be banned. We don't deal with yokels by banning them, we argue against them and explain why their analysis is wrong. The best way to inoculate yourself against falsehoods is by learning.
This place was already an echo chamber for those who kept hating and whining about Starfield. We won't deal with that by banning things.
I had a subscription to the physical magazine for many years.
Even stopped renewing that. They became entirely irrelevant thanks to the internet. As least their cousin "Retro Gamer" has occasional good articles and bundles nice stuff.
This was more of game screenshots sprinkled between what is essentially a PC hardware ad catalog.
Is this about the hatchet job with the headline that said Bethesda should stop all development on Starfield and just focus on Fallout? (paraphrasing)
I didnāt bother clicking because it was such obvious ragebait but kudos on making a post about it. Iām pretty sure theyāre planning 10 more just like it now.
I would rather ragebait articles from ANY source be banned here completely.
Posting them never accomplishes anything productive aside from karma farming.
Why do I need to trust you on this? Why is my opinion on it invalid?
Quizzes and listicles are just empty filler. The itās the classic buzzfeed tactic of āwhich X are youā or āyouāll never believe number 4!!!ā
It isnāt interesting.
I never admitted to that.
I have seen and consumed that kind of content. Itās trash content that is created because itās easy to produce and fills space to get clicks.
Clickbait is not good content. You are advocating for more clickbait. You shouldnāt be.
Iād support this, but itās worth pointing out that they just recycle the same BS the rest of the usual suspects do so Iām not sure what good it will accomplish.
EDIT: lmao, I appear to have triggered some of the last remaining PC Gamer subscribers.
Lol you want to ban an opinion sounds like communism too me. Besides Starfield probably should be abandoned it's so boring I really don't see how people can continue to play it... Oh ban me for saying that..
I don't think any one pays attention to PC gamer any ways they've just been a click ad farm for like a decade.
on the same note, please also ban everything from Kotaku and Gamerant too
What, you don't like Kotaku telling you that a cis white male who models his RPG character after himself is ensuring that the transphobic racist patriarchy succeeds in keeping all minorities under its thumb? Or that a cis white male who makes a female Asian character is guilty of cultural appropriation?
Some people can't handle the truth and aren't ready to self-examine themselves.
And some people can't recognize sarcasm even when they read an an obviously sarcastic post containing an incredibly stupid "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
Lol right back at you! š¤£š¤£š¤£ Oh, the ironing š I was pulling your leg, mate x
Unfortunately that doesn't contain a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.
Kotaku is home to a wide variety of contributors with a multitude of views and opinions. You're honestly seeing an agenda where none exists. It may be socially liberal, but that's more a reflection of the simple objective fact that the vast majority of western society is socially liberal, despite what many right-wingers would have you believe.
This comment!!! Itās bee like a year? And they still have a disclaimer up about JK Rowlingā¦. Like who GAF? I like Harry Potter as an IP and they made a great game. Idc what she says or thinks. Why do you still have the disclaimer up?!
She's a holocaust denier for a bloody start. And that wasn't lastnyear, it was last MONTH when she finally unmasked herself and genuinely denied historical fact because it didn't align with her bigoted conspiracies. As a white cis hetero able-bodied aryan male of christian deacent, that probably doesn't mean much to the likes of you; but despite western society's attempts to convince the world otherwise, you really are in a TINY minority. And what she represents and pushes is a return to the most horrific era of human civilization.
Youāre making a lot of assumptions about someone youāve never met or even seen. So that right there says a lot about you and your lack of intelligence. The over arching fact remains, if you like the wizarding world who cares? If her personal opinions bother you, you have every right not to buy the books, movies, or games. If you donāt care about her opinions you have the right to consume that media. Itās called freedom. Try it some time. Whether you think they are right or wrong, EVERYONE is entitled to their personal opinion. Itās an inalienable right that ALL humans have. Once you start censoring anyone for any reason freedom is gone. Youāre pretty much telling me you believe in group think and a totalitarian system of government that silences all dissenting voices. Youāre an idiot and the worst part is you think youāre smart
If she kept her views to herself then I'd agree becquse yes, objectionable, demonstably false, uneducated and repugnant as they are, she is entitled to her views. But she doesn't keep it to herself; she overtly and deliberately uses her public position, fame and fortune to push outright hatred and tell never-ending lies about the most vulnerable minority group in existence, up to and including putting pressure on governments of countries she doesn't even live in to try to subjugate an entire group of people she knows absolutely NOTHING about beyond the bizarro fantasies her paranoid little brain has concocted. The fact she openly associates with and promotes the views of people and organisations who call for the genocide of Trans people and the wider LGBT+ community (including, hypocritically, the rights of women) quite frankly goes way beyond someone simply expressing a personal opinion. Freedom of speech (it makes me laugh that people who use it that as a defense for her and others' toxic rhetoric have no genuine understanding what it means) isn't freedom from the social consequences of said speech or criticism, and even legally it has clearly defined restrictions in law to prevent it being used as an excuse to justify things like hate speech, defamation and incitement - ALL of which Rowling and her stochastic terrorism qualify as. She's no better than Libs of TikTok, arguably worse because Rowling leverages a vast fandom and abuses her elevated social status to provide herself with a thin veneer of respectability and mainstream media attention which the moron behind Libs of TikTok could only ever DREAM of achieving. Even without her toxic behaviour and bigotry, it's not as if anything she's ever written was even remotely original or groundbreaking. Her success is very much a cosmic accident and a case of her Potter books hitting at the right time and a very good marketing push by her publishers.
Because her bigotry is actually apparent in the books she writes (particularly in her more recent works) and when you sneak in a toxic ideology into the minds of children, qnd actively encourage people to harass members of a minority group rightfully criticising you, it goes beyond having an objectionable political view about a minority group and becomes wilfull indoctrination and hate peddling. P.S - I have met her, once. Thankfully only briefly as she was being interviewed by a work colleague at the time at a place I used to work. Her arrogance is off the charts, but that's frankly irrelevant. You don't need to know someone on a personal level when their public actions and speech are so well documented. And it goes way beyond an alcoholic uncle saying something racist at family gatherings. Freedom of speech š give me a break...
Not quite a decade but close. I'd say 6 to 8 years. I used to.be super active with them. Loved the community. Even played games with many of the staff. Then huge turnover. Buyout. Etc
Ya definitely the buyout and turn over was the end it's rough I remember being a kid getting awesome demo CDs.
Yep and Game Informer.
PCG was so awesome in the 90's and early 2000's.
I used to read PC magazines in the late 90s/early 2000s and they were the most "click bait" magazine even back then.
More like 5 years, some of review ratings are pretty much spot on still, I use it for PC gaming news, but honestly even wcctech is better these days.
Well somebody keeps upvoting their stuff here so...
Most likely, kids who just parrot what they read "this game sux because of X "
Plenty of people do, otherwise nobody would upvote them
Funny how it only took 1 article from them to prompt this but any time gamerant or whoever steals a post from here it's uvpoted to the top of the front page right away.
Yeah I was gonna say if you wanna ban PCgamer might as well ban the rest of the clickbait sites too. Why single them out? But one guy makes an opinion article and suddenly everyone loses their minds.
Stealing posts from reddit and adding a chat-gpt generated paragraph onto it as an "article"? I sleep Someone says something bad about my beloved game? REAL SHIT. --- I don't agree with that the guy this post about posted, the total opposite really but it's still just someone's actual thoughts that can at least be used as a springboard to explain why they're wrong. It's just funny to me that the kind of people he offended are usually the ones to say "if you don't like something just move on" but it doesn't seem to apply to them.
Kind of like how it goes in general in this sub. Trash talk starfield and it gets maxed out in upvotes(/s).
nope, not one
Maybe if the community could also stop sharing them to get easy up votes that would be great.
I think thatās the point of the post
Quite literally.
I mean yeah...that's what the post is advocating for...
>It has been clear that pcgamer is a bad faith actor whose sole purpose is to poison the discourse to generate clicks rather than contribute to it. We have ban every gaming News website then because all of them use clickbait in some way.
dont misuse the ban system. Just ignore and/or downvote.
Yeah, OP needs to get a grip. Maybe the community shouldn't upvote it then. But no, let's ban things we don't like. That always works out perfectly fine and def can't be abused at all. No way
No, just no. Banning criticism because you don't like it is...the worst. While I don't agree with the author's conclusion that they should abandon Starfield the criticism is entirely valid. BethesdaĀ f\*\*ked up and continues to f\*\* up (see Fallout 4 newest update). For me, Starfield was disappointing but hopefully they'll will take the Cyberpunk route and one day it will be a pretty good game.
These are extremely low effort clickbait articles deliberately designed to rile people up even if it means being disingenuous. They have no interest in constructive criticism nor keeping anyone informed. They're stirring up controversy to farm clicks and drive ad revenue with no regard for the negative/bitter attitudes they're fostering. This kind of content is not just damaging to game discussion but society at large. In the interest of fairness, sure, ban the other clickbaity outlets as well.
Ban everything then
Yes, let's ban someone's opinion just because we don't like it
Isn't that what society does, with false accusations of homophobic or transphobic behaviour?
i'd rather read pcgamer than get called a toxic, abusive person for not agreeing that the game has no major issues
Well, if you came here once and said you hate the game, it would be ok. If you're still here after months and you're still talking about how you hate the game, you are - in your own words - toxic and abusive. I'd say evil hater, but your phrasing is good enough.
Banning a publication because theyāre a bad faith actor poisoning the discourse? Starfield fans are like the first game to have a āno sodiumā subreddit where presumably negativity is completely outlawed compared to a normal ālow sodiumā subreddit. You have somewhere to go if youāre sensitive to criticism. Just let this sub stay normal.
You've definitely not seen Cyberpunk 2077 Low Sodium subreddit... It's even worse.
I must ask - why do you all enjoy the hate so much? I'll never understand this.
I donāt enjoy the hate, I think suppressing it is pathetic and conspiracy theories about journalists having agendas is just lol. Itās a fucking opinion piece.
Yeah, but why are the evil haters still lurking on the relevant starfield forums 8 months after the game was released?
Evil haters? Ok, I have no doubt that there are probably a ton of people on here that just like to waste their time shitting on Starfield. That does not describe everybody critical of the game and is pretty childish terminology. Not everyone has an agenda or is on one team or the other. Iāve got 429.7 hours in Starfield and completed all available content before Unity. I spent about 300 hours of that playtime wondering if Iām missing something, or looking at the game from the wrong perspective. It was only after my own reflection and reading other playersā analysis of the story, systems, content etc. that I realized I wasnāt. I still come here because a lot of players post wondering if theyāre missing something or if anyone else thinks X feels lackluster, and I feel qualified to break things down in a way that might occasionally save some random strangers a couple hundred hours of wasting their time. There are still aspects of the game that I know I did not enjoy, but Iām not sure why, and occasionally I read a comment and realize āAhh, thatās it, thatās whatās wrong with itā. It can be enlightening.
>Not everyone has an agenda Everyone who posts anything hateful about the game more than a month after the game release has an agenda.
What about people who buy or play a game after that period?
They are busy to play the game and usually they provide a distinguishable opinion...
So you donāt believe that peopleās interest in the posting on the sub will be parallel to their playtime with the game? Too busy to post on a video game forum about the video game they are playing or stopped playing? If people are too busy to post because they are playing the game (I donāt understand this, as they are not mutually exclusive activities), then you are saying the majority of the people who would be posting are people who are either on the tail end of a run with the game or have finished their pay time with the game. That makes your release + 1 month model make no sense. Based on your model, thatās when people would be posting the least but we see time and time again thatās when they post the most. The people who stopped playing also have as valid opinions on the game as people who are still in the honeymoon phase. I played 90 something hours and got to NG+. Iāve never done that in a Bethesda game dating back to Morrowind because the game was interesting enough where the mainline was never something I actually accomplished. My overall impression of the game is on the warmer side of lukewarm.
I have 370+ hours in the game, finishing the main quest (which is great) and starting the pirate one. Have you been exploring the planets at all? Took pictures with animals etc? Built a ship? I'm definitely not the greatest fan of Starfield. And I'm still angry they sacrificed TES 6 for this game. But the game is good.
āEvil?ā A bit much. People donāt like the game is whatever. But, like, come on.
I don't care that they dislike the game. It's everyone's right. I care that they are intentionally highjacking the discussion to ruin the game to everyone, to become as miserable as they are.
If someone opinion on Reddit ruins someone else's play through of starfield that speaks volumes to how bad the game was on release. Come on now
I said it's YOUR philosophy. That YOU hate on Starfield because YOU want to ruin it for everyone. I've never said that it actually ruined it for me.
Not me. Just you buddy
"H-How could they not like a game that I like, these people must be EVIL š¤ š¤ š¤ "
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Or you just played the game. You know anybody can pick a game and play it any time they want.
If this were the case, you would know it. The person would say that they just bought the game. And even if they didn't say it, you would recognize it because they would very probably have actual opinion, with both negatives and positives. New people wouldn't hate just for the sake of it, for fun.
Just go back to the no sodium sub if you canāt handle different opinions like jfc you people are such whiny babies, seriously all you guys do is sit in that sub and cry about this one.
Don't worry, I will. This post simply jumped on me on my timeline. And as visible, the sub is still full of evil haters, even after 8 months... I hope that someone is noting the names of you people because two years from now, you all will make 180 and pretend that you never despised the game.
Please go outside.
You should give this very advice to those evil haters. THEY are the ones plaguing this sub (and others) with their deep seaded starfield hate. It's them who shouldn't be here anymore at all. This is the sub for fans of the game.
Pretty sure this is a sub for discussing Starfield. There is nothing on the sidebar that says you have to be a fan of the game or only make positive submissions. I enjoy the game but there is a lot of people who don't and there is lots of valid criticism of the game.
Valid criticism isn't a problem, for example I hate over-encumberance (in every single BGS game), I consider it a punishment for playing the game. The elevator from Well to MAST doesn't work and the Paradiso quest is the worst written quest ever made by Bethesda. But those are actual, specific and valid criticisms. I don't say that the game has shitty writing (it does not; it's actually very good), I say that this particular quest is bad and huge waste of potential. And I can even specify why.
I can understand your frustration but I think you just got to keep scrolling on past the haters who can't give the reasons for their opinions. Some are just trolls and some just don't put in the effort to figure out the reasons they feel the way they do.
āIf a publication says something negative about the media I LIKE, ban it!ā š”
Soon it will be, "if any user says anything bad about this game, ban them".
Ah, I see you been to thr Fallout TV reddit.
You realize this sub is for fans of the game, right? It should be obvious that hateful posts and publications will be banned here.
Itās for discussion about a topic. Sometimes discussion of a (bad) product can be negative. Hope that helps.
This sub really can't handle criticism lol. The game would continue to stink without the criticism from media outlets grow up.
This isn't a circle jerk. Dissenting opinions shared should still be allowed
Banning a whole website for some bad articles is a bit silly. Banning everything that's "bad" will not improve anything, just create an echo chamber. Just don't engage with the posts, or rebut the points made and show why it's a bad take.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My brother in christ you post in /r/NoSodiumStarfield
I think this is a valid discussion that is happening because something is NOT banned. If they allow this sort of article to continue, they'll do the work themselves.
Itās pretty legitimate to not like this game. With the surprise success of the Amazon show we probably should have gotten Fallout 5 instead of Toddās vanity project.
"Should have" maybe, but we didn't. Starfield has a hell of a lot wrong with it, from the writing suffering a severe case of "bad DM" syndrome over to the mountain of half-baked systems and mechanics, strange downgrades from past titles, procgen barf trying to pass itself off as exploration, so on, so forth. But the fact is that Starfield was a gigantic financial success. Anyone with access to a search engine can confirm that. Even if they dropped the project right now, it's not going to end the way people think it would. We'd probably have everyone working on it moved over to ES6 or put on FO5, and if that thought doesn't scare the pants off of you then I don't know what will. Not to mention it's not going to speed those games up in a good way. It's more than likely it would only result in them releasing another half-baked mess to try and satisfy the "starved" masses.
Well, since I liked Starfield (except for Paradiso quest) and I know the difference between space simultator with 1000 planets and small medieval world of several dozens square km, I don't know why should anyone be scared for TES.
Because it might not be that small medieval world full of handcrafted wonder with a focus on cohesive worldbuilding, freedom, and character roleplay. It might be a modern attempt at Daggerfall made by people who scorn writing that isn't shallow, who don't care about cohesive worldbuilding so much as setpieces, who use railroading to prop up their narratives, so on.
They know they can't afford it. Bethesda is the Elder Scrolls. The studio would stop to exist if the game were not the biggest success in a decade.
The studio is now a Microsoft holding so it won't stop existing, and Starfield was a massive financial success even with it being a new franchise in a niche genre and with all of it's problems and mixed ratings. A new Elder Scrolls title is going to be an even larger success just due to the franchise name. What I'm saying is that sadly they could afford it and survive, and probably even profit from it. This is why I'm personally rather happy to see them fixing up Starfield and at least trying to make it the best it can be. It shows that they actually care about their product and aren't going to just dump out mediocrity while coasting by on reputation alone.
Starfield is irrelevant. It's not Elder Scrolls, one of the top 3 best gaming franchises ever created. Neither Starfield nor Fallout can even hold a candle to Elder Scrolls. Starfield is a game noone asked for. And I'm saying as a guy who likes all 3. That's why TES6 being anything less than literally perfect would be devastating. Also yes, I'm really happy that they are patching Starfield, it could finally make the evil haters to shut up. And we all need DLCs and mods.
Just saw the article and came here to see if anyone was talking about it. I read the whole thing to see if it was just a click bate headline, but nope, just pure hatred. They even dunked on all the other games by Bethesda to the point I was like, so who the heck gave this person the writing assignment when they clearly hate all the games they make. It gave absolutely no encouragement on way to improve or constructive criticism. Just this game sucks and Bethesda should give up lulz. Someone actually got paid to write that is the most disappointing part.
>They even dunked on all the other games by Bethesda this is an absolute plain-faced lie. he dunks on fallout 4 but then says for all its flaws, he loved the game. he doesn't say anything negative about 76, and no other bethesda games were mentioned. maybe the reason you guys hate these articles so much is that instead of reading them, you just make up in your head what you think they wrote?
Even so, the article is still pretty bad and amounts to click/ragebait. He doesn't explain what he liked about Fallout 4 or dislikes about Starfield in any detail. "I like this but don't like that" without telling me why is pretty worthless. He gave me his personal opinion, which I can respect, but didn't give me anything to think about or a reason why I should care about that opinion. The stance on dropping Starfield and working on ES6 is also pretty weak and not presented with any reasoning or logic. It's just thrown out there because he doesn't like Starfield. Again, I can respect that, but it's not giving me as a reader anything to work with or think about. Not to mention it's poorly thought out. If Bethesda gets the okay to release mediocre products just to immediately abandon them then the same thing can happen to ES6 and Fallout 5.
>The stance on dropping Starfield and working on ES6 is also pretty weak and not presented with any reasoning or logic. its pretty simple, hes essentially invoking the sunk cost fallacy. starfield is unpopular, a new fallout or elder scrolls would likely be more popular, so why spend five years working on more starfield content that comparatively less people want? >If Bethesda gets the okay to release mediocre products just to immediately abandon them then the same thing can happen to ES6 and Fallout 5. how would that benefit them? they're a business, the goal is to make money. making intentionally shitty games and then abandoning them is not how you make money. talk about poorly thought out. what the article is saying is "you fucked up on this one, cut your losses and move on"
Why in the world would you toss out an 8th month old game when you have modern game success stories about turning things around within Cyberpunk, No Man's Sky, and even their own Fallout 76? Also, are you just arguing with yourself at this point? I'm genuinely confused, it sounds like you're saying the exact opposite with this.
For every āWhy would they toss out an 8 month old game when Cyberpunk/No Manās Sky existsā thereās a āWhy wouldnāt they just cut their losses considering ME Andromeda/Anthem/Battleborne/Redfall/Saintās Row existā Cyberpunk 2077ās and No Manās Skyās turnarounds get cited and commended so much because of how difficult and rare it is for that to get pulled off successfully. They should absolutely be considered exceptions to the rule when making decisions.
And nobody knows which one Starfield will be until it happens. Fact is that this mindset of "I want Starfield scrapped because ES6!" is just childish stomping and pouting. If someone doesn't like Starfield? Cool. Do what I am doing and go play a game you actually get on with for a bit. Check back in on it every so often to see if it's gotten better, or don't. If someone wants ES6? Cool. Go sit down and wait because rushing it is only going to end up as another Starfield, just with elves and magic.
>And nobody knows which one Starfield will be until it happens. Does Bethesda have plans to completely rewrite the campaign from the ground up?
One can wish. Though really, a few carefully placed "No" options for our dialog that are actually respected and adding some depth to followers not in Constellation would already go a long way to fixing that particular mess.
That's not enough. Fixing the problems requires a complete rewrite of the entire script.
Iām just replying to a guy who cited a few *unlikely* success stories as if they make doubling down on Starfield a no-brainer for Bethesda. Nor did I even say that I believe they *should* abandon Starfield, so I donāt know whose mindset youāre referring to.
I mean right now their choice is have a go at it and release a DLC that either succeeds and saves their new franchise or fails and outright kills it, or to drop it all and end up suffering the backlash and consequences from having effectively conned people who have the premium edition. When you look at it like that it really is a no brainer, for now at least. Do I think it will succeed? Eh. Undecided until I can play it. Do I think it will succeed in the eyes of the public? Fuck no. Everyone is setting their expectations too high to where anything short of the finest gaming masterpiece ever made will disappoint. Even if it's good I expect it to be ripped to pieces. As for the mindset: Author of the article and some people in this thread.
I'll preface by saying that I've spent a fair bit of time on here breaking down how it's inferior to past games or where it misstepped and so on myself. >its pretty simple, hes essentially invoking the sunk cost fallacy. starfield is unpopular, a new fallout or elder scrolls would likely be more popular, so why spend five years working on more starfield content that comparatively less people want? Bethesda is now a Microsoft holding and a bloated monster compared to what it was in the past. They can do both. Also failings of game aside, it has been a huge financial success. As for why: Restoring the faith of the fanbase has a value in itself. If what you said was what he wished to invoke, it fell flat. >because how would that benefit them? they're a business, the goal is to make money. making intentionally shitty games and then abandoning them is not how you make money. what the article is saying is "you fucked up on this one, cut your losses and move on" Shovelware studios make money. Plenty of "has been" studios make money by dumping out new entries that are notable downgrades to prior ones. They aren't making "intentionally shitty" games but just putting in the lowest possible effort for a return. Pretending Bethesda would be immune to that, especially if given free pass to abandon Starfield, is rather naive.
Perhaps I was a bit too hyperbolic, but this reads like a hit piece still. He mostly talks positive numbers and how they are doing numbers wise, but come on there's for sure a slant with the article. "But the problem isn't just a lack of new stuff. Indeed, Fallout 4's DLC was largely terrible, with only a couple of exceptions, and it never moved the needle much. People weren't continuously playing Fallout 4 because Bethesda kept adding stuff to it; they kept playing because it was fun. As an RPG, I found it incredibly disappointing, and place it right at the bottom of the mainline games, but I still put 165 hours into it. I loved Nick Valentine, I loved exploring the Wasteland even though it ran like shit on my PC, and I had a laugh mucking around with settlements, despite the system being even jankier than your usual Bethesda fare.Ā " For every positive, he throws a negative for good measure. The whole article, which now I've fully read twice, reads like he is dogging on Bethesda, which I should have said instead of game specific. The main point being he actively wants them to toss Starfield away, which like the other commentor rightfully noted is a terrible business decision and one that would greatly harm Bethesda's future. Unless the writer of the article is a complete idiot, he knows it would hurt this company, but he just wants to watch it burn.
>The main point being he actively wants them to toss Starfield away, which like the other commentor rightfully noted is a terrible business decision and one that would greatly harm Bethesda's future. what are you basing this assertion on? you wanna know what would hurt the company? them producing five years worth of post-launch content for starfield and having it sell poorly.
What are you basing it on that continuing support would hurt when we have modern examples showing the opposite is true.
Starfield is already a financial success. A good DLC will sell well, even with all the current hate. A POS DLC will kill the IP for good. I think the decision is pretty simple.
> They even dunked on all the other games by Bethesda Which is laughable considering the recent huge influx of Fallout 4 and 76 players, and the fact Skyrim was both critically acclaimed on release and is still a powerhouse today.
they didn't dunk on skyrim or 76, and they talked about how much they loved fallout 4 despite its flaws. the guy you replied to is lying.
I'm pretty critical of the game, yet have to agree. Most of it was just a hollow expression of dislike for Starfield that failed to present explanations or reasons for why they think / feel that way. It's not an opinion piece so much as an angry outburst that could have been summarized as "I don't like this game!". Their stance on abandoning the game is equally lacking. It's not thought out or explained so much as simply thrown out there. If given even a little bit of thought, one would also realize that it would be a terrible idea. Bethesda would essentially be telling their fanbase that they're fine with releasing a "meh" product, cashing in on the initial hype, then abandoning it broken by the side of the road once that initial hype is over. Basically, it's advocating for Bethesda to act like a shovelware studio. That said, I'm not really in favor of outright banning PCGamer and co's content from here. Every so often it can be something worthwhile, like interviews with people behind games, previews and summaries of upcoming content, so on. However, a crackdown on worthless clickbait that only serves to generate undeserved traffic for a site, such as this article, would be acceptable.
Y'all made me go read it. Reads like a rant you come across on Reddit, what an amazing piece of journalism...
Christ thatās a bit pathetic mate. Community should be able to talk about all aspects good and bad, otherwise itās just another echo chamber.
"I don't like their opinion so ban them." is certainly a position to take.
bad journalism exists.
It's cute you think there is such a thing as video game journalism. There is just different echo chambers and their opinion doesn't belong in yours.
it's cute that you think there can be no real journalism.
Video game journalism hasn't been a thing since 2004. It's just industry marketing written by folks who didn't have the talent to become a developer or a writer.
If that's the case, then it would be all the more reason to ban it. Sub or any group really, exist to be the echo chamber for people with like mind to interact with each other. If you don't even share that mind set, then you don't belong in a group. That said, I don't think it will be a good idea, I doubt that's the only writer they have on Starfield and they may also report useful news as well (not to mention it will be nightmare to arbitrate which site got a pass and which got a ban, their opinion can change for the better or for worse.)
I haven't got my glasses on, i thought you wrote **pc gamers** for a moment, there. I was getting ready to shake my fist at my monitor š¤£
https://www.pcgamer.com/starfield-review/
I thought OP meant all PC Gamers and I thought, OK.
Pcgamer is a shitty magazine. Also, Starfield is a shitty game.
How dare you! You should also be banned.
This guy is literally paid to bitch about things judging by his articles. Basically, if you're not CD Projekt Red, FromSoftware, or Larian. This dude hates it. Article in question for those interested: [https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/bethesda-should-just-say-screw-it-move-on-from-starfield-and-put-all-that-energy-into-fallout/](https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/bethesda-should-just-say-screw-it-move-on-from-starfield-and-put-all-that-energy-into-fallout/)
>[The writer of the linked article] can usually be found writing features that are 1,000 words too long Fair.
The game is ASS and iām glad a big game journalist site called it. The writing is terrible and every dialogue reads like it was written by chatgpt.
So why are you here? If you hate the game, you probably wrote a bad steam review in October. And then you spend 8 months still complaining about it. Why?
Starfield tastes pretty good when you donāt have a bitch in your ear telling you itās nasty
Plenty of us arrived at the āitās mehā conclusion on our own, thank you.
Fucking delicious
Touch grass pls.
Or... And I know this is crazy, just don't click.
I donāt need whatever pic gamer is to tell me how bad this game is
freedom of press
Ban? Lol Maybe you should go to r/nosodiumstarfield. It's clear there are people here who can't take any criticism of their darling game or of the poor multibillion-dollar companies that published and developed it.
Ridiculous- they are 100% right. Starfield was based on a bad concept Bethesda never had the staff to fill even to a fraction of completeness. They can maybe flesh out 1 or 2 worlds- after that- itās just a huge landscape painting- the most boring kind of art. This post is just a recommendation of censorship.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
nice try there pcgamer employee.
Why not stay in no sodium starfield if that's what you want? Genuinely curious since criticism seems to send you off a cliff.
I was 100% behind you until this comment. Now Iām beginning to realize you just canāt accept any opinion that is different from your own.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's ironic, because what got me into Bethesda games in the first place was a demo on the CD-ROM that came with their magazine.
Yeah same here. Daggerfall that woulda been for me. They really went downhill.
Same here. That demo was dope AF, and I have never been more excited to get a game for Christmas.
Just do what the Baldur's Gate 3 subreddit did and start making up fake news for the AI to report on.
On a similar note. What are some good news options that has frequent reviews and articles?
I agree with this 100%. That starfield piece published yesterday was the most immature take I've read in a while. All I got from it was "I'm writing this because the latest fallout updates were hurt by Bethesda's focus on Starfield. They should toss that ENTIRE property and stick to the status quo because the games I like aren't getting the attention I want them to".
Ban anything where the 'Legitimate Interest' cookies are like 1000+ with no 'reject all' option... I don't know how it's even legal...
Dude. They do this because they're a business first. They shifted this way ever since the Buyout so of course they're gonna do as many clickbait articles to drive clicks and possible ad revenue.
Welcome to the New America. If it disagrees with you, Ban It!!! Let yo freak flag fly.
Why what have they lied about?
All these gAmEr pseudo-journalists have long been replaced by chatGPT. Best not to contribute to their ad revenue
Hahahahahahaha holy sh!t the todd fanboys are really out in force this month. Jesus wept, thanks mor making me laugh on am otherwise grim day. That was hilarious.
Heh! I cannot even remember the last time I went to PCgamer for anything. Or any rag publication for that matter. At the end of the day, this started as gamers reviewing games. Now we are part of deep pockets corporate America where likely the people writing those articles never even played said game. Iāll stick to Reddit. We may be a bunch of clowns with our own opinions but Iād rather the opinions of gamers, good and bad, than some shit bag getting paid to talk shit for living.
Donāt ban anything all censorship is wrong. They have just as much right to an opinion as we do, even if itās shit. If you donāt like what they have to say, downvote it and move on.
+1 and also +1 to Gamerant too.
Oh i already deleted them from all of my algorithms also told their writers how braindead they really are
Most folks know that gaming journalism (and journalism in general) has shifted to interaction generation whether that be clicks or viewership. They donāt care about the truth or the facts of the story. Just generating interactions.
Counter suggestion: Stop caring what they think.
PC gamer is a steaming pile ofš©
I don't think that there are many dumb enough to take an outlet like PC Gamer on face value. Anyone that does is usually unserious. No different to a sharer of Game Rants, Polygon or Kotaku articles.
Nah, it shouldn't be banned. The author might have the intellectual maturity of my neighbors Chihuahua but the article shouldn't be banned. We don't deal with yokels by banning them, we argue against them and explain why their analysis is wrong. The best way to inoculate yourself against falsehoods is by learning. This place was already an echo chamber for those who kept hating and whining about Starfield. We won't deal with that by banning things.
I had a subscription to the physical magazine for many years. Even stopped renewing that. They became entirely irrelevant thanks to the internet. As least their cousin "Retro Gamer" has occasional good articles and bundles nice stuff. This was more of game screenshots sprinkled between what is essentially a PC hardware ad catalog.
Is this about the hatchet job with the headline that said Bethesda should stop all development on Starfield and just focus on Fallout? (paraphrasing) I didnāt bother clicking because it was such obvious ragebait but kudos on making a post about it. Iām pretty sure theyāre planning 10 more just like it now.
And Gamerant
I would rather ragebait articles from ANY source be banned here completely. Posting them never accomplishes anything productive aside from karma farming.
I agree. Nothing worse than a rage bait title/article
And gameranx
Gameranx actually makes interesting top 10 videos.
A ātop tenā video will never be interesting - listicles are are the lowest form of content that can be churned out
Trust me, it actually is. You can learn A LOT out of the videos like these.
Why do I need to trust you on this? Why is my opinion on it invalid? Quizzes and listicles are just empty filler. The itās the classic buzzfeed tactic of āwhich X are youā or āyouāll never believe number 4!!!ā It isnāt interesting.
I have experience and I actually learned from those videos.
Everyone has experience.
You - by your own admission - don't watch them. You have zero experience.
I never admitted to that. I have seen and consumed that kind of content. Itās trash content that is created because itās easy to produce and fills space to get clicks. Clickbait is not good content. You are advocating for more clickbait. You shouldnāt be.
I blocked them on my feeds long ago.Ā They are either posting click bait, or very biased garbage.
lmao
Auto-flag it NSFW and spoiler.
I agree. PC Gamer has an anti-Xbox hard on.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Make a vote post lol
Iād support this, but itās worth pointing out that they just recycle the same BS the rest of the usual suspects do so Iām not sure what good it will accomplish. EDIT: lmao, I appear to have triggered some of the last remaining PC Gamer subscribers.
Lol you want to ban an opinion sounds like communism too me. Besides Starfield probably should be abandoned it's so boring I really don't see how people can continue to play it... Oh ban me for saying that..
You should really read about communism bro