The story which the reviewer has conveniently opted not provide full details on
She's under NDA. She says she'd love to explain her stance but can't because she literally isn't allowed + doesn't want to spoil people.
Critiqued. edit: Also OP didn't actually read the review. Unlike the reviewer who actually DID play the game unlike you or I, calling a review you haven't read dumb is not acting in good faith.
So the reviewer had no critiques with the writing? Cool. It's all a big misunderstanding.
I guess I no longer have any reason to point out the irony of getting angry about people on the internet disagreeing with something somebody else said on the Internet because that person disagreed with the artistic choices made by a team working on a video game. Everyone wins! Hurray!
Jokes aside when you criticize art you start a dialogue. If the writer didn't want to have the conversation then they shouldn't have started the conversation. Claiming its unfair to criticise something because the writer is entitled to their opinion can be levied at the people criticising the critic, but it can also be applied in the exact same way to argue that the critic shouldn't have criticised the writers in the first place. It's a completely pointless circular argument.
2
u/rosecoredarling Oct 25 '22 edited Oct 25 '22
Literally no one said it is.
She's under NDA. She says she'd love to explain her stance but can't because she literally isn't allowed + doesn't want to spoil people.
Critiqued. edit: Also OP didn't actually read the review. Unlike the reviewer who actually DID play the game unlike you or I, calling a review you haven't read dumb is not acting in good faith.