Support NeoGAF

[aeolist]

You missed the key point I was trying to make, in that, where does the game's interactivity (for lack of a better word: "game-ness") come into play. Taken at face value, one can go as far to say that by adopting this dynamic, good games are punished for being bad movies (and vice versa).

i think this ignores how game criticism actually takes place. titles that are about interactivity are judged based on that particular quality, and the same for ones that are centered around story and atmosphere. most AAA games try to be some of both and get panned when they fail at either, which is totally fair.

people criticize destiny's story and gone home's gameplay, and i believe this will eventually make both types of games stronger. the problem comes when a big part of the audience starts arguing that gone home-type games shouldn't exist at all.

 

[zeldablue]

You missed the key point I was trying to make, in that, where does the game's interactivity (for lack of a better word: "game-ness") come into play. Taken at face value, one can go as far to say that by adopting this dynamic, good games are punished for being bad movies (and vice versa).



True enough, but it just so happens "novelty" is one of my personal dragons, something I'm always criticizing. I think being driven by novelty leads to backwards conclusions and it's something people should fight against as a major motivator. Something I said to myself, which is somewhat in agreement with what you said, is "If there were a hundred Walking Deads, would anyone care about this one?" We care about the best First Person Shooter even though there are so many (don't tell DocSeuss I said this).

Yeah. Another Gone Home wouldn't mean anything, I don't think. Lol. It really is about novelty, and I perk up a bit when I see innovation being rewarded.

I hope that it'll teach Nintendo or other big publishers to let loose and start making real risks again. I so desperately wish these big companies didn't tighten up with "safe" titles.

 

[tranciful]

I'm more confused on how you've arrived at that conclusion. As I said, the fight is mainly inside the realm of criticism on how games should be analyzed and judged at the highest level.

"how games should be analyzed and judged" is up to the critic. If people don't like how that critic analyzes and judges games, they don't listen to that critic.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ironically I think Gone Home suffered in ways for the more "gamey" aspects it did have, namely the number of locked doors. I think they could have been cleverer with how they molded player progression.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah. Another Gone Home wouldn't mean anything, I don't think. Lol. It really is about novelty, and I perk up a bit when I see innovation being rewarded.

I hope that it'll teach Nintendo or other big publishers to let loose and start making real risks again. I so desperately wish these big companies didn't tighten up with "safe" titles.

Nintendo is fine with risk taking, at least if you don't look at like, Zelda or the NSMB series. Their problem is that they're struggling with taking risks that pay off. The Wii U was a risk, and that aint doing so hot

 

[BrassDragon]

people criticize destiny's story and gone home's gameplay, and i believe this will eventually make both types of games stronger. the problem comes when a big part of the audience starts arguing that gone home-type games shouldn't exist at all.

Maybe that's because the AAA side of the game industry tends to distill everything down to a formula and iteration only happens in babysteps? Industry practices have bred pervasive cynicism in the hardcore audience and I feel it bleeds into these discussions.

Right or wrong, people fear that the hype around flawed games such as Destiny (recordbreaking sales) and Gone Home (critical darling) means they get more games with those flaws instead of seeing them as inspirations for better game design.

 

[zeldablue]

Nintendo is fine with risk taking, at least if you don't look at like, Zelda or the NSMB series. Their problem is that they're struggling with taking risks that pay off. The Wii U was a risk, and that aint doing so hot

Yeah, they're doing more stuff now. But they're really bad at reading their audience.

Like...really really bad.

They don't always understand how to do new things while still being interesting for consumers.

 

[Hackworth]

Ironically I think Gone Home suffered in ways for the more "gamey" aspects it did have, namely the number of locked doors. I think they could have been cleverer with how they molded player progression.

Yeah, I actually gave up on Gone Home because I just didn't feel like wandering around looking for stuff when I could have been playing Smash.

It just wasn't that interesting.

 

[LiegeWaffle]

ANTI-GamerGate. It is seen as a pro site based on it allowing unmoderated discussion and generally leaning towards it. Jim Sterling fluctuates between being good boy and naughty step because he refuses to get caught up in ridiculous conspiracy theories.

I find this incredibly weird, because if I were to name some "SJW" websites, The Escapist would be probably one of the first (just remember how Jim Sterling criticized Ubisoft for the excuses they gave for not allowing female PC in one of their games, or Irrational/2K for removing Elizabeth from the cover of Bioshock Infinite?).

I think it's hilarious that GAF allows discussion of gamergate, while it's been effectively outlawed on 4chan.

4chan sure has changed.

It's ultimately about how feasible the traffic is to moderate. Remember when one of /r/games mods essentially said that the main reason they deleted the original Zoe Quinn thread was because they concluded they will not be able to keep up with the traiffc? Remember how many comments were nuked in that /r/gaming thread?

NeoGAF has an effort barrier to get an account on, so it is feasible to moderate. 4chan is a popular imageboard with little commitment to an identity, so it is hard to moderate.

These people don't understand why someone would want to have a female/queer lead. They literally think these games just do it for attention or some other reason besides artistic choice. They think they're calling out "fake" game devs.

I feel like we need more materials explaining why having more diversity is beneficial to the video games because it allows to create more interesting characters. I recall there was an Extra Credits episode where they discussed that issue from that perspective. We often attribute the "burly white dude" archetype to conscious marketing decisions, but burly white dudes are one of the simplest thing to write (and from Hanlon's razor, I find this explanation more plausible).

 

[tranciful]

I feel like we need more materials explaining why having more diversity is beneficial to the video games because it allows to create more interesting characters. I recall there was an Extra Credits episode where they discussed that issue from that perspective. We often attribute the "burly white dude" archetype to conscious marketing decisions, but burly white dudes are one of the simplest thing to write (and from Hanlon's razor, I find this explanation more plausible).

We need more materials because you aren't convinced that it'd be more interesting to have more diverse characters? Or because you think those materials would help make it easier for devs to do it more often?

"Simple to write" and "more marketable" aren't necessarily at odds. And I think part of the reason they're simple to write is that you... don't have to write much. It's mostly just an avatar their primary demographic can associate themselves with as while they play (which also makes it more marketable).

I guess I'm confused by your reply in general because my comment was about devs choosing to make games about more interesting characters and some gamers accusing the devs of doing it for nefarious reasons -- I wasn't talking about how most devs write simple white male characters.

 

[Nanashrew]

So it sounds like GGers and a lot of people in general are upset about Polygon's review of Hyrule Warriors. Especially about a single part in the review.

The quote.

That is probably the most objective pull quote you can get. There are also people complaining that they should have had someone who knows more about the genre to do the review as well.

 

[tranciful]

So it sounds like GGers and a lot of people in general are upset about Polygon's review of Hyrule Warriors. Especially about a single part in the review.

The quote.

That is probably the most objective pull quote you can get. There are also people complaining that they should have had someone who knows more about the genre to do the review as well.

When the mob is against you, everything you do is suspect. They seek out things to complain about.

 

[rocketknight]

I feel like we need more materials explaining why having more diversity is beneficial to the video games because it allows to create more interesting characters. I recall there was an Extra Credits episode where they discussed that issue from that perspective. We often attribute the "burly white dude" archetype to conscious marketing decisions, but burly white dudes are one of the simplest thing to write (and from Hanlon's razor, I find this explanation more plausible).

If your team is all white dudes, yeah. That's part of the problem, honestly!

 

[tonysidaway]

bringing this back around to the topic of the thread, people who don't want their games to have a message are almost exclusively referring to stories with themes they are uncomfortable with.

Yeah, I suppose I'm used to arguing with people who argue that every piece of fiction must have a single correct message or interpretation.

Games, music, visual art, music, etc, isn't like that at all. It's quite complex and layered, encrusted with cultural assumptions that we're invited to absorb. And yeah, as Sarkeesian has absolutely no problem demonstrating, that applies to video games. Like any other part of our culture they both reflect and shape it.

 

[Nanashrew]

When the mob is against you, everything you do is suspect. They seek out things to complain about.

Well yeah I suppose. I mean, I'm not a fan of Polygon either but I've kind of been sitting here laughing at this situation with its ridiculousness.

 

[Riposte]

Please elaborate on what you mean by backwards conclusions? I'm not following you there.

It would be easier and cleaner just to link old posts dedicated to the subject, although finding the right one takes time. The simplest way I can put it is that "newness" distracts from an ideal quality and putting a priority on it is a case of submitting to the human weakness of growing hardened towards stimuli (it is the lesser solution). I associate novelty directly with the desire for instant gratification and a lack of discipline required to reach a deeper (yet more demanding) appreciation for something. This goes beyond favoring games with new concepts, but also includes willing to dedicate yourself to an individual game (or genre) in order to find deeper appreciation (i.e., to not carelessly "channel surf"). All humans are driven by novelty to some extent, but it is something that I would argue needs to be kept in check or it becomes a decadent process. In a larger sense (or in the sense of overall criticism), it is a highly reactive process of continually searching for "something that is not" even after you've found it, to constantly deconstruct or avoid construction, which overtime can literally mean going away (backwards) from what are considered virtues. That is what I would say is the path that leads to praising literal garbage as "art".

"how games should be analyzed and judged" is up to the critic. If people don't like how that critic analyzes and judges games, they don't listen to that critic.

You can say that about any disagreement; doesn't work I'm afraid. Conflicting ideas are in constant battle and individuals are driven to place their impression onto the future, whether they realize it or not. Obviously those who would take aggressive action against others they disagree with are hardly in their rights, but that doesn't exactly diminish the fight itself. It is very unfortunate people, namely enthusiasts, choose to disown the intellectual debate and make themselves either extreme or isolated, because it means they can be walked all over upon when it comes to things they won't touch. This is my problem with "I don't want my game to have messages", because by saying that, you've given "messages" to those who you disagree with. Same with "art", and so on.

i think this ignores how game criticism actually takes place. titles that are about interactivity are judged based on that particular quality, and the same for ones that are centered around story and atmosphere. most AAA games try to be some of both and get panned when they fail at either, which is totally fair.

people criticize destiny's story and gone home's gameplay, and i believe this will eventually make both types of games stronger. the problem comes when a big part of the audience starts arguing that gone home-type games shouldn't exist at all.

Let's remember I'm referring to the idea of imitating the dynamic I described earlier. The poorly-put together movie that sells a lot is first and foremost criticized for being a poorly-put together movie (putting aside any other issues one may have with film criticism). Now we have this idea that the game that follows similar aesthetic themes (or similar levels of financial success) are equivalent. Is that really fair? I could see a strong reaction to trying to establish that dynamic, especially in the midst of people being dissatisfied with the level of expertise in reviews (more so true when it comes to something like fighting games, hence my additional example).

So it sounds like GGers and a lot of people in general are upset about Polygon's review of Hyrule Warriors. Especially about a single part in the review.

I assume it is Dynasty Warriors enthusiasts? What are they actually saying? Is this being discussed on GAF?

 

[Oersted]

So it sounds like GGers and a lot of people in general are upset about Polygon's review of Hyrule Warriors. Especially about a single part in the review.

The quote.

That is probably the most objective pull quote you can get. There are also people complaining that they should have had someone who knows more about the genre to do the review as well.

A not 100% accurate review happens in literally every medium. Good grief

 

[zeldablue]

It would be easier and cleaner just to link old posts dedicated to the subject, although finding the right one takes time. The simplest way I can put it is that "newness" distracts from an ideal quality and putting a priority on it is a case of submitting to the human weakness of growing hardened towards stimuli (it is the lesser solution). I associate novelty directly with the desire for instant gratification and a lack of discipline required to reach a deeper (yet more demanding) appreciation for something. This goes beyond favoring games with new concepts, but also includes willing to dedicate yourself to an individual game (or genre) in order to find deeper appreciation (i.e., to not carelessly "channel surf"). All humans are driven by novelty to some extent, but it is something that I would argue needs to be kept in check or it becomes a decadent process. In a larger sense (or in the sense of overall criticism), it is a highly reactive process of continually searching for "something that is not" even after you've found it, to constantly deconstruct or avoid construction, which overtime can literally mean going away (backwards) from what are considered virtues. That is what I would say is the path that leads to praising literal garbage as "art".



You can say that about any disagreement; doesn't work I'm afraid. Conflicting ideas are in constant battle and individuals are driven to place their impression onto the future, whether they realize it or not. Obviously those who would take aggressive action against others they disagree with are hardly in their rights, but that doesn't exactly diminish the fight itself. It is very unfortunate people, namely enthusiasts, choose to disown the intellectual debate and make themselves either extreme or isolated, because it means they can be walked all over upon when it comes to things they won't touch. This is my problem with "I don't want my game to have messages", because by saying that, you've given "messages" to those who you disagree with. Same with "art", and so on.



Let's remember I'm referring to the idea of imitating the dynamic I described earlier. The poorly-put together movie that sells a lot is first and foremost criticized for being a poorly-put together movie (putting aside any other issues one may have with film criticism). Now we have this idea that the game that follows similar aesthetic themes (or similar levels of financial success) are equivalent. Is that really fair? I could see a strong reaction to trying to establish that dynamic, especially in the midst of people being dissatisfied with the level of expertise in reviews (more so true when it comes to something like fighting games, hence my additional example).



I assume it is Dynasty Warriors enthusiasts? What are they actually saying?

But...you can do something novel and create a piece of crap because of the higher risk. So when it comes together AND it's novel...it's a double whammy.

Ocarina of Time was a huge conglomeration of really new and interesting game mechanics mixed together with great level design and a good story. OoT could have easily been an abomination...but it wasn't.

So I think if someone takes the risk and succeeds...they deserve credit since taking a conservative stance with risk would show a success that wasn't entirely earned.

It's getting harder and harder to innovate because the technology we love is only focusing on graphics...plus, our developers are making stiffer decisions based on marketing and budgets.

 

[aeolist]

riposte i think this is getting kind of off-topic for this thread so i'll just say that while i disagree with the things you post fairly often (sometimes strongly) i appreciate your opinions and find them to be thought-provoking

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Ibut also includes willing to dedicate yourself to an individual game (or genre) in order to find deeper appreciation (i.e., to not carelessly "channel surf").

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "finding a deeper appreciation" ?

From my experience with a lot of gamers it's extremely common for people to find a genre they love and essentially tying themselves entirely to the 2-3 genres that appeal to them, so I'm not sure if you're describing this (and seem to imply it's rare enough that we need to focus on it..?)

You're using seemingly high concept language, but it makes a lot of the things you're talking about a bit vague to me.


/edit but yeah this is very off-topic, would it be worth it's own topic? It's an interesting conversation for sure.

 

[Nanashrew]

I assume it is Dynasty Warriors enthusiasts? What are they actually saying? Is this being discussed on GAF?

Could be a mixture of DW enthusiast for complaints of wanting a reviewer who understand the genre. And I don't think this has been brought up on GAF yet. But the pull quote is being spread around Twitter as a way to show that Polygon's audience are idiots and that things need to be spelled out. Lots of mocking, calling it a low quality review, click bait, and "no duh" on the objective comment.

I will never forget Jim Sterling's 100% objective review on Final Fantasy 13. http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml

That's what the people seem to want but don't understand what they're wanting.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

So it sounds like GGers and a lot of people in general are upset about Polygon's review of Hyrule Warriors. Especially about a single part in the review.

The quote.

That is probably the most objective pull quote you can get. There are also people complaining that they should have had someone who knows more about the genre to do the review as well.

This has nothing to do with GamerGate but I'm really tired of reviewers who neither enjoy nor understand Musou/Warriors games reviewing and trashing them for being exactly what Musou fans expect them to be in the first place. Pretty much the only games jurnalistz who is qualified to review them (and who can explain why a good iteration differs from a bad one) is Jim Sterling.

 

[Moon_frogger]

These people don't understand why someone would want to have a female/queer lead. They literally think these games just do it for attention or some other reason besides artistic choice. They think they're calling out "fake" game devs.

Ouch. Is this what you think of everybody who didn't like gone home? Not all of us are aggressively decrying the game but when the topic comes up it usually ends in someone being called 'homophobic' for no real reason. Sad.

 

[Foggy]

This has nothing to do with GamerGate but I'm really tired of reviewers who neither enjoy nor understand Musou/Warriors games reviewing and trashing them for being exactly what Musou fans expect them to be in the first place. Pretty much the only games jurnalistz who is qualified to review them (and who can explain why a good iteration differs from a bad one) is Jim Sterling.

It's not that big of a thing. People who enjoy horror movies don't really flock to the mainstream publications to get a sense if it's worth their time or money so I don't really expect a site like Polygon or any other major site to really examine a musou or fighting game in the kind of depth I would prefer. I'm still amazed that video game audiences haven't fractured to the degree that film audiences have. I'm sure it'll get there eventually though.

 

[aeolist]

Ouch. Is this what you think of everybody who didn't like gone home? Not all of us are aggressively decrying the game but when the topic comes up it usually ends in someone being called 'homophobic' for no real reason. Sad.

i don't think everyone who didn't like gone home had poor reasons for doing so but the SNR on criticism for that game was extremely low

 

[Riposte]

riposte i think this is getting kind of off-topic for this thread so i'll just say that while i disagree with the things you post fairly often (sometimes strongly) i appreciate your opinions and find them to be thought-provoking

Yes, I don't want to risk getting too far off-topic, so I'll step it back. I'll just say my initial point, related to "#GamerGate" or some of those involved, was that the criticism of a game like Gone Home (or the critics that elevate it) isn't necessarily defined by its "uncomfortable" themes. I hope people don't use #GameGate or the comments along the lines of "these are not games"/"there games should not exist" (some of which I would like to think may be the fault of the context or medium of discussion) as a way to bludgeon a position that is harsher on games with lower meaningful interactivity.

 

[Corpekata]

Looks like the Amazing Athiest made a video about Zoe Quinn today, and it is shockingly horrible. Before anyone tries to pretend that this guy is sane and a good person to have on your side, it should be prefaced with the fact he says things like "Rape isn't fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called "Rape Survivors." Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn't want to be fucked and you're amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what's the big deal? ... The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn't want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive bitch! Also, don't you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?"

 

[Moon_frogger]

Well to be clear, I liked gone home and I liked that it dealt with homosexuality at all seeing as it's rarely mentioned or handled with any grace in most games. I love having an alternative to the buff male solider in my first person games. I liked playing a game without having to murder or maim people as well.

None of that, however makes gone home a game of the year contender. I look at it as an interesting experiment, not a shining example of game design.

 

[Oidisco]

Zoe Quinn just mentioned on twitter that The Amazing Atheist made a video about her and Gamergate. It's spouting the same stupid accusations that she paid for good reviews with sex, plus a whole bunch of other nonsense.

 

[Nanashrew]

Looks like the Amazing Athiest made a video about Zoe Quinn today, and it is shockingly horrible. Before anyone tries to pretend that this guy is sane and a good person to have on your side, it should be prefaced with the fact he says things like "Rape isn't fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called "Rape Survivors." Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn't want to be fucked and you're amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what's the big deal? ... The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn't want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive bitch! Also, don't you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?"

I'm aware of him unfortunately. He makes my skin crawl.

 

[Oersted]

Waiting for the thunderf00t video^^

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Looks like the Amazing Athiest made a video about Zoe Quinn today, and it is shockingly horrible.

Not too surprising, this is the dude who sent a rape survivor extremely graphic rape threats in a discussion because he thought it'd be "funny" to trigger her.

 

[Riposte]

Looks like the Amazing Athiest made a video about Zoe Quinn today, and it is shockingly horrible. Before anyone tries to pretend that this guy is sane and a good person to have on your side, it should be prefaced with the fact he says things like "Rape isn't fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called "Rape Survivors." Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn't want to be fucked and you're amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what's the big deal? ... The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn't want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive bitch! Also, don't you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?"

I've never watched any of his videos as far as I can remember, but I do know he has been known name for a few years (I mean, you had no problem referencing him here). Is he always this extreme or did he become more extreme? This doesn't sound like someone who would become famous, I mean it sounds much worse than anything "Internet Aristocrat" or similar has said.

 

[tranciful]

Ouch. Is this what you think of everybody who didn't like gone home? Not all of us are aggressively decrying the game but when the topic comes up it usually ends in someone being called 'homophobic' for no real reason. Sad.

No I'm not talking about people who don't like Gone Home I'm talking about people who accuse Gone Home of using gender/orientation themes for nefarious reasons or think people can't enjoy Gone Home without having some sort of agenda.

edit:

Well to be clear, I liked gone home and I liked that it dealt with homosexuality at all seeing as it's rarely mentioned or handled with any grace in most games. I love having an alternative to the buff male solider in my first person games. I liked playing a game without having to murder or maim people as well.

None of that, however makes gone home a game of the year contender. I look at it as an interesting experiment, not a shining example of game design.

Your assessment is pretty close to mine.

 

[Objectively Bad Opinion]

Atheist community seems pretty awful in general.

Reading about the Atheist+ shenanigans made me uncomfortable.

 

[aeolist]

Atheist community seems pretty awful in general.

Reading about the Atheist+ shenanigans made me uncomfortable.

the skeptic community and many of its male leaders have huge problems with women, yeah

 

[Corpekata]

I've never watched any of his videos as far as I can remember, but I do know he has been known name for a few years (I mean, you had no problem referencing him here). Is he always this extreme or did he become more extreme? This doesn't sound like someone who would become famous, I mean it sounds much worse than anything "Internet Aristocrat" or similar has said.

I'd say it's an over time thing, but he's been pretty bad for a while. Same with Thunderf00t. Both reached decent audiences with basic Athiest stuff and then have since gone on extreme tangents. The skeptic community, especially on youtube, has a big problem with feminists generally. These days that's half of what those two talk about.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I've never watched any of his videos as far as I can remember, but I do know he has been known name for a few years (I mean, you had no problem referencing him here). Is he always this extreme or did he become more extreme? This doesn't sound like someone who would become famous, I mean it sounds much worse than anything "Internet Aristocrat" or similar has said.

It's the same story as thunderf00t really, he became extremely internet famous speaking out in favor of atheism & loudly disagreeing with theists on youtube. (Even within the atheist community he was a controversial figure though, he did a lot of weird stuff.)

Since youtube atheism sorta just imploded and chased all youtube christians of note away, quite a lot of them started in-fighting to severe degrees until they finally found a stable enemy inside atheism in the shape of "feminism".


(A huge issue is that the atheist/rationalist community has a fairly extreme idea of what entails "free speech" & sees themselves as undeniably rational and science minded.

Their solid understanding of evolution & repeated "victories" over Christians give them an extremely inflated ego regarding any subject and makes them waltz into the territory of social sciences thinking they know exactly how to have an argument on that ground.)

 

[partyphone]

Atheist community seems pretty awful in general.

Reading about the Atheist+ shenanigans made me uncomfortable.

huh? atheism+ was an attempt to make atheism a more socially progressive platform. it was very loudly attacked by the various fedora wearing libertarians, racists and misogynists that infest reddit and 4chan and a million shitty blogs and youtube channels.

they have a lot in common with gamergate proponents.

but as far as I know atheism+ fizzled out and died.

 

[zeldablue]

Looks like the Amazing Athiest made a video about Zoe Quinn today, and it is shockingly horrible. Before anyone tries to pretend that this guy is sane and a good person to have on your side, it should be prefaced with the fact he says things like "Rape isn't fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called "Rape Survivors." Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn't want to be fucked and you're amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what's the big deal? ... The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn't want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive bitch! Also, don't you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?"

Wow.

Astoundingly low emotional intelligence.

 

[Oersted]

the skeptic community and many of its male leaders have huge problems with women, yeah

Yep. The atheistic community is dominated by the white males, thats why its riddled with racism and mysogony. But we are going offtopic^^

 

[tonysidaway]

I will never forget Jim Sterling's 100% objective review on Final Fantasy 13. http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml

That's what the people seem to want but don't understand what they're wanting.

Add a {{citations-needed}} tag at the top and strip out the repetition, and that would work as a pretty acceptable Wikipedia article stub. That's not a good way to review a video game. It's not how films, books, visual art, or music are reviewed.

Are video game players really so undemanding that they don't want to know what the reviewer actually thinks of the game? As I've suggested before, the "objective" stuff could just be posted as a QR code on the website and somebody can write an app to order the game from Amazon or somewhere. Hello PS4, which game has passed my objective parameters for ideal play today?

 

[Neoriceisgood]

huh? atheism+ was an attempt to make atheism a more socially progressive platform. it was very loudly attacked by the various fedora wearing libertarians, racists and misogynists that infest reddit and 4chan and a million shitty blogs and youtube channels.

they have a lot in common with gamergate proponents.

but as far as I know atheism+ fizzled out and died.

I'm pretty sure they're talking about how the atheism community reacted to A+.

I know that personally I absolutely quit having any interest at all in internet atheism and mass unfollowed people during the A+ thing, they hated the idea of equality so much that most loud atheists outright didn't want A+ to exists and found it an offense to atheism.

You can probably still find people's videos on it if you search for atheism+ on youtube, it was met with an absurdly loud backlash.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

This has nothing to do with GamerGate but I'm really tired of reviewers who neither enjoy nor understand Musou/Warriors games reviewing and trashing them for being exactly what Musou fans expect them to be in the first place. Pretty much the only games jurnalistz who is qualified to review them (and who can explain why a good iteration differs from a bad one) is Jim Sterling.

You should be more concerned with encouraging people that like the series to voice their opinion than discouraging people who aren't lifetime fans from writing reviews.

Every review has some merit. As someone who enjoyed the first Dynasty Warriors game he played but quickly grew tired of the series, I would be very interested to know if a game ever came out that was enjoyable even to people who aren't superfans of the series. I will get a better take on that perspective from someone who hasn't bought in to the series already.

 

[TestOfTide]

Looks like the Amazing Athiest made a video about Zoe Quinn today, and it is shockingly horrible. Before anyone tries to pretend that this guy is sane and a good person to have on your side, it should be prefaced with the fact he says things like "Rape isn't fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called "Rape Survivors." Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn't want to be fucked and you're amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what's the big deal? ... The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn't want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive bitch! Also, don't you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?"

How can Amazing Atheist be so dumb as to not know about PTSD?

 

[Objectively Bad Opinion]

huh? atheism+ was an attempt to make atheism a more socially progressive platform. it was very loudly attacked by the various fedora wearing libertarians, racists and misogynists that infest reddit and 4chan and a million shitty blogs and youtube channels.

they have a lot in common with gamergate proponents.

but as far as I know atheism+ fizzled out and died.

Yeah, the hate spewed leading up to and after the Atheism+ thing happened was painful read. Sorry if I was unclear.

Seems like skepticism is a slippery slope into hateful cynicism nowdays, which is pretty sad.

Yep. The atheistic community is dominated by the white males, thats why its riddled with racism and mysogony. But we are going offtopic^^

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

Looks like the Amazing Athiest made a video about Zoe Quinn today, and it is shockingly horrible. Before anyone tries to pretend that this guy is sane and a good person to have on your side, it should be prefaced with the fact he says things like "Rape isn't fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called "Rape Survivors." Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn't want to be fucked and you're amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what's the big deal? ... The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn't want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive bitch! Also, don't you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?"

As a victim of multiple pedophillic rapes, I find that comment he made disgusting and beyond disrespectful. It took me years, until I was 18, to be functional in society without the fear of people and the PTSD flashbacks, and even then they still pop up once in awhile and I still have trust issues. I hope GamerGate never affiliates with this monster.

Survivors of rape are people who learned to over come their trauma of the moments of pain and extreme fear when they were violated in a very painful physical and emotionally scaring way. Rape is more than just forced sex, it's a degrading, painful, and emotional violation of one's body, mind, and soul. It can happen to anyone, regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation, and religion. What this ass says is hurtful and I wish someone would slap him across the face.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

You should be more concerned with encouraging people that like the series to voice their opinion than discouraging people who aren't lifetime fans from writing reviews.

There's a big difference between being a lifetime fan and understanding and accepting what a game is trying to do.

Most Musou reviews whine about how the grunts don't fight back or about how the game still looks the same as it did back in the PS2 days. The latter is patently false, and the former shows a complete lack of understanding of what a Musou game is in the first place.

It's like someone reviewing Goodfellas and whining because it's not more like After Hours.

 

[Corpekata]

I don't get the problem with people that don't like Musou games reviewing them. Musou fans aren't the only audiences for the reviews. Many people are very likely going to be more interested in Hyrule Warriors that aren't into the genre and thus could use a review from someone in a similar position. If anything, there needs to be a decent amount of these reviewers.

 

[Oidisco]

Waiting for the thunderf00t video^^

He's too busy accusing Anita of somehow being personally resposible for his twitter suspension to talk about gamergate it seems.