>>118917944>sure, you're right there, except that your argument in the last posts was that ALL the woke games were failuresOkay, fine, I'll retract my intentionally hyperbolic statement.
MOST woke games tend to go broke, and wokeness is highly correlated with low quality or lack of success.
>That's the other flaw in your argument. You think that all the failures of the game are related to "wokeness" in some degreeIt would be, if I were specifically saying that wokeness is the cause. All it's saying is that, if a game is woke, it will likely go broke based on past trends, regardless if wokeness is the cause of brokeness or merely correlated.
Maybe we can have a thought experiment where, ceteris paribus, two games are almost as identical as can be besides their political leanings. The problem with this is that, inherently, the story and tone of a game is intractably linked to those producing it and to many other hidden factors and confounding variables that are relevant for its success.
Everything I've been saying has been concerned explicitly with the WHAT and IS, not the HOW and WHY.
Why do woke games go broke, or why are they usually shitty games? Fuck if I know. Do woke games go broke? Yes.
>>118917960That's all fair, but if I'm being honestly, I really don't care enough to get into the nitty gritty of the statistical analysis for this kind of stuff. Heuristic perception of myself and others, in aggregate, is a good enough measure.
