Jump to content
rllmuk

jonny_rat

Members
  • Content Count

    5,799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jonny_rat

  1. Green, lighting attacks, Brazil.. sexy blanka. FINALLY
  2. There was a wider context to this of course. Not that walking away isn't a physical option, but that turning the computer off and walking away doesn't prevent those messages from having an impact on your life. It's a good counterpoint to the "it's just an internet" argument I guess.
  3. And in turn that's a wonderful distillation of one of the core problems that started all this. Feminists can talk about their sexism and what have you, but I don't want it getting in the way of my videogames and my web browsins. Quiet woman! You'll just encourage them.
  4. When one of your main points of contention is the 'feminist propaganda movement' wading in, my recommendation is to probably keep ignoring it, at least until your balls drop.
  5. Whether you're joking or whatever, well done there on feeding into the idiotic fucking mindset that lays the groundwork for all this shit.
  6. I'm a bit.. yes and no in response to this (and your previous reply to me). I partly agree, but to me it's important that it's been used in anger against Gamergaters. The arguments against them would have probably been perfectly sufficient without the insults, but then again, hey, it's heated. My view is that however you think the nerds, neckbeards and fedoras fit into this, it doesn't affect the core issues raised by this whole thing in any significant way. As an aside: I can't speak for what other have seen and read, but I would have said there was less use of 'nerd' and 'geek' as pejorative terms against gamergaters, and a lot more about fedoras, neckbeards, and even a bit of the occasional jemble. Who doesn't love a jemble? j/k, everyone, they're awful. This is - I think - slightly different. These seem to me to be stereotypes of the angry, misanthropic type who thinks that they're really the Nice Guy. And those are the ones who are a step away from becoming MRAs. I don't know, what am I saying here? Is it derailing? Maybe. But as that video posted above by MDY (which is absolutely ace, so thank you) shows this kind of chat can be useful in looking at how the gamergate thing has come out of channels and modes of thinking that have been around for -years-, and that it's not just an issue for the games industry either.
  7. Ha! Imagine the conversation between a cinéaste and someone who calls themself a film buff because they write "I'm equally happy going out and having a rave up as I am staying in with a bottle of wine and netflix" on their OKcupid profile. #cinéastegate
  8. Yeah, no, I don't accept for a second that identifying as a gamer = 'something seriously wrong with your life.' It gets slightly into the territory of people who play games versus people who depend on them, but the more acceptable and widespread games become the more of a false distinction that is. More likely, the only reason that 'gamer' even exists as a term of self identification is embattlement. People feeling like the image of a person who plays videogames is so, so negative that the only option is to dig your heels in and adopt a group mentality. I keep thinking that this would never apply to people who watch films, and enjoy watching films. But then I wonder if in the early days of cinema there was a group of aficionados for whom going to watch moving images was 'their thing', and how they felt in later days when it became everyone's thing. And it became a bit embarrassing to call yourself a cinemaphile or whatever, because films have become an integrated part of everyday life. This, for me, was the - fairly accurate - point of all that 'gamers are dead' stuff. It's not an insult: it's amazing, though maybe not for the existing in-group. The other related point discussed over the last few pages: nerds, neckbeards, etc. There's a part of me that would prefer to see any anti-gamergate stuff refrain from using these terms, because it doesn't need it (the actions of the gamergaters are enough - you don't need to comment on their characteristics) but that's got an element of tone-policing about it. These words might play on stereotypes, but they're meant as insults. And I'm okay with them being used as insults in this context because people are fucking angry. I don't see an argument for 'nerds' or similar to be a group that's afforded any kind of special protection, and I say that as someone who was called one at school. That's an important distinction for me: the difference between understanding why they act the way that they do (fine) and arguing for any kind of equivalence with structurally disadvantaged groups (not fine). You can't just define nerds or similar as 'people who have a bad life for multiple unspecified reasons' and have that act as any kind of mitigating factor for the behaviour we've seen against women during gamergate. You just can't. Doing so completely sidesteps the problem and plunges you into a weird cultural nihilism that reminds me of this bit from Bojack Horseman: "So what you're saying is, everything is society's fault, and we as individuals never need to take responsibility for anything? Yeah, I like that. I didn't do anything wrong because I can't do anything wrong because we're all just products of our environment, bouncing around like marbles in the game of Hungry-Hungry Hippos that is our random and cruel universe. Yeah, it's not my fault. It's society. Everything is because of society! Hooray! Everything is meaningless! Nothing I do has consequence!"
  9. I'm finding those mentions of trial and error a bit infuriating, especially with regard to interactions with the alien, because.. it's.. not trial error? Not really. Trial and error is systematic testing of available options, each one equally likely to lead to death. Trial and error is two bottomless pits, one of which leads to death and the other to progress. The alien's behaviour is the opposite of trial and error in this context, because it doesn't do the same thing twice, presumably due to a slightly random element. Taking the same route on separate reloads can lead to success on one occasion, and death another. On one hand I can see why this annoys people. On another it's almost certainly a contributing factor to why the game is so frightening, so balls to those people. So: are the other (non-AI interaction) gameplay elements trial and error? Is the navigation trial and error? Are the objectives trial and error? Maybe there's a slightly stronger argument for this. It's not always obvious where you need to go, and how you fulfil an objective. For example, many objectives tell you that 'something' needs to be done in an area or room, usually interacting with equipment or finding an item there. However, again, it's not as if you have three consoles in front of you, and if you touch either of the wrong ones the alien gets you. You have to figure out what to do in that space, and in that time you are vulnerable. And while you're vulnerable, it's scary. And you make mistakes. And that will raise the likelihood of you getting into unwinnable situations. It isn't nice. But as to whether it's trial and error: perhaps it can be if you choose it to be. If you hare about the areas, looking for the magic console or button or keycard, the alien (or something else) IS going to get you. So you learn a bit, die, learn a bit, die, and so on. This doesn't sound like a fun way to play it to me - better to try and get a handle on avoiding the threats, which I think is completely possible - but I understand why people might feel that way.
  10. Yep, they're basically the same word. On an unrelated note, how are the agencies in this game? Are they pretty intuitive? I'm so excited about this game that I can hardly agency myself!
  11. James Delingpole has weighed in on this in the wonderful publication that is the Spectator: it'll be in the print edition too. Not linking to it so here are a couple of choice cuts screencapped by twitter users. https://twitter.com/alexhern/status/515097996200255488 https://twitter.com/fishplums/status/515106646260199425 I note that the article went down for a bit, so would be interested to know whether they addressed the obvious conflict of interest in the first one: Delingpole works for Breitbart, as does Milo Yiannopoulos. Ethics!
  12. Unfortunately, while a lot of the above sounds nice, it doesn't really work for this, or a lot of other issues that tangentially attract those with a MRA-ish bent about them. You can talk about the higher principles and change needed to get this stuff addressed all you like, but while there's a group of individuals who are committed to protecting their preferred positions - to the extent that they will happily make this stuff a 'real life issue' through harassment or threats - the people who would actually be in the position to make that change are forced out. So while, yes, there is an argument for 'rising above' it all, that's a rather - erk - privileged position to be coming from. We're not the ones being targeted by these creeps. Sweep the threats and harassment under the carpet and they become background noise, and that's not acceptable: they are central to this, because they promote a culture of fear and exclusion to those who say anything that doesn't fit with a given agenda.
  13. Yes, I can certainly see how she thought that about a review that claimed there exists a form of rape exclusively reserved for couples who want to spice up their sex lives.
  14. And furthermore, if the guy positing on idlethumbs about it is right, it's a pretty clear example of the issues they appear to have been railing against: the developer is an active member of reddit and other communities, and the game itself shoddy. A game that would have zero exposure without the connections of the developer.
  15. That's oversimplification on a grand scale; you can class psychosis as a mental health problem but a clinician would certainly never label a person mentally ill for presenting with an uspecified psychosis and that alone (not before looking at background, context, even physical causes). The thing is.. I'm certain you know this! So I don't quite get why you're arguing this point and position.
  16. jonny_rat

    Zoe Quinn

    How attractive was he? Don't keep us waiting like this.
  17. I picked up Ultra on steam the other day and started playing again for the first time in AGES. it is a deeply upsetting experience. The most galling thing is that I've lost the ability to do the double fireball motion while on the left hand side of the screen in any kind of pinch. The button commands in practice mode suggest that I'm not even hitting the right angle on the stick.. Also: who are the steam players on here? I want to be you (fight you) (on the internet)
  18. I can't help but have it as kind of a tradition for myself to post on here when I release something new: I've been doing it since I started years ago. I still remember getting loads of support and feedback from the lovely folk in the creative folder. I made this over the course of February for the RPM2014 challenge and it was a bloody right old job. It's a bit of a mix of electronica and slightly goofy dance stuff in part one, then slightly more ambient in the second half. Anyway, if anyone interested it's streaming at Bandcamp. Thanks! https://lumieres.bandcamp.com/album/no-space
  19. Ooh. I got an invitation to the home streaming beta last night. It doesn't work though: my Macbook can't see my PC, or vice versa. I don't think the Macbook is opening the listening port for the streaming service. Anyone else had more luck with it?
  20. Oops. I appear to have bought This Game again on the steams. If anyone fancies some matches against a person who has not played This Game in like a year and a half, then please do add me on there: jonny_rat. Qazimod, I'll be adding you!
  21. Oh, and Unofficial Who, I don't mean to sound like I'm having a pop at you for posting the link: I think the reason it gets my back up so much is that I agree with many of the principles and aims, but get frustrated by the flow of his argument (or lack of one).
  22. That article drives me round the bend. Not just the perspective on Infinite (which I think is silly, but a blatant and rather disingenuous hook for the article), but the banality of the message in the latter half. The sheer cheek of calling reviewers asinine before going on to make some of the most asinine, haughty proclamations about gender and privilege that I've read in a long time. Oh, we need more queer and female reviewers do we? Didn't think to ask any of the existing female or queer reviewers out there of their opinion of the game, is it? And you don't like review scores? Gosh. The other problem is that the criticisms of Infinite don't go much beyond 'if only you could talk to the monsters.' As we often say on here, Edge were taken out of context for that quote; it was in fact high praise, because Doom gave the reviewer a glimpse of something wider and more tantalising. The same goes for Tevis and Columbia: the writer has been given a glimpse of something wider, and the whole thing just reeks of a whine that he can't have it. What did he want: a game in which he could try to address the socio-political problems of Columbia via democratic means? Great, but few games have managed anything that weighty in popular media, and I'm not sure that we should be expecting it from a sequel to a game in which a man shoots fire out of his hands in an underwater dystopia. "Press X to stop racism." A more minor point again, but it's a shame that he and many others interpreted the game as a straight up shooter in terms of the actual gameplay. Probably more the fault of the marketing team, but if you're going to write a million words about it and call it the worst game of the year, you should certainly listen to what even the likes of Kokatu was saying on the day of release: crank the difficulty up, concentrate on vigors and play mainly with those. It turns the game into something more like a chaotic crowd-management thing, and it's more fun than playing it dry with the guns. For me, the biggest problems with Infinite are it's confusions and contradictions; it messed up in its approach to a number of themes, and it's hard to put much stock in the cycle-of-violence stuff when you're making people's heads explode. I guess the game tried to address this by showing that the only way to stop a cycle of violence was, depressingly, to prevent it from ever beginning. (On the other hand, to prevent it with a single act of violence? As I said, all a bit confused.) But this article is arguing not against the game, but a number of isolated statements pulled from reviews. I'm genuinely perplexed at the level of attention it's had, and I feel like it indulges in the precise form of naval-gazing and banal rumination that it accuses the game of.
  23. Thanks CIH, much appreciated. Also posting in triumph here because I managed to get the video I uploaded to auto-embed after trying about a hunnerd times.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.