[ZeroGravitas]

> it is hilarious that she talks of "rich, deep experiences" but then holds up "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" as an example in the very next sentence, which is literally a cash-grab celebrity reskin of an existing game.

The sentence you refer to is calling attention to people sneering at that game. So you sneering at it is a bit weird. You're just supporting her point. I've heard it's a solid game, as you say it was mildly successful even before it had a big media franchise attached. Do you sneer at every TV show or movie tie-in? The Walking Dead by Telltale for example?

[tnones]

The Kim Kardashian game is a hollow pay-to-win slugfest full of time locks, that made millions just by slapping on a celebrity face. If we are supposed to dislike video games that are boring and don't color outside the lines, as the author suggests, then that would be a pretty good candidate.

The Walking Dead on the other hand is an expertly written, uniquely styled game, which is tied-in to its source IP pretty much in name only. It would've won awards without the branding just the same.

Do you see the difference?

[ZeroGravitas]

I can see differences, but when you sneered at the Kardashian game, the reasons you gave applied just as much to a Telltale Walking Dead game, or a Lego Batman game.

So now you're clarifying that you're sneering at the Kardashian game because it's boring, and it made too much money from all the people who play it all the time.

[tnones]

Where are you getting this hate for IP tie-ins from? I was talking about game mechanics and _soulless_ cash grabs. The opposite of The Walking Dead and the Lego games.

First off, the KK:H financial success isn't laudable, it's simply predictable and how companies like Zynga got rich off pilfering the creative ideas of others. All free-to-play gambling games, and gambling in general, make their money from a tiny subset of their audience who are addicted and spend enormous amounts of money to keep playing in the face of artificial barriers. The games rely on word of mouth via free players to reach those juicy targets. The celebrity face was the difference between just another copy-cat and a viral success with tons of media coverage.

Second, to deride "pseudo-masculine bullshit" in search of rich meaning while considering Kardashian beyond reproach, that makes the author's already shaky premises particularly lacking in self-awareness. The game is the actual embodiment of vapid celebrity and appearance-obsessed femininity on top of being an archetype of soulless box ticking.

But see, there's nothing _wrong_ with making games that play to stereotypical female interests either, if done well. Compare for example to the Desperate Housewives game, which is a Sims spin-off aimed squarely at female players who want juicy drama and catty social dynamics. It involves real storytelling, while the gamified aspects are only there to support the player agency.

Those games already exist. The author instead preferred to spin a tale of female oppression at the hands of white men, while promoting her own unproven studio. Color me unsurprised.