Easy Allies |OT2| Love & Reset

Karu said:

A good moderator takes the topic and makes it interesting. Saying crunch does not warrent a discussion in today's world or at anytime is a failure of the moderator and by extend the panel. That is my opinion, of course.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I have seen some other videos on this and apparently the quote of 100-hours has been somewhat ripped out of context.
Some of it is possibly damage control, but I would be very surprised if Dan Houser didn't know that crunch was frowned upon before he made the comment. You are not going to gloat that the whole team works 100-hour weeks when you know people will get pissed off about that.
He afterwards said it was only 4 people in the writing staff who did this for a week or 2/3 (including himself) and that it was done by their own choice, which is still insane, but not as insane as the article made it out to be.

I guess we will have to wait on somebody who really details it first (I guess Jason Schreier is working on it) to see what actually happened.
That said, it's not the first time some people said crunch was for sure real at Rockstar, so I guess it's somewhere in the middle.

I do agree crunch shouldn't exist, but I am not sure what else you can say about it.
Who knows how many hours Kyle worked on Box Peek the last couple of months.

I am curious for Jones' take, but it's probably best to wait for when the whole thing is cleared out because I am not sure it wasn't ripped out of context (the 100 hours thing at least). I am not saying that it's impossible that Rockstar has crunch (I think most studios do), but there is no way the whole studio is doing 100-hour weeks for the last couple of months.

I completely understand that Kyle doesn't want to tackle it because there isn't a lot to say about it. That doesn't mean people agree that it exists (I don't think a lot of people do), it just means that there isn't a lot to say about it except that most people hope it stops and that it's not a humane thing to do.

MrMette said:

Who knows how many hours Kyle worked on Box Peek the last couple of months.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is exactly the sort of thing that makes their discussion on crunch an interesting perspective though. Likewise the crunch that Jones is going to have to go through in the next week to review RDR2 himself. And the hours all of them put in for EZA.

RugoUniverse said:

This is exactly the sort of thing that makes their discussion on crunch an interesting perspective though. Likewise the crunch that Jones is going to have to go through in the next week to review RDR2 himself. And the hours all of them put in for EZA.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Sure, but it's a news podcast. I am not sure if talking about their own crunch is a topic for the podcast.
I am sure they can fill a show which is multiple hours long with anecdotes about that (but I don't think they want to do that, which is understandable).

Dan Houser said in the other article (the one after the 100-hour one) that nobody in Rockstar is forced to work longer hours and that the people that do, do it by their own choice. He said that the writing team (which includes himself) are people working together for 12 years and that they did this before in previous games as well. It's still not ok, but if they find that they can do the most work like this with the pressure on and they choose it themselves, it's not really that bad imo.

If they start to force other people to do so, it's a whole different thing of course (see Telltale).

RugoUniverse said:

This is exactly the sort of thing that makes their discussion on crunch an interesting perspective though. Likewise the crunch that Jones is going to have to go through in the next week to review RDR2 himself. And the hours all of them put in for EZA.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I have been lurking on this thread for a good while now and I just want put out there my opinion about the criticism on the crunch that EZA are in right now. I just want to clear the air and say that Allies decided to go down this route. They enjoy reviewing games, playing games, talking about games. This "crunch" that they are in, IMHO, they enjoy it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing this.

This is just what I think is going through the heads of EZA right now. They enjoy this time, as opposed to the dog days of summer, where there are no new games to play and just working through their backlog.

So, I watched the Starlink review and I honest to god thought: very nicely written in depth review. Of course I noticed the "Star Fox approach" Damiani took, but I assumed there wasn't much else to say besides what he talked about and the Switch-exclusive Star Fox stuff. Ubisoft themselves have tried to hide the other versions with the total lack of marketing for them after all, their fault. Then I come into this thread and read this:

Hasney said:

Not really. I learned from the YouTube comments that the game has a drop-in drop-out split screen co-op mode. That's pretty glaring.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yo, what? It has an entire co-op mode not even mentioned in the video? I'm going with "weird review" now.

renegade_sylens said:

I have been lurking on this thread for a good while now and people criticizing the Allies on the crunch that they are in right now. I just want to clear the air and say that Allies decided to go down this route. They enjoy reviewing games, playing games, talking about games. This "crunch" that they are in, IMHO, they enjoy it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing this.

This is just what I think is going through the heads of EZA right now. They enjoy this time, as opposed to the dog days of summer, where there are no new games to play and just working through your backlog.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm not criticising them in any way. I'm saying that they can offer an interesting perspective on an important discussion which the rest of the industry is having and is going to continue to have, at a point when the biggest game of this generation is being released.

Hasney said:

Not really. I learned from the YouTube comments that the game has a drop-in drop-out split screen co-op mode. That's pretty glaring.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

To be fair, I don't think the other review I checked mentioned this either.
I haven't checked out too many of them, but I am almost positive that there will be a other reviews who don't mention this.
It's almost impossible to mention everything in a game. What people find important in games is different for everybody as well.

MrMette said:

Sure, but it's a news podcast. I am not sure if talking about their own crunch is a topic for the podcast.
I am sure they can fill a show which is multiple hours long with anecdotes about that (but I don't think they want to do that, which is understandable).

Dan Houser said in the other article (the one after the 100-hour one) that nobody in Rockstar is forced to work longer hours and that the people that do, do it by their own choice. He said that the writing team (which includes himself) are people working together for 12 years and that they did this before in previous games as well. It's still not ok, but if they find that they can do the most work like this with the pressure on and they choose it themselves, it's not really that bad imo.

If they start to force other people to do so, it's a whole different thing of course (see Telltale).

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Sounds like my brother's work habits vs my own. My brother likes to crunch on stuff all the time, he believes that he is the most productive when he procrastinates and he just does think at the very last minute. He is able to excel academically through this rather peculiar work habit (studying medicine at a top 10 med school in the USA) whereas I am more of the normal type of worker: doing things in chunks and taking breaks regularly and not leaving things until the last minute.

It all depends on the person and the makeup of the team. Some teams are made up of people where the majority prefer to crunch and others like to organize things and get things done in chunks. To each their own.

I however agree that it when you force your own work habits on others that you are crossing the line and should be held accountable.

Jones never said it was all on Cup of Jones, just that it's his editorial and it seems it's because he can link it to things happening within EZA.

They might bring it up in discussion, or Kyle might bring it up to say "it's bad" and move on like he has in the past.

EDIT: Double post

Are we ever going to get that Astro Bot review from the Allies, or is it doomed to be ignored simply because it's a VR game?

JayC3 said:

True, but they've ignored various stories throughout the months, so much so that some people are preemptively assuming they won't cover the crunch story on the podcast (I am part of this camp, admittedly). And others are providing justifications for them not covering this crunch story. So it's definitely a pattern that is being noticed. Just some food for thought.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But Jones has said clearly that he will be covering it in CoJ...

renegade_sylens said:

But Jones has said clearly that he will be covering it in CoJ...

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But he was specifically talking about the podcast?

Acquiescence said:

Are we ever going to get that Astro Bot review from the Allies, or is it doomed to be ignored simply because it's a VR game?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Doesn't seem like it will be reviewed, but it has definitely not been ignored. Brandon and Amanda streamed it, and it was discussed on this week's Frame Trap. Brandon, Huber, Ben, Kyle, and Brad have all played and liked it, so I'd imagine it will be discussed at least a little bit on a future stream or podcast as well.

Acquiescence said:

Are we ever going to get that Astro Bot review from the Allies, or is it doomed to be ignored simply because it's a VR game?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Reviews take time, theres a chance it will slip through the cracks though since I'm assuming they are on a very tight schedule with it being "review season" and all that. I believe Brad did express interest in reviewing it though.

Astro Bot - Don't Skip coming in a few months I'd bet

Bloodworth said:

Each of them streamed the game yesterday as well, and Brandon particularly spent a lot of time with the toys and the PS4 version. While I totally get anyone disagreeing with how Damiani approached the review, it's very rare that we ever get the chance to include impressions from more than one version of the game within a review. From the outset, the plan was for Damiani to review the Switch version and for Brandon to stream on PS4.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If that's th case, and you counted on doing a specific Switch only review of the game then that's a giant miscalculation on your part. Having Jones stream the game is very very different to seeing a review of it on YouTube. Different audiences watch these, different things are discussed and a different time commitment is needed.

Mario Bilo said:

If that's th case, and you counted on doing a specific Switch only review of the game then that's a giant miscalculation on your part. Having Jones stream the game is very very different to seeing a review of it on YouTube. Different audiences watch these, different things are discussed and a different time commitment is needed.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Why? Again, we almost never review a game by testing multiple platforms. The platform reviewed is shown at the beginning of the review. We had two copies of the game and two staff members interested for different reasons. It makes far more sense to me to have Brandon give his own take on that in a separate format, and a review wouldn't really work as well for showing off the physical toys.

Bloodworth said:

Why? Again, we almost never review a game by testing multiple platforms. The platform reviewed is shown at the beginning of the review. We had two copies of the game and two staff members interested for different reasons. It makes far more sense to me to have Brandon give his own take on that in a separate format, and a review wouldn't really work as well for showing off the physical toys.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I take your point when it comes to showing the toys off. Though again a feature on YouTube would probably be better as I can't imagine the overlap between your YouTube review viewing audience and twitch audience to be so big.

Again if the plan was always to focus on starfox exclusively in the review then it should have, at least, be labeled better. Otherwise one would expect to review to talk about the game as a whole first and then mention the star fox content and what it does to the overall experience. Finally, ending the review with "ubisoft should make a star fox game" also isn't the best choice.

Mario Bilo said:

I take your point when it comes to showing the toys off. Though again a feature on YouTube would probably be better as I can't imagine the overlap between your YouTube review viewing audience and twitch audience to be so big.

Again if the plan was always to focus on starfox exclusively in the review then it should have, at least, be labeled better. Otherwise one would expect to review to talk about the game as a whole first and then mention the star fox content and what it does to the overall experience. Finally, ending the review with "ubisoft should make a star fox game" also isn't the best choice.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The fact that the game is so different on Switch compared to the other 2 consoles is a Ubisoft decission and it's somewhat their fault that there is such a big difference by making an exclusive chapter on Switch. This usually gets the internet all over the company in question but apparently not this time (even though they basically gave Nintendo a couple of exclusive map-packs so to speak). If you look at Metacritic, most reviews are done on Switch, so I assume Ubisoft prefers to send out the Switch release.

I still agree that the review was possibly too much Star Fox focused (and yes, I also thought it was somewhat weird), but the platform shouldn't make that much of a difference in game and the fact that it does is Ubisofts fault and not EZA. They just did their review and it's maybe a weird thing to say, but if I am unsure what to do with a game after I check a review, I usually check a couple of other ones after it. I completely understand the complaints, but even though I don't even understand why so many people even seem interested in this game, I do feel like people are over-exaggerating about the review. You may not agree with the decisions made for the review, but that doesn't make it a bad review. It just makes it a review you don't agree with (and that's ok).

I have watched other reviews and I don't think Damiani missed a lot of things about the game compared to other outlets. He mentioned everything the game was (but granted from a Star Fox perspective). Most of the Star Fox things are just skins, so the gameplay and such should be the same.

Again, I understand why people are disappointed, but it's not the end of the world and most people who are complaining do seem to think that it is for some reason (maybe I am missing something?). If you are interested in the game, buy the game. If you are so convinced about it, you don't need a review. Otherwise, let the game slide or try and find other opinions. Buying a game on one single review is not the smartest thing to do anyway.

Mario Bilo said:

I take your point when it comes to showing the toys off. Though again a feature on YouTube would probably be better as I can't imagine the overlap between your YouTube review viewing audience and twitch audience to be so big.

Again if the plan was always to focus on starfox exclusively in the review then it should have, at least, be labeled better. Otherwise one would expect to review to talk about the game as a whole first and then mention the star fox content and what it does to the overall experience. Finally, ending the review with "ubisoft should make a star fox game" also isn't the best choice.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

There was never a plan to go into it with that angle, that was just Damiani's takeaway. Anyone is free to disagree with his approach, and I don't think any other writer would have handled it the same way. I do think it's more of the angle that he approached it though, and that he still covered all the general points he needed to. Jones would have of course gone at length to describe the toys, someone else may have taken the time to try coop. It just seems Star Fox is more heavily integrated than anyone would ordinarily expect, and Damiani saw other parallels between the games' designs.

Mario Bilo said:

that's a giant miscalculation on your part

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Would you say they shot themselves in the foot?

MrMette said:

I do agree crunch shouldn't exist, but I am not sure what else you can say about it. Who knows how many hours Kyle worked on Box Peek the last couple of months.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think the Allies probably put in some crazy hours, but I think it is also worth noting that they aren't employees of a company, they are all in this together. So, there is definitely a big difference between someone being forced to crunch, and someone willingly taking on tasks, and working long hours, to help build a company that they are an equal stakeholder of.

It's genuinely disappointing that EZA Podcast won't discuss hot button issues in the gaming industry. Jones says, "well, what can we say other than that it's bad?" But how is pretty much every other podcast able to discuss it? They may think they don't have a unique perspective on the issue, but it's not about that. It's about the fact that some - like myself - listen to EZA Podcast as my EXCLUSIVE gaming news podcast, so I want to hear them talk about it. Maybe they have some experience with crunching and can relate to it, and can share their experience with others.

I don't know. It's just frustrating.

Sa(Top)lty Ten coming out soon, woop.

VanWinkle said:

But how is pretty much every other podcast able to discuss it?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

VanWinkle said:

It's about the fact that some - like myself - listen to EZA Podcast as my EXCLUSIVE gaming news podcast

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

One of these things is not true.

jondgc said:

One of these things is not true.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I see headlines from other podcasts and discussion surrounding them on the forum.

VanWinkle said:

I see headlines from other podcasts and discussion surrounding them on the forum.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Haha I know, I know, just poking fun. All I can say is that at this point you can expect consistency from EZA on these types of things, because if they were to change then they wouldn't be EZA anymore.

Rezbit said:

Probably wasn't the best review ever but I'm not worried - one dodgy review in 150+ isn't a big deal to me, especially coming off Blood's SUPERB FH4 review.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

FH4 was my first PC game purchase on his review alone. I have never played a previous game of the franchise. Exceptional work.

Apal_ytos said:

This must be the worst review EZA ever published.
I barely got a sense of what the game is outside of Starfox.
What I got is that Damiani liked the Starfox content, wanted more of it, and wants Ubisoft to ditch the multiplatform franchise and make a console exclusive game.
I can't even trust his rating. Did he gave it that score because of what the game is, or because of what it isn't ( a Starfox game)?

Surprised and disappointed with EZA, I had their reviews at a higher standard.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Damiani has given up all semblance of interest outside of the Nintendo bubble. A proper review is intended to inform and educate a variety of viewers whether a game is right for them. Instead he wrote a Starlink review exclusively for Star Fox fans. It's a failure of editorial oversight that Easy Allies is guilty of from time to time because of how self-indulgent the whole Patreon-funded model can be and is the primary reason EZA can be out of touch with games like PUBG and Wildlands becoming huge successes.

But that's okay. What the Starlink review shows us is that from future Damiani reviews, we should expect to see the perspective of a Nintendo fan. And there's nothing with that. Easy Allies isn't a monolith. We can expect more thorough reviews from the other Allies. As people get older, they start to double down on nostalgia so Damiani's Nintendo-centric focus only makes sense. I see it happen to people all around me.

Thank god these kind of things are not on the podcast. I dont need the morale education class every week. We get plenty of that on this forum..

i criticized damiani for a lot of things but that Starlink review was fine. i'd much rather hear this take on the SF stuff than one of the million other cookie cutter reviews.

spman2099 said:

I think the Allies probably put in some crazy hours, but I think it is also worth noting that they aren't employees of a company, they are all in this together. So, there is definitely a big difference between someone being forced to crunch, and someone willingly taking on tasks, and working long hours, to help build a company that they are an equal stakeholder of.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But that's the whole thing. Dan Houser said afterwards that it's only the senior writing staff (which includes himself) who worked 100-hour weeks for 3 weeks and that they do it by choice and have done so the last couple of games. He also said nobody is forced to work overtime at Rockstart. Now I do believe it was probably somewhat damage control, but again, I don't see how somebody smart like Dan Houser is going to boast about 100-hour workweeks when he knows how the people look at crunch. He said the only people working overtime are the people choosing to do so.

I honestly think this story hasn't been cleared out yet as I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is somewhere in the middle. Even if some people chose to work 80-hour weeks, it's difficult because other members of the team will feel that they are expected to work those kinds of hours because of this in fear to get replaced or that they never will be promoted if they don't even if there hasn't been an actual threat stating this.

That said, I am not sure what you can do about that except making it illegal to work such hours like it is in Belgium for example. You are not allowed to work over 11 hours a day in Belgium if I'm not mistaken. I am sure people in the restaurant business do so anyway (and they just don't declare those hours legally), but it's still a way to try and prevent stuff like this.

I am also not saying that it doesn't exists. It unfortunately does and it's bad for people's health and their social life and honestly bad for the game they are working on if it get's out of hand (see Telltale), but I don't know how much there is to do about it as long as people aren't actually threatened that they have to do so. You can't forbid a person to willingly work 70+ hour weeks (except if you forbid it by law like in Belgium and apparently some other European countries as well).

I guess Kyle feels like he can't really comment on that stuff if he sometimes works those kinds of hours as well or something like that (not sure if he did for Box Peek, but I wouldn't be surprised). I can totally understand that.

The review seemed fine to me. I understand the remarks, but this kind of was pretty much the only angle that game caught my attention with. It showed off what the game was like, and answered all the questions I had.

Stinkinmushroom said:

Thank god these kind of things are not on the podcast. I dont need the morale education class every week. We get plenty of that on this forum..

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I too like to stick my head in the sand and scream la la la.

EarthPainting said:

The review seemed fine to me. I understand the remarks, but this kind of was pretty much the only angle that game caught my attention with. It showed off what the game was like, and answered all the questions I had.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The trick is to not view it from your own limited view, but from a general audience one. In that context, yes, I personally think it matters how this review was framed. I think he made the wrong choice.
s

Dmax3901 said:

I too like to stick my head in the sand and scream la la la.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

yes , that is what i said. lalala

Karu said:

The trick is to not view it from your own limited view, but from a general audience one. In that context, yes, I personally think it matters how this review was framed. I think he made the wrong choice.
s

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Eh, your own limited views are pretty much the only thing you can cover in a review. You can't review in the name of a general audience. That is too wide of a target to chase, and would mostly consist of guess-work, and still won't serve everyone. Entertainment reviews cover your own experiences and impressions, with the copy available to you. As someone who prefers portable games, I'm used to reviews ignoring other versions, and reviews that heavily focus on major features absent in those portable entries.

Since you can review games in countless ways, you have to find and communicate the angle you're approaching it from. In this case I think the Star Fox one is a perfectly valid one. You're entitled to think it was the wrong choice, but that lands in the same realm of subjectivity as reviews themselves.

this feels overly dramatic

Well, I was never argueing about objectivity or subjectivity. I always thought that debate was pointless. Reviews are subjective full-stop so how Damiani frames his review is indeed his own choice, but I never denied him that. So I dont really get your last sentence.

I do not think Damiani communicated his angle very well. To me the review has a confusing flow which is in part due to the discussion surrounding Star Fox and the lack of discussion on certain other aspects. Now, I only viewed the review once, though as closely as any other review I watch, so there might be underlying flow and reasoning that I missed, but imo a good review doesn`t even lead me to such thoughts, this underlying feeling of something being off about the text structurally. At least if it wasn`t a stylistical choice with a purpose, of course (I am talking about the structure and style of the text itself here removed from the game).

I'm glad that we got some Call of Duty discussion on Frame Trap. It's sucked all my friends and I in hard. Huber and Ben mentioned what I think are the greatest strengths of the package. Each major mode offers a strong difference in tempo that makes it refreshing even just to switch from standard MP to Blackout. If you're playing for a while and stop feeling the go go go of MP, you can hop in a game of Blackout for a completely different experience but still just as compelling. I was so ready to be down on the game but since the beta it's shot to the top of my list for the year.

Really looking forward to the CoD discussion myself. Maybe will be able to snuck in some time for FrameTrap tonight.

I completely obliterated my games budget as in cutting it completely, only have a few Switch games left ready to be brought to GameStop for the 9,99€ deals, but probably won't use it for CoD, maybe not even for RDR2. Probably depends how big the download of the retail version is as my current internet is really slow and I do not have the time to wait a couple of days to play.

This is a busy season. Damiani played Starlink in the system he preferred, with the StarFox mode that he was most excited about - and that all the Allies have been most interested in (and I believe the audience too). He gave us a review based on his experience, and probably had to move on to another game, or else people would be complaining here that some reviews are late. I think he made the right choice, he picked the most interesting perspective, reviewed it, and moved on.

Damiani consistently gets his reviews out at embargoes at least

MrMette said:

But that's the whole thing. Dan Houser said afterwards that it's only the senior writing staff (which includes himself) who worked 100-hour weeks for 3 weeks and that they do it by choice and have done so the last couple of games. He also said nobody is forced to work overtime at Rockstart. Now I do believe it was probably somewhat damage control, but again, I don't see how somebody smart like Dan Houser is going to boast about 100-hour workweeks when he knows how the people look at crunch. He said the only people working overtime are the people choosing to do so.

I honestly think this story hasn't been cleared out yet as I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is somewhere in the middle. Even if some people chose to work 80-hour weeks, it's difficult because other members of the team will feel that they are expected to work those kinds of hours because of this in fear to get replaced or that they never will be promoted if they don't even if there hasn't been an actual threat stating this.

That said, I am not sure what you can do about that except making it illegal to work such hours like it is in Belgium for example. You are not allowed to work over 11 hours a day in Belgium if I'm not mistaken. I am sure people in the restaurant business do so anyway (and they just don't declare those hours legally), but it's still a way to try and prevent stuff like this.

I am also not saying that it doesn't exists. It unfortunately does and it's bad for people's health and their social life and honestly bad for the game they are working on if it get's out of hand (see Telltale), but I don't know how much there is to do about it as long as people aren't actually threatened that they have to do so. You can't forbid a person to willingly work 70+ hour weeks (except if you forbid it by law like in Belgium and apparently some other European countries as well).

I guess Kyle feels like he can't really comment on that stuff if he sometimes works those kinds of hours as well or something like that (not sure if he did for Box Peek, but I wouldn't be surprised). I can totally understand that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Jason Schreier is working on the story so we'll know more soon. That said this is a rather naive take that doesn't seem to consider a lot of the problems when it comes to crunch in the industry.
For one crunch can technically not be forced but that doesn't mean much when you're put into a position where you're the single person not doing the extra hours while everyone else in the "team" does. The resulting team atmosphere/dynamic from that... well they might as well force you.
Also this is definitely not the first time there is talk about the work conditions at Rockstar so I feel like the statement should be a met with a fair amount of criticism.
Beyond that I think the discussion needs to consider too what the compensation is for the crunch, insurance situation of people, etc. As other people have pointed out there is a difference putting the extra hours in when you're in the position to basically reap the appropriate rewards cause you're high up but most of the time people that don't get that are basically exploited for the love of the work. Also being smart doesn't protect you from slipups + from my own experiences I think you can't underestimate how blind you can become to the whole putting in the extra hours thing for the good of something artistically great especially when you're the person at the head of it + the way this whole culture as of now has to a certain extent normalized this. The whole debate on crunch has only picked up big somewhat recently(like 2-3 years ago?) I have no doubts that it's insanely uncomfortable for a lot of people that have only lived through the crunch culture themselves and are in managing positions to really grapple with the topic.

Imo the larger point I wanted to make I think given what the culture right now really is I think giving the benefit of the doubt towards the side that has been basically fine with the exploitation is maybe not the most sensible thing to do. Certain things you can't just view from a vacuum of assumed equality because when you look at the results they might end up being disastrous. I view this similarly like how the metoo movement should have been a wakeup call to a lot of us to reconsider how we as a society should treat harassment and sex crimes and how certain views within that, that might seem reasonable in a vacuum have basically let to victims not speaking out, not getting justice.

Glory said:

Damiani has given up all semblance of interest outside of the Nintendo bubble. A proper review is intended to inform and educate a variety of viewers whether a game is right for them. Instead he wrote a Starlink review exclusively for Star Fox fans. It's a failure of editorial oversight that Easy Allies is guilty of from time to time because of how self-indulgent the whole Patreon-funded model can be and is the primary reason EZA can be out of touch with games like PUBG and Wildlands becoming huge successes.

But that's okay. What the Starlink review shows us is that from future Damiani reviews, we should expect to see the perspective of a Nintendo fan. And there's nothing with that. Easy Allies isn't a monolith. We can expect more thorough reviews from the other Allies. As people get older, they start to double down on nostalgia so Damiani's Nintendo-centric focus only makes sense. I see it happen to people all around me.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This ain't it chief.