Monday, November 24, 2014

New Article

This is an article

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/opinion/will-texas-kill-an-insane-man.html?ref=opinion

I have just written an article. I have done this by linking someone else's work, and then writing maybe a one sentence summary, if anything at all. I am a writer for Gawker.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Not Funny? Why don't you just be a piece of shit

Not funny? Can't come up with any good jokes to make everyone laugh? Are you a useless piece of shit? Why don't you just start spouting a bunch of boring, tired, played out fads and memes. Long after they're no longer funny (or were never funny in the first place) people will still be able to say, "hey, I recognize that. I remember that. It's like I'm a part of a super smart, super funny, super secret club with all t he injokes. Let's just set aside the fact that it isn't funny. Because I recognize it, I know that I'm supposed to laugh now". whatever

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Prediction: Bioshock Infinite Is Gonna Blow

Bioshock Infinite looks like the biggest piece of shit since Star Wars: The Old Republic. What I don't understand is why the fuck are people getting excited for this kind of shit again. Ken Levine is literally ruining games. Am I exaggerating? Maybe, but there's a lot to be said about how Bioshock Infinite has already failed as a game, and how it is moving dangerously close to the realm of an interactive narrative. Levine was even stupid enough to brag about the amount of dialogue that his First Person Shooter contains. This comes almost immediately after he admitted that dialogue is the "least effective way to tell a story". Good job, you fucking jackass, you filled your game to the brim with something you admit is not effective.

It almost seems like he's more concerned with making Bioshock a game that is fun to watch, rather than fun to play. What he doesn't realize is the fact that the dialogue and plot in his games are not deep, interesting, or entertaining in any way.

Let's take a look at Elizabeth first.

oh man i love her and just want to protect her

When I first saw this screenshot, I thought it was a joke. How can a person seriously model, texture, voice, and display the character of Elizabeth with any level of sincerity? On an entirely superficial level, she's a fucking joke. Disney figured out a very long time ago how to make a character seem cute, innocent, and naive in order to make the audience want to care about the character, want to protect it, and want to see it succeed. You have to give it big, wide, inviting eyes, and a large, disproportionately sized head. You have to make it 'beautiful' by having an even face and pale skin.



The problem is that Bioshock does this to such a degree that the result is fucking disgusting. Look at those tears, don't you just wanna dry them up and hold her in your arms until the bad men go away? What I really want is to find out why the designers thought elephantiasis was an adorable trait: her head is about twice as large as her fucking torso, and her eyes are about as big as an orange. Her neck is so fucking thin that if she turned her head quickly, it would snap right off. The design is so awful that I just want to cry.

Her personality is pretty much the par for female characters in video games. She's cute, and bubbly, and innocent, and naive, and funny. She wants to do the right thing but she needs to be protected. Most important of all, she loves you: the player. She loves you so that you can pretend for a fleeting second that you aren't alone in the world, that you are worth being loved, and that you didn't just spend $60 on this shit.

Here's some of the dialogue, taken straight from the fifteen minute E3 demo.

Elizabeth: "Promise me."

Booker: "I will stop him."

Elizabeth: "No. That is an oath you cannot keep.
*verge of tears*

But promise me that if it comes to it. 
*slowly holds Booker's hand, and then forcefully wraps it around her throat*

That you will NOT let him take me back."

Booker: "It won't come to that, alright"

 
i need to protect her, she's my wife

Oh man, I can feel the great emotion just oozing out of this scene. Almost as much emotion as the previous scene in which Elizabeth spends around a minute of game time whimpering and crying and hiding because she's weak and needs to be protected.

The next scene she's comforting a dying horse because its in pain, for some reason. She gets really emotional about it, because I assume no one at Irrational Games has ever talked to a girl so they just assume all girls get really emotional and cry a lot. I suppose this scene is also meant to elicit sympathy from the audience, but it just comes off as extremely haphazard and out of place, especially the fake "option" to euthanize the horse that disappears as the game forces you to watch Elizabeth fail to use her power correctly. Also the horse disappears making the scene entirely pointless. Fuck you.

so sad! this is so sad and i am feeling sad emotions pouring out of my eyeholes. 

What about the gameplay? Well, I can't imagine the core mechanics will be that bad. It's a First Person Shooter, and those are nearly impossible to fuck up. The most concerning thing is the fact that it takes over eight minutes in a fifteen minute gameplay demo to actually partake in the core mechanics. That is to say that over half of the demo is spent just walking around, getting a bunch of dialogue that you don't care about spouted at you, and NOT shooting anyone. Dempster66 put it about as well as I could ever hope to:

dempster66 and me are on the same page

The core mechanics are pretty boring, to say the least. Standard First Person Shooter affair; you have your pistol, shotgun, submachine gun, sniper rifle, machine gun, rocket launcher. Nothing new or exciting there. I don't know a lot about the health mechanics, but they seem almost pointless as the person playing the demo just runs around with little care of self-preservation, barely getting damaged by any of the enemy's weapons. The entire encounter seems absolutely void of any tension at all, save for the artificial one produced by the massive blimp shooting a million rockets that all miss you and don't damage anything. Or the artificial tension produced by jumping from rail to rail at massive heights, despite the fact that I'm pretty sure you can't die from it unless you can't press a button.

The enemies are some of the dumbest things I've seen in a long time. However, the developer videos of Ken Levine and Shawn Robertson awkwardly trying to explain how the new enemies are totally different are actually pretty funny. Ken Levine starts out by explaining that they wanted enemy types with a "more imaginative range of powers". He proceeds to introduce the Motorized Patriot, an enemy that... shoots at you. I sure as shit have never seen that before, asshole.

"Couple of things make him really special... one is that he's, unlike most of the enemies, he's completely fearless. He doesn't have a sense of self-preservation. So he'll just keep coming at you, coming at you, coming at you." - Ken Levine

The above quote is absolutely wonderful because it implies that the AI in any of his games have ever done anything other than walk at you in a straight line while shooting at you. For fuck's sake, in the fifteen minute gameplay demo that's exactly what most of the enemies do.

My favorite part of the video is Shawn Robertson looking entirely unenthusiastic about it. He looks like he just wanted to get the work over with and not have to deal with Ken's stupid fucking ideas anymore. Shawn talks about the Motorized Patriot as an idea that ""Everybody saw it and said, okay, we can- we can roll with that..." He goes on to say that it was an idea where everyone felt that "let's just move forward with what we got" complete with eye rolling and looking down at the floor.

insert penis. too easy. 

The above is an actual enemy type in Bioshock Infinite. The Boys Of Silence, when they hear you, will open their mouth to screech and attract nearby enemies. I shouldn't have to explain why it is a bad gameplay concept (this exact same enemy type was dropped from the Valve game Left 4 Dead before release). And I really shouldn't have to explain why it is a bad design. I mean, I just really cannot make fun of this thing. Am I going to make fun of a clown for having a big, red nose and silly shoes? The fucking thing wouldn't be able to get through a door. The stupid thing would probably fall over the second it tried turning around. I suppose I can only assume the second point, but it is a fair assumption considering the fucking thing has about half a ton of copper balanced precariously on its neck.

If one person comes in here and tells me that I shouldn't judge the game based on just the demo, or gameplay videos, I'm going to fucking snap. I'm sure you'd rather I shore up the $60 to find out if I should spend $60 on the game. That makes a lot of sense. Demos and gameplay videos are clearly a different game entirely and in the months between E3 and release the developers will have fixed everything!


This game is going to fucking blow.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Stories in Games Fucking Suck

You unbelievable assholes wouldn't know a good story if Charles Foster Kane broke into your house and trashed the shit out of your room. I cannot believe in this day and age shit like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Metal Gear Solid, Bioshock, and every other fucking game that gets released receives praise for having a good story. I understand that you idiots didn't pay attention in English class, and that you don't read books, and that you've cut yourself off so thoroughly from the rest of society that you literally are unable to recognize what passes for an actual conversation, but that's no fucking excuse.

not a writer

Take Bioshock for example. Oh wow turns out the guy helping you was the bad guy, and you were controlled by some secret phrase, and Andrew Ryan is your father. Please excuse me while I yawn so hard my jaw snaps off and I bleed to death. Even if you manage to ignore the fact that they ripped the entire plot from System Shock 2, it's still a boring story. It works as a motivation for a game, in that you have a reason to go from point A to point B, but as plot it is still as bland as ever. Why the fuck is Ryan trying to keep control of a city he knows has died? Why the fuck does Fontaine want control of the city? Why does the Nazi scientist want the Little Sisters to stay alive? They never bothered writing any of these characters deeper than their intial characterizations, so ultimately the player doesn't really give a shit about them or about what happens in the stupid city. It has a 'cool style' or some shit so stupid nerds fall over themselves to praise it.

not a writer

Metal Gear Solid's plot is stupid, doesn't make any sense, and I'm all but certain Hideo Kojima didn't bother thinking about how any of the events connect to each other. In fact, I'm pretty sure he wrote the plot for each of the games as a series of notes on separate napkins and reciepts, jotting down whatever he though "mite b cool" knowing that stupid losers with nothing better to do will fill in the blanks.

definitely not a writer

Mass Effect is so fucking awful I want to fucking cry. Why do I feel like the only person that bothers to have standard for characterization, plot, and voice acting? Why do I feel like I'm the only person with standards for anything? Tali Zorah is a poor excuse for a naive, socially awkward, and ultimately shallow character for nerds to fawn and obsess over. All of the other characters are either extremely boring, or poor caricatures of old Jungian archetypes. The story itself is flimsy at best: another save the world Bioware classic with all the great cliche's of RPG storytelling. I really shouldn't have to fucking explain this. This shouldn't be a huge shock to everyone. The very fact that no one is making fun of Bioware for their awful, clunky dialogue is almost frightening. Is this really what passes for a good story now?

someone who has never talked to another human in real life

For fuck's sake, the ending to Mass Effect 3 is ripped straight out of Deus Ex. You can either bring the Illuminati back to power, join them and rule the world (Take control of the Reapers). Or you can plunge the world into a second Dark Age by destroying the global communications hub and prevent anyone from taking over the world (Destroy the Reapers and all synthetic life). Or you can merge with Helios to rule the world as benevolent dictator with infinite knowledge and reason (Initiate synthesis between organic and synthetic life).

not a writer

As an aside, if you have ever cried at a video game story, please go outside. You are such an embarassment to everyone around you that it is a wonder you haven't killed yourself yet. I'm not even joking anymore, this shit is serious. You seriously have something wrong with you if something as shallow and poorly written as a video game story or character makes you cry. I honestly wonder what your reaction would be to watching something like Schindler's List.

a huge racist

Okay, perhaps I'm being too harsh on the plot itself. Realistically any story can be interesting, it just depends on how you tell it. Unfortunately it just so happens that video games aren't the correct medium to tell a fucking story. Video games require the player to be doing something; they are an active medium. But when you are being told a story, you have to stop and listen so that you can understand and bond with the characters and the motivations. This doesn't fucking work in video games because of how jarring it is to do something, then stop, and do something else, and then stop again. It's like driving on a backed up highway: it isn't fun.

The closest thing you'll ever come to games telling a story would be an open world game that presents the player with a setting, and the ability to do many different things with no set path and no clear goal. The player will then actively create their own story as a byproduct of the gameplay. 

a good story

There is no reason to create a deep story in games, and, likewise, there is no reason for anyone to bother caring or praising a story in a video game. I cannot understand the insistence of losers everywhere to "play games for the story". At that point you aren't playing shit you fucking idiot. Not to mention the fact that you just spent $60 on what you could essentially get for $10 from a movie, or like $15 for a good book. But the next time you think a story in a video game is good, just shut the fuck up and watch Casablanca or Schindler's List. Once you finish, compare the movie to the game. If you thought that the video game story was still better, consider whether or not you have aspergers, and think about whether or not that might affect your judgement.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Role Playing... Not Game?

The more I think about Role Playing Games, the more I start to feel that there is something not quite right about them. I've already discussed why I find most contemporary RPGs boring, but the more I play them, the less I feel like I am partaking in a traditional gameplay experience. I feel like I am no longer playing a game, or rather that Role Playing Games are not actual games. While there are exceptions, Role Playing Games generally fail one of the four "rules" that I previously proposed as a requirement for a game: they require no skill, present no challenge, or contain no goal, or lack several of these defining characteristics.

i got my character sheet already guys, let's play

Before we delve deeper, let's take a closer look at my personal definition for a game. I believe that games are a form of entertainment that people play in order to preoccupy themselves and have 'fun'. In order for something to be defined as a game, I believe it must fulfil all of the following:
  1. Have a set of rules -
    Games are always structured environments. There are always actions that a player can, and cannot do, that are defined by the game world. You cannot pick the ball up with your hands in soccer. You can shoot at the monsters in Doom with your available weapons. You cannot jump in Bulletstorm. If games did not have these definitions they would cease to be games because distinguishing a winning condition and a losing condition would be impossible.
  2. Present a challenge -
    Why do games challenge players? There are a multitude of reasons, but I believe that a game's difficulty is there to provide some sort of mental or physical stimulation for the player. People play games to have 'fun' or receive a positive reinforcement from overcoming a particular challenge, either by thinking actively or performing a physical action. Being challenged allows you to learn from the encounter and grow as a person, which is a generally enjoyable experience.
  3. Require a skill -
    A game does not have to be very difficult, or require a lot of practice, but it must have a set of skills that players can acquire and improve within the game world. Soccer has a very low "skill ceiling"; the minimum required skill being the ability to walk. It does, however, have a strict set of skills that the player can improve upon to become better at the game, like ball control, speed, and accuracy. Games without a skill involved would be shallow, because with nothing to learn or improve upon the potential excitement is greatly reduced.
  4. Contain a goal -
    This is what separates traditional games from 'sandbox games' or toys. The player needs a clear goal to work towards, something that will give positive reinforcement when the player is doing well, and negative reinforcement when they are doing poorly. If you were to remove goals from games, then there would be no point in playing them. If scoring more goals than your opponent does not cause you to win, then why score goals, or play the game at all? Sandbox games may be more suited to 'gameplay without goals' but because games are defined by their rules and challenges, they ultimately require a quantifiable outcome. 
I am certainly not alone in defining games. Here are just a few examples:

some people are actually boring enough to write about games

"A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome." - Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman

"A game is an activity among two or more independent decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context." - Clark C. Abt

"At its most elementary level then we can define game as an exercise of voluntary control systems in which there is an opposition between forces, confined by a procedure and rules in order to produce a disequilibrial outcome." - Elliot Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith


So we've defined games. Then why are Role Playing Games not games? Well, I'm afraid to say that Role Playing Games violate rules 2, 3, and 4 at a fundamental level. In essence the 'gameplay', the feature that defines an RPG as a game, is either non-existent, or borrowed from another game system to give the illusion of being a game. Take Mass Effect: it is repeatedly described as an RPG, but what exactly makes it an RPG? The actual game system (the challenge, the skill, and the goal) are all within the realm of Mass Effect's third-person cover based combat. Everything else is fluff. So while Mass Effect is a game, it is so because of the combat mechanics, not because of the role playing choices.

To take it further, what separates Gears of War from Mass Effect? The obvious difference is that Mass Effect has the standard role playing mechanics: you can make decisions regarding dialogue that shape your character, as well as the standard number progression of RPGs. Neither of those things, however, defines gameplay. What makes a Role Playing Game unique to other game systems fails to make it an actual game.

Role Playing Games lack any real challenge. Looking at the core mechanics of shaping the player character, it is impossible to lose; or rather it is impossible to make the wrong decision. This is obvious, as 'role playing' is all about shaping a character unique to the player, a system that explicitly requires that there be no optimal play. Role Playing Games are usually characterised by their story, the narrative, the dialogue, and the choices shaped by the player. They have about as much challenge as a movie, or a book.


this might surpise you, but i play games in order to play the game

While a lot of Role Playing Games might have actual challenges within the game, those challenges are not part of the role playing system. The skill and challenge in Mass Effect comes from the third-person shooter gameplay, but wouldn't that make Mass Effect a third-person shooter game, instead of an RPG? Dragon Age: Origins was a game that I enjoyed very much, but not because of its RPG elements. I enjoyed the tactical nature of the gameplay and the difficulty presented by correctly wielding your party's abilities to overcome obstacles.

When an RPG has actual game mechanics that are represented by playing a role at the player's discretion, the game mechanics are artificial. That is to say that any success or failure that exists in a Role Playing Game is not defined by a player's skill, but whether they had invested enough time, or whether they had known what to do in advance. Most of this difficulty can be seen in games like Pokemon, and MMORPGs, where if you fail you simply need to invest more time. Or perhaps you now know what is coming and can actually prepare for it.

This leads me to my next point: RPGs require no skill. Look at the game systems that are unique to Role Playing Games. For something like Star Wars: The Old Republic, there is no identifiable set of skills that a player can learn and improve at: you either know what button to press when, or you do not. You cannot improve your reflexes, or your strategy, or your problem-solving abilities. Your ability to win or lose in SW:TOR is defined purely by the amount of in-game hours you have invested compared to your opponent.

rpg grind, not quite as good

I do not have a problem with investing time to improve one's skill at a particular endeavor, but unfortunately that is not what happens. Instead what takes place is a "mindless grind", a process that requires no skill and presents no challenge with the ultimate outcome of making your equipment improve. You haven't become any better at the game, or learned any new strategies or abilities; you've simply increased the numbers associated with your character, making you 'stronger'.

Let's go back to soccer as an example. Say that, instead of spending your time practicing the applicable skills (ball control, speed, accuracy, passing), you could win the game simply by pressing the number one key on your keyboard over and over. You haven't really become any better at the game, you've simply created a situation where the amount of time invested is more than the other player.

My final point is that role playing games do not have goal-based gameplay, beyond finishing the plot or making your numbers higher. The level of gameplay is on par with reading a book, or working on an Excel spreadsheet. This is not a bad thing, it just means that RPGs are more comparable to sandbox toys like SimCity or Minecraft. However the RPG elements’ lack of a win or loss state is important, because feedback that consists solely of rising numbers means that the player has no motivation for playing (beyond some form of autism or obsessive compulsive disorder).

this is a good game

So Role Playing Games aren't games. All along I’ve been playing with a device specifically built to give little challenge, in order to maximize the emphasis of the narrative and the choices the player makes. I suppose this is a better explanation of why I find them so dull. This kind of false labelling really hurts me because I have certain expectations when I play a game, and to have those expectations subverted in such a polarizing fashion makes me wonder why games have moved in such a direction, or why people choose to partake in such mindless exercises.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Games Journalism At It's Finest

Erik Kain is a fucking hack. It seems like a harsh statement, unless you have read his theory on why Mass Effect 3 has received a storm of poor user reviews on Metacritic. The article reeks of ignorance, and although he has since posted an updated theory, I still struggle to understand how exactly someone can be so stupid. Shit, his second article is titled:

"What's Behind The Puzzling Vendetta Against BioWare And Mass Effect 3?"

Man, what is with this vendetta against Bioware? Why are these game enthusiasts so angry at Mass Effect 3? I mean, all the game reviewers gave it a great score, that must mean it is a great game! So then, that means that clearly there's something else at work here. Some kind of conspiracy. It cannot be because it is a bad game. I know, it must be because of homophobia! 

dragon age: origins was a game that contained homosexual relationships. and gamers apparently liked it? 

"The reason so many people are giving such a low rating? You guessed it: the gay sex scene. I won’t dignify the reviews with a quotation, but they’re telling and sad and infuriating all at once."

Ugh. Okay, to give him some credit: 'Gamer Culture' is certainly filled to the brim with homophobes, misogynists, racists, and other absolutely disgusting, hateful assholes. There were undoubtedly people who were disappointed at Bioware’s decision to include homosexual encounters in their game. However I doubt they let it ruin their experience, because gamers are apologists at heart. They are willing to ignore balance issues, bugs, bad graphics, poor game mechanics, shitty dialogue, plot holes, and much more. The suggestion that homosexual content, above all else, was responsible for ruining the average person's experience doesn't make sense. 

Did Erik even think about what he was saying? Or was his motivation simply to rile people up? He did not even address the fact that most people probably didn't play a homosexual character, and might not have known, much less cared that the scenes were even in the game. He also neglects to consider that perhaps the Games Reviewers that gave Mass Effect 3 such a great score may possibly be wrong, or might have been insincere in their review (perhaps because of other motivations). 

yeah, it was the gay sex scenes, and not because this game is awful. 

"Paul doesn’t think that 'Bioware intended to make a political statement with this creative decision. They are simply reflecting reality when designing their game.' And CVG notes, that 'BioWare founders Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk told Kotaku that the move was in response to requests from Mass Effect fans for even more choice in the game.'"

I can't believe I'm actually reading this. According to the founders of Bioware, Mass Effect 3 apparently included the choice for homosexuality because it was so wildly demanded. Thus, there were a lot of people that wanted this choice, enough for it to get included in the game. Perhaps we can even go as far to say that these people are not homophobes. Perhaps the backlash was against, amazingly enough, the game itself! Perhaps people actually thought that the game mechanics were not enjoyable, that the story was poor, and that the writing was awful. What a fucking crazy idea. 

Now, as I said before, this idiot had the gall to post a new article. He finally admits that maybe it was not homophobia that caused such a large outcry towards Mass Effect 3, but not before he received a ridiculous amount of comments calling him an idiot. And not before he gave a parting shot, labeling many of those commentators as homophobes. 

okay, great. 

And then Erik writes one of the dumbest things I have ever seen put to paper:

"Daniel writes, “However liberal their capitalisation, these fans cannot turn back the giant, and no matter how many fiercely they flame, the heat they generate will continue to dwindle. We no longer live in an age of dragons, after all.”

No indeed. We live in an age of trolls."

Fuck you! No, really, fuck you. It is frustrating enough living in an age where good, well designed and thoughtful products are scarce, but the fact that any criticsm towards shallow, broken, and shitty products is immediately labeled as disingenuous and insincere is just enough to make me sick. Criticism is a necessary thing. It helps someone understand their faults, to see where they went wrong and, if they accept it, to be better for it. Not according to Erik. 

This is why the article offends me, and why I express so much vitriol towards the poor man. Mass Effect 3 is apparently not a very good game, and the consumers are attempting to let the company realize this. They do this because they care: they want to see Mass Effect 4 or whatever new product Bioware releases to be better and more enjoyable. There is no homophobic agenda. People are not just writing these reviews for kicks. They are upset that a product they once enjoyed has turned into something else, or that the product was left unchanged and they want something new. 

this is actually in the game. bioware made this, and then put this in the actual game of mass effect 3. 

Erik emphasizes his complete and utter ignorance with this point:

"So a word of advice: if you do have it out for BioWare, and you want to convince people that their games just suck no matter what, don’t take it so far. Give out mediocre scores – a 5 or a 6 or even a 7. It’s more believable. What’s going on right now doesn’t seem real – even if everyone participating has a legitimate bone to pick."

No one has it out for Bioware, despite their recent history of creating awful, broken games (Dragon Age II and Star Wars: The Old Republic come to mind). But besides that, why give mediocre scores? An average user score of 7 or 6 isn’t going to send a message to Bioware. They'll believe that most reviews were positive, except for a couple at the bottom dragging down the average.


It is just unbelievable that Erik refuses to believe that Mass Effect 3 is actually a poor game, that there must be another reason for the current backlash. The thought that the game itself might not actually be enjoyable to play never seems to cross his mind.

erik. it's time. it is time for you to enter the shame cube. 

He ends his article with this final piece:

"A commenter elsewhere has reminded me of a time when I was in very similar shoes as those the old fans of BioWare’s games are in. It’s a useful mirror to hold up to my own face right now. Since I wasn’t a player of the original ME or DA games it’s especially useful.

I’m a big fan of George R. R. Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire books, but when his latest, A Dance With Dragons, came out I was sorely disappointed. And yet! All the big literary reviewers were calling it the best book so far. It was widely lauded with perfect scores and glowing reviews.

The only problem was that the book, by and large, was terrible. Okay, that’s only half true. Half the book was brilliant and the other half was just awful. So I wrote my review partly in protest of the big literary reviewers who I felt were dishonestly representing the book as a triumph when it was anything but.

Now, for me Mass Effect 3 was a fine game. It did what I thought it should do, but I didn’t play Mass Effect 1 so I don’t really understand where original fans of the series are coming from. That’s my fault. In any case, the rest of my critique stands, but I want to say that I do understand where you’re all coming from."

What an arrogant asshole. The game met his expectations; hence it is good, end of story. He conveniently ignores the fact that his judgement of the game is subjective, and that other people could have a different opinion. But this is unsurprising, because after reading his articles, you understand that he is completely unwilling to consider a perspective that is not his own. And that is why Erik Kain is a fucking hack.

Erik Kain,


Congratulations, asshole.