Jealousy is at the heart of the current trend of hatred against beautiful female characters in games.†
Men and women are genetically programmed to seek out better, healthier and younger partners and they know it. This is what makes them extremely jealous of anyone of the same sex who is physically superior or successful to them.
For example take a middle aged couple, the wife walks into a bar and sees her husband sitting next to and talking to a young female super model. What are her first thoughts?
A. That cheating bastard!
B. Probably just another bar patron.
Of course her immediate thought is that he is cheating on her with this girl by simply talking to her.†
An easy example for men is Justin Bieber, men are extremely jealous of his success and how women throw themselves at him regardless of his lack of musical talent. This is what has lead males to hate this guy and other popular young male singers and boy bands.
Due to the advancement of graphics game characters can look extremely realistic and beautiful. Men and women are spending more time than ever interacting with digital media rather than with each other, whether it be phones, tablets, consoles or computers. Women see that these female digital characters have far higher sex appeal than they could ever possibly hope to achieve with their unrealistic proportions and perfect skin.
Women become jealous of the digital female characters who are stealing the attention of their mates or potential mates. Finding they cannot change the hobbies of males they've pushed for sex-negative campaigns against digital female characters to try and stifle their sex appeal and hope to receive more direct attention from males in return.
The men joining the cause are simply doing so to be seen as apathetic and gain attention from the women.
Today I was looking over the review scores of The Last of Us and I am extremely disappointed to find almost 30 perfect 10 scores. Now I realise that reviews and scores are subjective based on opinion, but is any game truly flawless?
In these perfect 10 reviews they all list flaws for the game such as NPCs being invisible to enemies. Destructoid attempts to excuse this away saying it is ďan acceptable anomalyĒ. This seems bizarre to me when the entire premise of the game is your mission to protect and escort this girl, but suddenly this is thrown out the window for convenience? I think that Resident Evil 4 handled it much better with Ashley, as you had to keep a constant eye on her at times putting yourself into danger while you shoot the enemies attacking her.
I see reviewers throwing out perfect 10s as them tossing away their Reviewer status and joining the fanboy/girl club. If I had to compile a top 10 list of my favourite games of all time I would not give a single one a 10, as I acknowledge that none of them are perfect.
I see that Destructoid has a caveat regarding 10s stating: Games rated 10 aren't perfect, since nothing is, but they come as close as you could get in a given genre. The new must-have game in its sector, we're talking pure ecstasy.
My response to this is that if it isnít flawless it isnít a 10, thatís what 9.9, 9.8, 9.7, etc is for.
Personally I wish weíd do away with scores entirely from the entire gaming review sector. Instead of a score the review should just be ended with a basic recommendation summary.
A common trend since the event of portable media players and other such devices is that they have been rated by their total storage space. Originally this wasn't much of a problem, as barely any of that space had been consumed by system functionality.
However lately the device's operating system and applications have begun to consume so much of the storage space that the rating used to advertise the product has become misleading in how far it is off of the actual available space for the consumer.
Microsoft surface Pro - Advertised as 64GB - actual free space 23GB
iPad Mini - advertised as 16Gb - actual free space 13GB
Nexus 7 - advertised as 8GB - actual free space 5.9GB
iPod Touch - advertised as 8GB - actual free space 6.5GB
I feel that corporations should be forced to advertise their products based on the actual available free space on the device. That way when you advertise a device as 8GB then you should expect to a receive a device that has 8GB of free storage to use.
If we enforce such a rule industry wide this will definitely benefit consumers in the following ways:
1. When you buy an 8GB music player, you'll get 8GB of storage. i.e. you get exactly what is expected.
2. It'll discourage suppliers from installing shovelware and other junk on the device, as it'll come as a cost to them rather than take up the consumers storage space. Because they will be forced to increase the size of the storage in order to house the additional junk without taking away from the rated storage.
3. Companies will be encouraged to think smarter about how they design the systems installed on the device, to make them consume less space.
Some of you may be saying "you never get the rated size from a new computer hard drive, as you have to format to use it". That's completely different to this, as a system builder you are buying a HDD in a clean slate and know that you have to format it and install stuff to be able to use it.
In the case of these products you are buying a final product, with a rated storage, however the companies know full well ahead of time that you will never have access the amount of space they are advertising it to have.