this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
1 points (52.6% liked)

Games

16743 readers
764 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blaze@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because it's pressvertising.

Veilguard has had a year (at least) of relentless, shameless astroturfing, ever since BG3 got GOTY, because EA knows it's not gonna be even close to competing with it and they (rightly) fear Veilguard will get shat on, especially since Bioware is on a 2 games abject failure streak with Andromeda and Anthem both failing horribly and Inquisition having at best a mixed reception with how buggy and repetitive it was at launch.


As a rule of thumb: if an article comes out before a game's actual release, it's positive about an aspect the game or franchise is known to be lacking in, and it sounds like John Oliver's parody of a corporate shill? It's pressvertising.

It's access-for-coverage, a trading of favours that stays undisclosed because technically no money changed hands; however, in the past we've seen what happens to outlets that don't kiss the ring and use the access to actually speak negatively of the product, or even neutrally, so we know there is an implicit (and explicit if you know the history of these dealings) pressure to be positive at any cost.


So in short: it's a bad article pretending to analyse the content they have early access to when really they're just advertising the game uncritically. It's literally just source-washed marketing material.

[–] Blaze@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago
[–] shani66@ani.social 0 points 1 month ago

Probably because the author is trying their hardest to earn the paycheck bioware sent their way, if i had to guess. They are trying really hard to make a, from what we've seen, very bad combat system look better.