I'm not saying that there isn't valid critique of the game to come from the left, politically. There is, especially in regards to PoC/African-American representation, and the studio's work culture in general. I am saying that culturally conservative white men make up the majority slice of the game playing, media consuming audience and that this game in particular does something with a character who those kind of people tend to idolize. That this can disproportionately influence an outlet's coverage of the game, no matter how hard they try to argue otherwise. Personally, I think this is undeniable. And I think it's extra glaring when a person has played both the original game and Part II in their respective launch windows and compares the two titles on their own merits. Yeah, the context in which both games released are different circumstances entirely, even removed from a purely "game industry" context. But to see the first game get all the praise it did get here in the United States, only to see the second get maybe a fraction of that adulation, when the part of the game that garnered that level of praise in the original (the single player) is in basically every major metric in the sequel, does raise questions. I'm also not saying that the game is free from critique, but I do think it is legitimately better than its predecessor in all the major ways a game can be improved (aside from the lack of multiplayer, which was actually the original game's best aspect). What is one of the big thing's that's different about the first and second title? In most ways, the sequel is a strong iteration on the stuff the first game excelled at. Coming from a purely game critique that I think can justifiably be leveled at this game compared to the original, is that Part II is a long, drawn out game with less tight pacing. I think that everything else, in terms of "what comprises a game?", are all done far more superior in Part II that it really does beg questions as to "what's different between the original game and the sequel?". Is it purely that people are "tired" of incredibly good looking, incredibly fun to play, highly cinematic third person shooters? (LOL) Or is it some other differentiating factors? Are there just that many other "better" games in all the ways? Maybe! For me, no other game in the last year comes very close to approaching Part II in quality. The only other game that might be there is DOOM Eternal, and even then, it isn't really in the same conversation. Oh I gave up too. The excuses for "not being interested" just got worse and worse. And it's like this thread and trying to articulate these kinds of thoughts about the game and how it was received. Like I said in that post, people will never, be truly forthright about that kind of thing. And trying to insinuate it about people only makes you look bad, so it works in their favor. But to know people who are violent action game lovers, who love gory media (film, games, etc.), who really loved the first game, only for them to be like "eh I'm not interested" in the second game, especially when prior to the internet leaks they excited for it, really raises some questions about whether or not people are coming from a legitimate place of criticism regarding this game, across the board. I honestly don't care that much. It's an incredibly excellent game; at the very top of the medium. The kind of game that comes around incredibly rarely. I know it and I don't need the validation from the gaming press or the gaming marketplace to validate this belief. But it frustrating. Especially so because these style of high-quality games get ridiculously attacked to begin with.