Suicide Squid: Kill the Justice League

I honestly don't think the preview would've even put that many people off. The first couple of paragraphs just whine about how you kill the Justice League in a game called Kill the Justice League, so anyone interested in the game would probably ignore the multitude of issues the preview goes on to point out.

I was hoping Rocksteady would say what changes they'd made after the alpha, as it might've been flawed but there were sparks of potential fun just begging to claw their way out. Even basics damage tweaks would help so you don't feel as squishy.

Anyway, only 2 and a bit days everyone!

I bet it's identical. I bet they haven't fixed the bugs in the cutscenes I had (and they had, in one of their own streams). The core gameplay certainly won't have changed and as you say, it's just a bit boring.

That clip shows up on my youtube feed every now and then and it always makes me laugh.

Such a reliable group to discuss the matter..



Not Jeff Keighley mountain Dew/Doritos levels but still bad.
They also just sound like complete pricks while talking.

You really should check out the suicide squad subreddit whenever you get a chance it might as well be called r/gettingoffendedonbehalfofcorporations

I did see on the sub-reddit that the guy doing the full IGN review platinumed Avengers. I love Avengers but there are a couple of trophies which require some heavy grinding (at least 50 hours) of the same content. If that guy can't wring some pleasure out of Suicide Squad, I don't think anyone will be able to.

Think the guy on the right had to leave due to allegations.

Edit, even worse was he was grooming.

I have to say that one of the issues I've always had with this game is the very premise, and I'm glad this guy echoes it in his preview.

Even if the whole live service/loot shooter aspect didn't turn me off anyway, I've just got no desire to see a story unfold featuring heroic characters that I really like doing terrible things and then getting murdered. It just doesn't appeal to me.

From what I've seen this seems to be the case, the language they used indicated they were going the influencer/content creator route which obviously will be very impartial. Obviously.

The "give info/code to influencers over journalists" will be the norm at some point, IMO.

That said, I barely see the difference between the average games journo and randos on the internet any more anyways. Over the last decade or so publishers realised they don't need the press any more, or to give them anywhere near as much access as they used to, because they don't need them to get the word out any more. Stick up a trailer, job done. It's why most gaming journalism has basically hit rock bottom lately, because there's not really anything left for them anymore than articles rage baiting people and summaries of trailers that you can just go and watch for yourself. Used to be that they actually knew something about the industry while a lot of games media takes these days are indistinguishable from reddit shitposting.

Review sites tend to give a proper review (mostly) and some rando on the internet (eg streamer) who is given "special" access and shills for them - no one is going to believe them again. I do find people prefer some youtube channel are better eg I like shillup's content and red letter media (not intrested in what empire mag or that bbc reviewer that looks like max headroom says for films)

I believe the same author of that article also claimed that Kimberly from SF6 was the first black woman to be in a Street Fighter game. It's par for the course for that site.

Thier defence was that the other notable women, one being from Kenya didn't count as black. Apparently.

The site was close to closure a few years back which is when they started doing all the click bait BS.

It's a bit of a vicious circle really. Death of print magazines, click-advertizing business model, etc.. have meant much less money and job security for games journalists, combined with the need to pump out content. But rise in influencers and social media means publishers no-longer rely much on games journalists to get the word out to consumers.

As such, I guess the days of being flown half way around the world to attend a private preview are mostly gone, as are most of the big in-person industry events that journalists would have attended in the past. So a lot of sites tend to be using more freelancers and writers don't seem to hang around for long, so they don't really develop the experience or knowledge they would once have had.

On the other hand, I think there's still some value in news/reviews coming from a reasonably reputable source who have at least some minimum standard editorial process. In the same way that a random news story posted on social media *could* be totally accurate, but it could also be total bullshit, whereas something from a big news organisation is at least likely to have been marginally vetted.
Not that that really matters as much for something like reviews, where it's all subjective and you can watch people play and make up your own minds. Then again, I never really read reviews in order to decide whether to buy or not.

I don't really buy the argument about games journalists being less knowledgeable than the average gamer though. They aren't up against the average gamer, they're up against the hive-mind of a billion gamers who will *always* know more than them, and always be quick to point out any tiny mistake in every article.

Notwithstanding the fact that these days they're probably some relatively green freelancer who needs to pump out 100 articles a day, I imagine that back in the day journalists would make just as many mistakes, but most people wouldn't notice and the one guy who did notice would be alone in his bedroom screaming at his games mag.

It was noticeable that the majority of comments on the IGN article about not getting a review code were saying 'Good! You guys don't deserve an review code!'