190 Comments
  • 190 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Edited by declanusaur

@declanusaur: This is the essential disagreement then, which is that a piece has to make overt commentary for it to become a proper space for discussion of the topic. This is not the case, and this is not how culture works. We understand culture better through all of the diverging perspectives it offers. Regardless of whether or not the team was trying its hardest to be politically correct, this is still a representation of someone's perspective, and perspective invites discussion. There is no point at which something must be made for discussion. And if everything that was worth talking about was made for it then we would all be guarded sociopaths, waiting for someone's face to crack.

" There is no point at which something must be made for discussion."

Okay, so basically this podcast is just designed as a round about way to have a discussion about slavery on a game website?

I mean by this logic why not just flood this website with "discussion"

GTA V had a torture scene, lets have a discussion about torture.

Kerbal has space ships, lets discuss space.

AC BF has pirates, lets discuss.

Call of Duty has war, lets discuss war.

If this website turned into that, it wouldn't be so much of a game website anymore. If people want that stuff they can find it elsewhere.

Most people don't want to talk about politics and social topics at every turn, they actively avoid it.

Posted by WaywardGamer

@declanusaur: No, no, no. You're looking at this all wrong. People don't have to talk about everything all the time. That would be crazy! The logic I just proposed is that nothing needs to state that it's ready and waiting for its important topic to be discussed. Some art and/or entertainment does do this, but that does not leave those pieces to be exclusively discussed, just because they want to be. What does get discussed is what people find to be worth discussing. If your problem with articles like this is that you don't feel that the topic is worth your time, that's super dandy. It also gets across very little. You aren't going to convince anyone that what they find important is of little value by telling them that, and you also can't really discredit logic by bending it to its breaking point. Besides, talking about why your examples aren't currently being discussed is another question, and largely an insignificant one. Patrick is not discussing the representation of war in Call of Duty, or pirates in Black Flag, or space in Kerbal. Those discussions are maybe not as important to him.

Edited by declanusaur

@waywardgamer said:

@declanusaur: No, no, no. You're looking at this all wrong. People don't have to talk about everything all the time. That would be crazy! The logic I just proposed is that nothing needs to state that it's ready and waiting for its important topic to be discussed. Some art and/or entertainment does do this, but that does not leave those pieces to be exclusively discussed, just because they want to be. What does get discussed is what people find to be worth discussing. If your problem with articles like this is that you don't feel that the topic is worth your time, that's super dandy. It also gets across very little. You aren't going to convince anyone that what they find important is of little value by telling them that, and you also can't really discredit logic by bending it to its breaking point. Besides, talking about why your examples aren't currently being discussed is another question, and largely an insignificant one. Patrick is not discussing the representation of war in Call of Duty, or pirates in Black Flag, or space in Kerbal. Those discussions are maybe not as important to him.

"Patrick is not discussing the representation of war in Call of Duty, or pirates in Black Flag, or space in Kerbal. Those discussions are maybe not as important to him."

I think that's the point. People call him a social justice warrior because he focuses on this stuff, a lot.

Posted by WaywardGamer

@declanusaur: I should probably have also said that I'm really unsure of what point you were trying to make here. At first it sounds like you think I'm saying that discussion should happen without video games, to which your response is "Then why is this a video game website?", but then you seem to be saying, "Keep this stuff out of my video games."

In addressing the first I have to say; Well, really what I mean is that this DLC does not have to reach a point where it is Having A Thing To Say About Slavery to make it okay for people to discuss the slavery that is present in it. All of that shit is open to being talked about. It's there. It's in the game. It is in fact a part of the video game, put there by its creators. They made the game, and they put the slavery all up in there.

In response to that second bit. I have to say that I'm sorry for putting a lot of words into your text box. This is just my perspective on your perspective on other perspectives.

Edited by WaywardGamer

@declanusaur: I don't think being interested in social issues over space issues is deserving of condescension and derision rather than honest discussion. There have been people in these comments sections who disagree with a lot more candor and politick without resorting to trashy throwaway insults.

Edited by declanusaur

@waywardgamer said:

@declanusaur: I don't think being interested in social issues over space issues is deserving of condescension and derision rather than honest discussion. There have been people in these comments sections who disagree with a lot more candor and politick without resorting to trashy throwaway insults.

I'm trying to give you peoples general reasoning and I really just don't think your going to get it nor do you want to. Especially if you're resulting to calling my stuff condescending, deriding, and lacking candor, I'd say this is about as candor as it gets. Also saying my stuff lacks politic which is the very thing people are complaining about.

There's a big difference between being interested in a topic and shoehorning it into a website that doesn't publish a lot of content.

A lot of people complain about it. Specifically people complaining that Patrick is using this website as a soapbox to talk about politics or socio issues.

Now I know based on checking around you don't mind, but that's not everyone.

Edited by WaywardGamer

@declanusaur: Let me apologize. I didn't intend to be blaming you. Maybe I was sweeping my hand a little too wide in defending what Patrick does. But if we're both being honest, I think we've been playing devil's advocate on each side a little too well to say that neither of us agree with the sentiments we're expressing.

Although, reiterating, I wasn't directing at you. Sorry all around.

Also, I had thought when I said this "In response to that second bit. I have to say that I'm sorry for putting a lot of words into your text box. This is just my perspective on your perspective on other perspectives." I was getting across the above. It's my alibi.

Edited by declanusaur

@declanusaur: Let me apologize. I didn't intend to be blaming you. Maybe I was sweeping my hand a little too wide in defending what Patrick does. But if we're both being honest, I think we've been playing devil's advocate on each side a little too well to say that neither of us agree with the sentiments we're expressing.

Although, reiterating, I wasn't directing at you. Sorry all around.

Also, I had thought when I said this "In response to that second bit. I have to say that I'm sorry for putting a lot of words into your text box. This is just my perspective on your perspective on other perspectives." I was getting across the above. It's my alibi.

This discussion has been far more productive than the way this stuff usually goes.

We didn't call each other "literally hitler" lol

Edited by 1101101

@declanusaur: Yo, dude. Can you please tell me where the shoehorning happens? I’m currently listening to a podcast that discusses how well game mechanics and narrative in the discussed game succeed in portraying history. The game is mostly lauded for succeeding in that and many specific examples are mentioned. Criticism is relatively light and entirely non-aggressive in tone. (I don’t think there is anything in that podcast that could be called aggressive or harsh.)

Where is the agenda? Where is the aggressiveness? Do you really have a problem with two dudes talking about the portrayal of slavery in a game that is explicitly about slavery?

I was always under the impression that talking about how well a game succeeds in portraying something it attempts to portray through mechanics and narrative is kind of central to any kind of games criticism.

Why should this content not be allowed here?

(Also, and this is just a side note, I would really like to know where you see the agenda you want to criticise Patrick for pushing. I mean, this is a discussion about game mechanics and narrative in which I can’t really see anyone push for anything much. It’s mostly about why certain things in the game succeed or fail and why. That’s all. So far you haven’t criticised that at all. You haven’t talked about one thing that is actually mentioned in the podcast.)

Posted by Turambar

Most people don't want to talk about politics and social topics at every turn, they actively avoid it.

The world would be a far better place if society as a whole had no hiding place from conversations involving social issues.

Posted by BBQBram

Slavery is bad. The game probably portrays it that way. This stuff is like Roger Ebert moralizing directors in the 80s.

I remember when this site was about having fun with video games, 100% of the time. Not waving your socially aware e-peen around.

Edited by declanusaur

@bbqbram said:

Slavery is bad. The game probably portrays it that way. This stuff is like Roger Ebert moralizing directors in the 80s.

I remember when this site was about having fun with video games, 100% of the time. Not waving your socially aware e-peen around.

Agreed

Posted by Jack_Lafayette

@declanusaur: Not at all. Try to talk about the issue itself rather than the person espousing the opinion. No argument will really ever be won by acting like someone's opinion is so worthless that they can be swept away with a label denoting them as some ineffectual, damp rag. That isn't rhetoric, it's just condescension.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is absolutely critical to the elevation of a discussion, and so important to remember now with the manual effortlessness of modern communication.

@waywardgamer said:

@declanusaur: No, no, no. You're looking at this all wrong. People don't have to talk about everything all the time. That would be crazy! The logic I just proposed is that nothing needs to state that it's ready and waiting for its important topic to be discussed. Some art and/or entertainment does do this, but that does not leave those pieces to be exclusively discussed, just because they want to be. What does get discussed is what people find to be worth discussing. If your problem with articles like this is that you don't feel that the topic is worth your time, that's super dandy. It also gets across very little. You aren't going to convince anyone that what they find important is of little value by telling them that, and you also can't really discredit logic by bending it to its breaking point. Besides, talking about why your examples aren't currently being discussed is another question, and largely an insignificant one. Patrick is not discussing the representation of war in Call of Duty, or pirates in Black Flag, or space in Kerbal. Those discussions are maybe not as important to him.

"Patrick is not discussing the representation of war in Call of Duty, or pirates in Black Flag, or space in Kerbal. Those discussions are maybe not as important to him."

I think that's the point. People call him a social justice warrior because he focuses on this stuff, a lot.

Here's the thing, though: what matters to him matters to this site. He is the primary writer for news coverage, a major producer of video content, and more or less the sole producer of editorials. I would go so far as to say he has an obligation - not just to Giant Bomb users, but to his professional competence and passion - to express his opinions openly.

Now, you're asking him to be silent because you're uncomfortable with the aforementioned opinions. If you haven't extrapolated already, I'll break the news for you: it won't happen. He's not just a magnet for industry scoops; many people consider him to be among the most interesting writers in modern games criticism. To blunt his words would be to lessen the impact of his work and damage a large part of this site's reputation for honesty. If you're unwilling to engage with the discussion he initiates, and you find his views wholly intolerable, then I'll echo the advice of WaywardGamer: avoid it. It'll reduce your own stress, and you won't feel encouraged to dismiss the beliefs of others, accidentally or otherwise.

Edited by declanusaur

Here's the thing, though: what matters to him matters to this site. He is the primary writer for news coverage, a major producer of video content, and more or less the sole producer of editorials. I would go so far as to say he has an obligation - not just to Giant Bomb users, but to his professional competence and passion - to express his opinions openly.

Now, you're asking him to be silent because you're uncomfortable with the aforementioned opinions. If you haven't extrapolated already, I'll break the news for you: it won't happen. He's not just a magnet for industry scoops; many people consider him to be among the most interesting writers in modern games criticism. To blunt his words would be to lessen the impact of his work and damage a large part of this site's reputation for honesty. If you're unwilling to engage with the discussion he initiates, and you find his views wholly intolerable, then I'll echo the advice of WaywardGamer: avoid it. It'll reduce your own stress, and you won't feel encouraged to dismiss the beliefs of others, accidentally or otherwise.

"I would go so far as to say he has an obligation to express his opinions openly."

Going to have to disagree with you there. If he becomes a racist does this still apply or is it only fine because you agree with it?

"Now, you're asking him to be silent because you're uncomfortable with the aforementioned opinions. "

I never asked him to be silent, I love this, the drama is entertaining. I'm trying to shed light on the other side.

"I'll break the news for you: it won't happen."

I neither think it will nor want it to, don't know where you got that I did.

"Many people consider him to be among the most interesting writers in modern games criticism."

That's news to me.

"To blunt his words would be to lessen the impact of his work and damage a large part of this site's reputation for honesty."'

This sites reputation has been to many a site that covers games and doesn't cover all the SJW websites some of the other bigs ones do. Just guys sitting around having a good time playing games. I also tend to see more complaints about these articles than anything else on this website.

"If you're unwilling to engage with the discussion he initiates"

Again, there is no discussion, generally Rorie deletes this stuff and Patrick sticks to people that agree with him. Rorie is asleep I assume.

"It'll reduce your own stress"

I find this entertaining, not stressful.

"You won't feel encouraged to dismiss the beliefs of others"

You're doing that right now...

Posted by smokyexe

Did we really need this? Oh my bad, good job Patrick, way to good.

So, slavery is bad, right?

Posted by declanusaur

@smokyexe said:

Did we really need this? Oh my bad, good job Patrick, way to good.

So, slavery is bad, right?

Yeah brah, Real bad

Edited by InternetDetective

@smokyexe said:

Did we really need this? Oh my bad, good job Patrick, way to good.

So, slavery is bad, right?

Bad like the Power Glove, or bad bad?

Posted by Nilhelm

Why can't we have fun and talk about issues?

I mean, I know some of you seem to have very limited intelligence and it gets confusing for you whenever we bring up more mature subjects, but some of us actually enjoy a good conversation about these topics, I find a good discussion about some of these to be fun with the right people.

You don't have to click on this, if you feel that Mr Klepek's content is too serious for you, why continue to pursue it? It makes you look like a pathetic figure, someone who goes out of their way to venture into threads and topics which holds no interest for you just so you can voice your disdain time and time again.

Not liking something isn't a unique thing, there are things that I dislike, but I don't go around spreading it in communities or circles that would find those things enjoyable, it would serve no purpose.

When the time comes where quick looks and premium content is pushed back or straight up replaced by a article from Patrick, yes, maybe then I would start complaining, but I doubt that would ever happen.

So I take this podcast/audio clip/interview/whatever you want to call it and say thank you for another piece of content, it would hold me over until Unprofessional Friday later this day (Probably tomorrow really, the show start 00:30 am where I live so won't see it LIVE)

So thank you, Mr Patrick Klepek, you keep putting out cool stuff. spookin', spelunkin' and writtin', it's all good. So far at least ;)

Edited by 1101101

@smokyexe: It seems you didn’t actually listen to the podcast. The point of this podcast is not to tell everyone that slavery is bad. Obviously. Everyone knows that already. Hopefully. I mean, some don’t, sure, but usually that is an opinion you can just assume everyone shares.

This is a discussion about how game mechanics and narrative succeed (or sometimes fail) in portraying history, and in this case it’s about slavery in Haiti (because that’s what the game sets out to portray).

So I’m really not sure why you are reacting so aggressively and feel the need to lash out against something that wasn’t even explicitly stated. This podcast is not a manifesto against slavery. It’s about game mechanics and narrative and how those relate to real world events. You know, stuff you would expect is being discussed on a podcast about games.

(The underlying and mostly unspoken assumption of this discussion is obviously that slavery is disgusting and oppressive and so on and that view is used as a measuring stick to see whether the game succeeds or fails with certain things. If you have an issue with that – I don’t know why you would – then you can certainly name specific instances where you disagree. If so, please do. That discussion is then mostly about history.)

Edited by amir90
@lurkero said:

I wouldn't blame anyone for playing through Freedom Cry and killing all the slave owners and slave merchants. Those people were extreme hypocrites. "Our country is founded on freedom...except for y'all. I need y'all for free labor."

@patrickklepek said:

@declanusaur said:

I think the point on the Kotaku comment is that sites like them, such as RPS and polygon, are Social Justice Warrior central.

Much of Patricks work is Social Justice Warrior material...

Find a better way to phrase your objection. I'm done with the SWJ moniker. It won't be tolerated anymore.

Anybody who uses the term social justice warrior as a derogatory term does not deserve your attention. "How DARE you advocate that people be treated equally!" Get out of here with that mess.

Yeah, because promoting tweets from a woman who is a thief and a liar is not at all some sort of white knighting.(Anita Sarkessian.)

inb4: " you support the death and rape threats to womyn!"

Silly goose, arguing over a false dichotomy, "you are either for everyone being equally or not!"

Maybe, just maybe, the SJW term comes fromt the fact that many sites and people use false correlation and spin stories to fit their own agenda? Do you honestly, deep down in that internet heart of yours, actually believe that I have something against women being protagonists? Maybe I don't believe in forcing any game developers to fit a fixed set of quota, just for the sake of the quota in their video games.

Edit: Sorry for any bad grammer on my part.
Edit2: For some reason, I still feel I need to point out that I do not hate Patrick in any way. I just avoid most social issues articles or podcasts made by Patrick, because we ideologically (maybe perspective is a better word) are on diferent sides. He sees a problem where I see none. I still appreciate his other works and podcasts, I wouldn't listen or read them if I didn't.

Posted by WarOnHugs

These comments are as dark and depressing as the game's subject matter.

Edited by JoshyLee

Remember when this site used to be about fun?

Posted by OneManX

Some people are still uneasy with talking about slavery. It's a touchy subject,but I feel whenever when that or the subject of race is brought up, people get uneasy and look for other things to point at or to attack. That is where I feel these comments have went to.

As for the podcast itself, I think it does a good job at talking about the actual content of the game and using that to provide the discussion of the subject matter of the game.

I'm glad that this happened and glad that Patrick felt compelled enough to reach out and provide some good color commentary, its apart of gaming that gets lost in the shuffle and glad that he is doing different things.

Posted by Gordy

@declanusaur: How in the world does talking about a subject equal political correctness? They're literally discussing a touchy subject and you're immediately labelling them as being politically correct and social justice warriors and whatever other bullshit derogatory names you can think of without even stopping to think about the subject he's covering.

Edited by Gordy

@declanusaur said:

It's not an obvious brush off, I listen to and read his work. It's been a pattern that has existed for a long time and I see no reason why it would change.

If a topic comes up which involves a politically correct subject, it's very easy to assume his position on it, before hearing it. Even if you're someone that always agree's I still think it 's predictable. That doesn't mean I won't listen because I'm curious, just that I usually know what I'm going to get.

That's an odd evaluation, from my perspective. I've generally found Patrick to be the most accessible of the GB crew, the staff member most willing to internalize criticism, and generally a guy who seems to make a habit out of challenging his own preconceptions. It'd be interesting to hear your reasons for disengaging from his writing in that way.

@declanusaur said:

It's super easy to be a social justice warrior in the gaming journalism realm. Those who agree circlejerk about it, those who disagree get shouted down as bigots. Game companies agree, even if they do nothing about it, because from a PR standpoint it's the best route, you can say you're going to do something and don't. It also seems to be what sites like polygon, kotaku, and increasingly on RPS, rely on because it's a great traffic draw.

"How the gaming industry oppresses woman" that as a headline will get traffic. It bring's in the SJW and those in the middle, and those who think it's all baby BS. The SJW's want to circlejerk, the middles are kinda curious, and the latter thinks "Oh, one of these, this should be good."

I mean think about it, Patrick almost always interviews people that will agree with him on that stuff, he never wants the opposing view point on social justice topics. Those that would and are friends won't, why get in an argument with your friend when you can easily agree and move on.

Social justice stuff is just an easy get out of jail free card these days. I'm not saying that's wrong, it's just ripe for use and abuse.

Take a moment to evaluate your language, here. The ways in which you use the term "social justice warrior." You say it's "easy to be" one. You say their chief motivation is "to circlejerk."

Everything here tells me you've reached a very specific conclusion: if someone can get passionate about issues of race, gender, class, or creed, you're no longer interested in hearing their opinion on the matter. You've decided they're all just as crass and cynical regarding their opponents, and to speak with them on even ground is to allow them some sort of nebulously negative privilege.

In the second paragraph, you establish an intellectual hierarchy. These "social justice warriors" are no better than lascivious, self-congratulatory morons. The "middles" are a sort of mythical innocent, people who have stumbled upon the debate somehow having not yet evaluated their own opinions and experience. Meanwhile, there are the master-disagreers, simultaneously deigning to engage the concerns (or "baby bullshit") of their lessers and remaining jovially aloof.

This isn't all to suggest that there is any argument which is not inherently infused with bias, but rather to say that you're undermining your own concerns through your contempt of the people you disagree with. There must be some basic compromise at the core of any discussion or both sides are doomed to shout over each other's shoulder until someone decides to resort to drastic, illogical means to prove their point. Patrick's article on internet discourse delves into what happens after many people reach that conclusion independently of one another, and I recommend reading it if you haven't already. It may convince you that being a "social justice warrior" isn't so painless as you believe.

This reply is awesome and deserves to be on every page.

Edited by Shortbreadtom

I like your work Patrick. I also don't understand why talking about games this way would threaten or irritate someone, given that it's super easy to not listen or watch this stuff. And now that Patrick is in Chicago, it's not even like this takes time away from the other guys' content. I understand not liking Patrick's political views and stuff, I don't understand why people vehemently complain about it.

Edited by InternetFamous

Man...just hearing about that scene where you need to climb out of a sinking ship made me emotionally uncomfortable. I might just need to pick up Freedom Cry on principle.

Posted by 1101101

@shortbreadtom: Exactly! Also, I’m not even sure which political views anyone could object to are actually expressed in this podcast. Maybe that portraying slavery in media in a respectful way is hard? That games offer interesting new ways to portray slavery? That it might be hard to get AAA games about slavery made? I mean, what else is in there? And all those aren’t even really political views, more like views on the expressiveness of media and the structure of the games industry.

The main objection seems to be that someone dared to talk about slavery at all on a gaming website. Which seems like a completely weird argument to me, especially considering that all this talking about slavery is in this case tightly connected to a game.

Posted by WasabiCurry

@shortbreadtom: I think people have the mentality of "Keep your politics out of my video games, man!" In my opinion, that is perfectly okay. If you do not want to discussion anything uncomfortable or talking about social commentary in video games. It is your life, live how you want it.

However, I do not understand the hate and backlash that Patrick receives for wanting to discussion these matters. I was interested in the topic because video games rarely handle slavery so well. Additionally, having another writer join in the discussion greatly helped. But whenever I read comments such as, "Patrick is ruining the site" or "This site is not fun anymore because of actual discussion." It just depresses me. In fact, I have been thinking that the Giant Bomb community is really immature. While I do enjoy the personalities of the site, the users are definitely a need to be avoided.

Posted by DuckHunter

@wasabicurry: The issue for me is not that I don't want these topics discussed in gaming, the problem is how and what is discussed. Kotaku, for example is known for making click bait overblown articles about how every game is evil. Articles like how prison architect shouldn't be made because their are prisons that are bad in real life. It is just an irrational and pointless argument, because in the end, it is just a game. A game can still comment on society and politics, but most of the time we are discussing something that was intended to be fun. The other problem for me is that most of the time these arguments are presented in a straw man format. If you don't agree with what is being said you are facilitating hate against a group of people, or want evil mean games to get away with it. In Patrick's recent thing about internet hate, I got the impression that he saw two groups, those who are against the evil haters, or those who hate. Patrick is a lot more reasonable then some people who comment on here, but he unintentionally stirs up a crowd of people who attack anyone who disagrees with him..

Edited by 1101101

@zombieslayingin3d: Ok, then step up. What are your specific complaints? What do you think was wrong of the things said in the podcast? You said what you have a problem with, but nothing what was said in this podcast seems to fit that at all.

What’s with all the endless hand-wringing and then no one manages to criticize anything that was actually said? Is it really too much to ask to actually listen to something before you criticize it? And if you criticize it, then at least be specific.

Edited by Abendlaender

Wait. No wait. What? What's the problem again? Why are people angry? Because Patrick DARED to talk with somebody from Kotaku? Doooh, damn that pesky Klepeck and "articles" and "podcasts" that he always forces down my throat. How dare you turn this site into Kotaku by writing about EVE Online, Plants, Dark Souls and Slavery ALL THE TIME?! I mean geeez, I want games to be taken seriously and all but could you please stop talking about serious issues and, I dunno, write an article about how Tails is as fast as Sonic and can fly but is still not the hero? Go back to RPS, nobody wants to hear you talking about F2P, Steam machines and video game sales you WARRIOR! GEEEZ.

This is just clickbait anyway, let me click on it and complain about it every single time!

Edited by DuckHunter

@1101101: I think you need a pair of glasses. I was responding to who was talking more generally about what Patrick has been writing and talking about recently. I was talking both generally about patrick and things going on in the industry as a whole. If you noticed I didn't mention this podcast at all. If you read my comment, you would have realized I was questioning the point of discussing politics in everything.

Posted by BBQBram

@joshylee said:

Remember when this site used to be about fun?

It was a good run up until about 2011, 2012.

@onemanx said:

Some people are still uneasy with talking about slavery. It's a touchy subject,but I feel whenever when that or the subject of race is brought up, people get uneasy and look for other things to point at or to attack. That is where I feel these comments have went to.

Assumptions.

Posted by altairre

@joshylee said:

Remember when this site used to be about fun?

Actually I do. A lot less snarky comments back then.

Edited by WasabiCurry

@zombieslayingin3d: Games can be serious and fun at the same time. Actually, you can disagree with Patrick's assumption without sounding a potential racist or sexist. For example, the Deep Deep game that is being developed by Capcom. It will not have any female characters in the main story.

People naturally got upset. Took sides and didn't bother to discuss but flung shit at each other. You can make an observation and a criticism at the same time. I believe Capcom does not know how to write a strong female lead. There is also many other factors that I think play into these type of decisions. Another example would be that Capcom might want to appeal to a male demographic. It is totally okay to make a game of male characters. It is that unique bonding that happens with guys. That Band of Brothers feel, if you understand. Or a little dumb of saying, the frat boys. You are with your brothers and fighting an impossible battle. It would make the game feel that way.

I would not condemn that game for those reasons. However, I would love to see a AAA game that have strong female roles or strong ethnic roles. Just something different from time to time.

Other than that, I would say just avoid them. If you feel that there is no discussion to partake, why not save your precious time and discuss something else that is worth while. Why not make a thread that discuss why Freedom Cry is good? It's funny because having a worthwhile discussion doesn't equate it to being a good game.

That is my take on the matter though. Also, Kotaku does have some decent people working there. I don't bother reading them because they flood my FB page with nonsense.

Edited by bunnymud

"The Ethics of Freedom Cry"

WGAS WGAF It's a game.

EDIT: And as this Bomber said:

"Okay, so basically this podcast is just designed as a round about way to have a discussion about slavery on a game website?

I mean by this logic why not just flood this website with "discussion"

GTA V had a torture scene, lets have a discussion about torture.

Kerbal has space ships, lets discuss space.

AC BF has pirates, lets discuss.

Call of Duty has war, lets discuss war.

If this website turned into that, it wouldn't be so much of a game website anymore. If people want that stuff they can find it elsewhere."

So much this.

P.S. Slavery in the U.S. ended in 1865. There is slavery elsewhere in the world now. But no one cares about that.

P.P.S. "Here's the thing, though: what matters to him matters to this site." Yea, not really. It doesn't

Posted by INANTP

look at all these babies complaining because one article on one day had something they don't like

Posted by Wes899

Holy shit you guys are fucking stupid. go back to /v/

Posted by declanusaur

@inantp said:

look at all these babies complaining because one article on one day had something they don't like

@wes899 said:

Holy shit you guys are fucking stupid. go back to /v/

Great stuff guys, I realize why you are so enlightened now. Better head to /v/ because apparently that's where I belong, right masta?

Posted by INANTP

@inantp said:

look at all these babies complaining because one article on one day had something they don't like

@wes899 said:

Holy shit you guys are fucking stupid. go back to /v/

Great stuff guys, I realize why you are so enlightened now. Better head to /v/ because apparently that's where I belong, right masta?

lol this post

Edited by MrMazz

Reading these comments it just makes me wonder if people don't think abotu art or cutlure at all or that media can be used to disscuss things beyond pacifying and "entertaining" you.

If you just want to play games thats fine but that dosen't mean in your limited perspective you get to define what is and isn't content and what should or shouldn't be consumed. If you want to go start your own site.

I don't agree with everything Patrick does but 8/10 aint bad and the fact eh tries more often than not is worthy of support when so much of what passes for "games media" is facile bullshit.

Posted by JoshyLee

@altairre said:

@joshylee said:

Remember when this site used to be about fun?

Actually I do. A lot less snarky comments back then.

You mean because we had Ryan, Jeff, Vinny, and Brad trying to have fun talking about and playing video games? Yeah that was fun. I'm not saying Patrick's articles have no value. They do. But this site used to celebrate the dumb fun of gaming. And Patrick is hellbent on making it his soap box to talk about whatever injustice is going on that's ruining games and making everyone who plays them terrible. I agree with most of what Patrick says. I just think it would be better suited somewhere else. I used to come here because it was a fun place to see people play dumb games. Now it's just become Patrick's blog for indie games and social injustice.

Edited by White_Lando
@joshylee said:

@altairre said:

@joshylee said:

Remember when this site used to be about fun?

Actually I do. A lot less snarky comments back then.

You mean because we had Ryan, Jeff, Vinny, and Brad trying to have fun talking about and playing video games? Yeah that was fun. I'm not saying Patrick's articles have no value. They do. But this site used to celebrate the dumb fun of gaming. And Patrick is hellbent on making it his soap box to talk about whatever injustice is going on that's ruining games and making everyone who plays them terrible. I agree with most of what Patrick says. I just think it would be better suited somewhere else. I used to come here because it was a fun place to see people play dumb games. Now it's just become Patrick's blog for indie games and social injustice.

You're totally right. I mean, take this week alone, for example. Apart from the Unprofessional Friday, Breaking Brad, Alex's livestream of Rambo today, the rest of the gang with their own quick look of Rambo tomorrow, Worth Playing, the quick looks of Earth Defense Force 2025, Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, Japanese PS4 store and games, NaissanceE, Strider, The Banner Saga, and the Bombcast, then yeah, there's nothing about fun with video games here anymore.

Posted by declanusaur

@joshylee said:

@altairre said:

@joshylee said:

Remember when this site used to be about fun?

Actually I do. A lot less snarky comments back then.

You mean because we had Ryan, Jeff, Vinny, and Brad trying to have fun talking about and playing video games? Yeah that was fun. I'm not saying Patrick's articles have no value. They do. But this site used to celebrate the dumb fun of gaming. And Patrick is hellbent on making it his soap box to talk about whatever injustice is going on that's ruining games and making everyone who plays them terrible. I agree with most of what Patrick says. I just think it would be better suited somewhere else. I used to come here because it was a fun place to see people play dumb games. Now it's just become Patrick's blog for indie games and social injustice.

Totally Agree

Edited by Lurkero

@turambar said:

@declanusaur said:

Most people don't want to talk about politics and social topics at every turn, they actively avoid it.

The world would be a far better place if society as a whole had no hiding place from conversations involving social issues.

The best part about those kinds of comments is most of the people who complain about others talking about social issues are not people who are in socially disadvantageous places in society.

"I'm so tired about hearing about gay rights."

- The guy who doesn't have to deal with not having equal rights

  • 190 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4