this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
127 points (87.6% liked)

Games

16369 readers
599 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Catering, and ignoring. are two completely different words with two completely different meanings. Did you read the article?

Everything they touch on is so incredibly vague that there is no way to make out what the problem actually is.

"fast-paced gameplay (34 per cent)"

34% complained about the gameplay being too fast-paced. What where they playing? No one knows. Could be sitting playing Call of Duty and raging about being 360 no scoped for all we know.

The article is vague on everything. And that's always on purpose. They're vague on purpose to maximize outrage. Oh this sounds horrible, look at this, the devs are not catering to disabled players. Should we mention that the kid with 1 hand is upset he can't play CS:GO competitively? Nah, just call it "lack of customisable control options"

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works -1 points 11 months ago

oh I'm sorry. My comment was in response to you, and not the article.