Its for the exact same reason why the 60s civil rights movement focused on black citizens. Men have all of the rights and, while we are affected by sexism, it generally comes from the same patriarchal beliefs that women are affected by. It made more sense when the term was coined due to there being far more inequality, but women are still far more affected by sexism than men, even today.
There is a WIDE spectrum of stupid on the Internet. Radical feminists, who are technically NOT feminists by the definition of feminism, tend to be absolutely ****ing insane. I've literally seen radfems claim that women don't need men to reproduce and children can be conceived between two women. I wish I was kidding. Things like Tumblr have made these nutcases more visible, but at the same time, Tumblr also gives a voice to teenagers who think they are "transethnic" because they like k-pop. My point is, if you see someone ranting about how evil men are and that the world's problems are all caused by men, remember, they are not just not representative of feminism, but, by the definition of feminism, not feminists at all.
The dictionary definition of humanism: "a system of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good and that problems can be solved using reason instead of religion" The dictionary definition of feminism: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" So I immediately have a point of contention here. It's a popular anti-feminist thing to go "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist" as if feminism is somehow exclusionary. Problem is that "humanism" already describes a spiritual philosophy. "Egalitarianism" might technically be a better descriptor, but that's a whole spectrum of things that, among women's rights, includes gay rights, transgender rights, minority rights, religious rights and so on and so forth. The knee-jerk reaction in anti-feminists to spout out that stupidity is the same one that lead to MRAs attacking the YesAllWomen tag on Twitter with NotAllMen as if feminists accused every man of being sexist... which is absurd.
A fair point, that.
Huh. I almost expected it to be on the Vita. Square is the kind of developer to keep supporting that sinking ship against their better judgement.
Because it hasn't been announced. Sometimes the lack of announcement is just as telling as an actual announcement. While, yes, I have to acknowledge that it is possible we'll see the two box release, I highly doubt they they wouldn't have explained this along side the explanation of the Japanese release. There are a few other possibilities for them doing things this way, but the most likely is that they're going to release one version (in fairness, it is purely speculation that we're getting the Hoshido side, but I think that's a fair assumption) as even the Japanese versions will have the opposite story as DLC, two different versions would be redundant. Redundant releases tend to be accepted in Japan, but western markets tend to ignore them unless it saves them money or gives them better value (IE, why Game of the Year and Definitive Editions have popped up). In this case, as we can probably assume the DLC versions of each campaign will be cheaper than the physical versions, the option with better value is to buy one version and download the DLC version of the opposite version. So, yes, I am speaking on speculation (and no, it's not just my speculation, people are saying the same thing all over the place) and some clarification would be nice, but, like I said, sometimes a lack of announcement is just as telling as an actual announcement.
The decision is actually out of your hands. Only one version of the game is getting released outside of Japan, the Hoshido version. The Nohr version is going to be DLC, as will a third storyline.
For one, I don't care about the Japanese market. If that was the only market in consideration, I'd fully agree that it's a waste of Square-Enix's time and resources to release Xbox games. In fact, I'm surprised that the Xbox version of FFXV is getting a Japanese release. For two, according to VG Chartz, FFXIII sold 2.11 million copies worldwide on 360 as of March 2015. While this is less than half of what it sold worldwide on PS3 (5.26 million), cutting out the numbers for the Japanese version (because there was no 360 version in Japan) shows that it sold 2.8 million copies on PS3 in North America and Europe. This is, obviously, still higher than the 360 version, but not even close to the difference made by the Japanese sales. Like I said, I'm ignoring the Japanese market here because their sales have no bearing on western markets. These numbers tell me a few things: 1, the game did not sell "abysmally" on the 360, but rather only a little worse than the PS3 version. 2, There is a viable market for Final Fantasy on Xbox, even if it isn't as major as the PlayStation market. 3, I'm still very surprised that the X1 version of FFXV is getting a Japanese release. 4, I wonder if Square-Enix would consider a digital release for FFX/X-2 on X1. I don't have the numbers for Type-0 (though pre-order numbers are about a 3:1 PlayStation to Xbox split, which makes a touch more sense when you realize that there are twice as many PS4s in the wild than X1s), so I can't really speak for how the X1 version of that sold. Regardless, I can at least say I'm happy that Xbox got Type-0 and is getting FFXV and Kingdom Hearts III. Better those than nothing.
Every time I think Square has finally learned their lesson, they keep making their games PlayStation exclusive. Come on, Square, you gave Xbox players FFXI, FFXIII (even if the game is trash), Type-0 and you're going to give us FFXV, why can't w have FFX? At least there's a legitimate reason for no Xbox versions FFXIV. Also, it seriously should have had FFXII in the collection as well.
Huh. If Wayforward themselves want Shantae in, then it would definitely be easy for Nintendo to negotiate the license.
Already voted for Lyn (from Fire Emblem 7). A huge part of it is that I'm not even a huge fan of Kingdom Hearts. I like the series, but it's not even close to my favorite. The rules are, licensing notwithstanding, that the character must have at least one significant apearance on a Nintendo platform. This means that, due to Chain of Memories and 3D, Sora is technically eligible, but Nintendo is also hesitant to add a lot of third-party characters. Remember, Snake only got in because Kojima is friends with Sakurai and Miyamoto and requested it, Pac-Man only got in because Namco-Bandai co-developed Smash 4, while Sonic and Megaman were the highest requested third-party characters, plus Megaman is significantly associated with Nintendo. I could see them putting Snake back in as DLC, but I wouldn't count on much else for third-party characters.
From a game design perspective, Guitar Hero relied on cheap tricks and fake difficulty to keep it interesting. On top of the underhanded way that Activision constantly tried to get big names into exclusivity agreements (succeeding in the cases of Van Halen and Metallica, plus a few others) and trying to snipe artists normally associated with Rock Band (Megadeth, Rush. I'm pretty sure that Activision tried to get both of them into exclusivity deals, but failed). While there were things I would have liked to see Harmonix adopt (open bass notes for example), it didn't feel as nice as Rock Band. Partly because the timing windows are laughably wide in Guitar Hero, playing the notes felt "soft" in a way and very detached. An actual sense of rhythm wasn't as important for Guitar Hero as it was for Rock Band. And that's where Guitar Hero's biggest failing is. The reason Harmonix is seen as one of the greatest rhythm game developers is because almost their entire staff is made up of musicians. Remember the bonus songs in Guitar Hero I, Guitar Hero II and Rock Band 1? Many of those bands are the personal bands of developers who work for Harmonix. Freezepop, Anarchy Club, Bang Camaro, Tijuana Sweetheart/Vagiant, Abnormality and Tribe are all bands with members or former members who either currently work for or at one point worked for Harmonix. It is their understanding of music that makes them so damn good at making rhythm games. The biggest difference for me with Guitar Hero and Rock Band is that I actually have the illusion of playing music with Rock Band. A much stronger sense of rhythm is required because the timing windows are far less forgiving. From a music fan's perspective, Rock Band was always sold as more than just a rhythm game. It was always sold as a music platform where the game was just one more way to enjoy music. This is why they did things like expand to keyboards, add vocal harmonies (easily one of my personal favorite features of the series) and pro instruments. This is why they created the Rock Band Network. This is why they featured the bonus tracks from the original Guitar Hero up to Rock Band 2. This is why they took the expense and effort to relicense the songs from Rock Band 1 and Rock Band 2 to be imported into later entries in the series, something Guitar Hero only did (extremely poorly) to say "but we have that, too." With Rock Band, I can enjoy the same songs that I was playing in 2007 with the first game in the series. With Guitar Hero, only World Tour and Guitar Hero 5 offer any songs to be imported and it's less than half of the set lists. It's the same with DLC. 99% of the DLC from the entire Rock Band series imports into Rock Band 3 and Rock Band Blitz. A ridiculously miniscule amount of DLC carries over across Guitar Hero games. I had fun with Guitar Hero. I wouldn't own most of the series if that weren't the case. Hell, I'll still occasionally throw in an old Guitar Hero disc and play some of the highlights, but Rock Band is still and will always be my go to because not only is the game better, I don't have to do any disc swapping to play every one of the over 500 songs I have, save for the six or so that didn't import forward because of licensing issues. Also, Guitar Hero III's duel mode was ****ing broken.
Even though I doubt I'll find a chance to use it, I love that Gearbox is continuing to be one of the few developers left that still gives a damn about local multiplayer.
To an extent, yes, but while Harmonix stayed relatively restrained (max of 2 releases per year with a total of six games, not counting Rock Band Blitz), Activision churned out Guitar Hero to a ridiculous extent. After Activision took over the series in 2006, they put out 13 games in four years, not counting the Xbox 360 version of Guitar Hero II. Most of these games were released in 2009, when the genre crashed. While this meant that fans had a lot of options and a lot of songs/games to play, it also meant that more casual players and fans are going to get sick of having to buy new games to keep up and due to the way Activision did things, it also meant a lot of disc swapping if players wanted to play songs from another entry of the series. There's a reason the Rock Band strategy, despite being a yearly franchise, of supplementing a few games with a **** load of DLC was far more preferable. It was easier for any kind of fan to manage, while the hardcore fans had the option of importing songs to the next entry in the series, which practically eliminated disc swapping unless players wanted to play The Beatles. Even the physically released track packs were simply compilations of DLC meant to be imported into the central games.
Part of the problem we had with Guitar Hero and Rock Band is that Activision kinda forced an arms race with the games that lead straight to oversaturation of the market.
This proposal is so ridiculous to the point of almost parody. How many constitutional violations does this have? At least three by my count.
...
It's one thing if you reject treatment for yourself based on religious beliefs. It's your right to be stupid like that. However, like all rights, your right to practice your religion does not give you the right to directly cause someone else harm, even if it is your own child. Denying treatment of your child based on your religious beliefs is neglectful. There's a reason I fully concur with Bill Nye's view that religion should not be taught to children. If they choose to seek it out when they are older, that is their right, but it is wrong to force a child to follow your beliefs.
A shame we're not getting an Xbox One version of the game.
