Here's a simple 1:30 video summarizing the other side that your article doesn't really talk much about, more or less. It glosses over a lot, but it's short so things were sacrificed for brevity. There's a part after the channel outtro, just FYI.
someproteinguy wrote:
More seriously though, I'm really having trouble figuring out why people are just now going up in arms about "video game journalism." I mean,
this was 20 years ago, and if it wasn't obvious before then, that was certainly a "lightbulb moment" (yes I'm still bitter 20 years later). I suppose each new generation has to figure things out for themselves though.
That was one(or maybe several) magazine(s) during a time when the internet was very different than it is now. And it sounds like they were playing a beta and had taken the developer's word that currently missing features would be live on release. It was easy to miss and forget, and might have even been good faith reporting by the magazines based on what they actually believed.
14ish simultaneous articles in the internet age made for a big ******* sign pointing at the problem and was very hard to miss.