BaconGames's forum posts

#1 Posted by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

Octodad: Dadliest Catch all the way came out in 2014 (nothing in the releases tab says otherwise) but it's still listed as 2013 for some reason so I can't put it in. They could look at the new shorts or the main stuff and I'd be happy. I put in Broken Age as a substitute just because that's probably going to be my GOTY as it stands now and it only got one QL EX.

I actually think they did a decent job of looking at most of what mattered from this year in some form whether QL, Unfinished, or UPF segment. In fact if you look back, GOTY podcasts maintain a good track record of mentioning most of what mattered and sometimes including games they didn't show off themselves. Sure they could show stuff off again but I'd rather this be more about leaning into what they missed rather than play something they've done before (albeit maybe lightly.) With that said, with how many different answers this is going to get, I wouldn't put too much stock into one game making it over another since the GOTY podcasts will be the main avenue for that.

Overall the only stuff I don't think they looked at at all that they should have were the two Amplitude releases Endless Legend and Dungeon of the Endless and the two major 3DS releases they missed in Kirby: Triple Deluxe and Fantasy Life. Barring those which I would put first, I think enough people were talking about both Monument Valley earlier in the year and 80 Days lately to warrant a look. My list would be those first four and Octodad as my banner to wave.

#2 Posted by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

@bacongames:

It is interesting that justice to the fullest is putting Wilson in jail, when even with the involvement of the FBI the decision was not to indict. I haven't gotten through all the released documents yet but this case has garnered a lot more attention and time from investigators than it might actually have deserved based on the released documents I've gone through so far.

There's a degree of semantics here that is worth keeping in mind but the most you could do the man in for is a murder conviction so that's what I really meant. Also that a lot of people who are angry and disappointed with the announcement wanted to see to finally have a police officer accountable for a fatal mistake or outright crime.

#3 Edited by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

I wonder what would have happened had there been justice to the fullest extent, if Darren Wilson was charged with murder (I don't know which degree since I'm not up on that distinction) and sentenced to prison. Not all at once but say it did happen. Would that have started the ball rolling on accountability with other police officers or not? I wonder because for as big as the issue is of historically racialized treatment of people by police officers, it's arguably incidental to a more common factor. That is the fear or reticence to undermine the authority of the police as an institution. Of course this situation is both clashing together but whenever police get in trouble in this respect, the response is probably as much that tendency to cover their own and maintain their sense of authority as making an implicit statement about race.

In other words, the pernicious root to this problem is as much our fundamental inability to address police accountability regardless of whether it falls along this racial issue or not. So it is about race but it's also about the police as an institution and lack of any meaningful accountability for many many years. Honestly, most anyone (although it is absolutely worth acknowledging where this particular tension comes from), should be angry at the failure of the justice process and another example among countless where police saw no meaningful punishment.

That's an issue that impacts you and me every time we might interact with a police officer.

#4 Posted by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

@ianh83 said:

@bacongames said

The way I see it is that freedom on the internet as a value can only take us so far since we don't successfully operate that way in real life. The internet can and has been liberating, vital, disruptive, important, enlightening. But in all that vast space, there's also a lot of opportunity for hate, violence, damaging content, and all the ugliness that comes with people being able to do stuff. I don't know if all that ugliness will go away but I have to imagine we come up with a better compromise to address the cost associated with human interaction without sacrificing what's valuable about it.

If these rules for discourse were going to be internet wide they would need to be so liberal as to be impotent. Neither situation is ideal. The best thing to do in my opinion is to pick your audience, go find the appropriate people for the subject you want to discuss whether that be reddit or here or the discussion thread for a wikipedia article or some philosophy or psychology forum.

I hope the internet remains a place people can say what they like forever. Things like death threats need to be taken seriously but the negativity, trolling, gamergate etc., is just a reflection of society and so it should be. GamerGate should not be banned otherwise how are the people who believe in crazy shit ever going to have that moment of 98% of the internet yelling shut the f* up at them and the cold realization they're wrong?

I checked the forum rules here and it has a bit about them being allowed to ban you permanently or temporarily as they see fit, can delete posts as they see fit and "We do not discuss moderations publicly, so please don’t inquire about the moderation of another user. Forum topics about moderation will be deleted." so this thread could theoretically be deleted because of it's subject. I know moderation is a thankless and difficult task, I know there are reasons for these house rules. As it says in the rules for this forum, moderation is subjective. I feel controversial subjects are not necessarily welcome here. I think it's for the best that there are localised house rules so you can go elsewhere when necessary.

Do we have angry discussions about the right to have slaves online? No of course we don't, we all know it's wrong, it was abolished a long time ago. Society used to see that issue very differently to the way it does now. I believe discourse on the internet needs to be allowed to reflect society in all its ugliness. The amazing thing about the internet is it's like a sandbox made of 0's and 1's that doesn't necessarily need to have real life physical effects if you treat it the right way. There are still over 30 million slaves in the world. Most of them are in places where they can't have this out in the open discussion that anyone can come along and look at and give their opinion on.

I don't necessarily disagree. Policing can also mean a lot of things and so one can see an improvement on both fronts. Concerning threats to quality of life, then real life police institutions can and should do a much more comprehensive job of making those consequences real. However if it's things that are still ultimately relative and contextual (because all communication has to be) but generally agreed to me more damaging than not, then bespoke institutions like the sites you use can be make their moderation rules and toolsets more robust. This is why I think the caveat that private services do not protect free speech is an asset we greatly underutilize.

Effectively what we're trying to get at is the line between criticism and harassment on the internet, speak nothing for moderating and addressing the way deep end shit. The fundamental issue with something like GamerGate is precisely that disproportionate negativity and harassment leveled at a certain group for rather self-serving reasons. The surface-level idea of "ethics in games journalism" is valid out of this context but within it it's a laughably small napkin covering the elephant. The elephant being that many of the individuals who participate in the angry echo chamber have no business interacting with twitter at large, which is on Twitter to come out and make clear. Where there is further harassment and death threats, the police get involved in a more serious manner. This is just an example but here on both fronts Twitter hasn't had the spine to come out against something negatively effecting its users and further putting in work to vastly improve its moderation guidelines while police haven't done enough to take threats seriously.

So it's not really as much about ideas as it is about treatment and etiquette in interaction which again is true of face to face interaction. Even ideas can be problematic (i.e. certain races are inferior) by virtue of what they promote and what kind of person gets attached which can produce more damage. We aren't striking the idea from existence, since there will be records of it much like there are of obscure moral feelings from civilizations long past, but the idea's usage. And again, the policing institution should not be the one to take that on. However that's no excuse not to evaluate how we can do that in other cultural ways.

#5 Posted by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

Patreon is rad and people going to it shouldn't be the issue here. It's basically a way of directly supporting regular output where it would be posted online or freelance (webcomics, article writing, videos) or funding content which might cost too much time or money out of someone's pocket otherwise. Patreon money is usually used to either support someone's living to make ends meet or pay for stuff like airfare, materials, or extra help.

I can't speak to this and I kinda don't want to as I've long avoided Jim Sterling. Good for him for striking out on his own and further filling out where making a living doing this thing can go.

#6 Edited by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

You know, as it will likely only be allowed at sanctioned blood donation drive events, this could be a worthwhile and fun thing. I don't know if it's $250,000 worth it but I guess that's for everyone else to decide. This obviously screams ethical nightmare otherwise but at worst this would make someone dizzy or faint if a normal donation is a bit too much for them to begin with. They'll never hook up the machine to extract more than the normal amount for a donation but at that point it's a bit ridiculous for the winner to donate less than a full donation.

If this gets funded I want Dan Ryckert hooked up this thing as soon as possible.

#7 Posted by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

At some point it's that fuzzy line between damaging discourse and the validity of the initial speech and losing context. Death threats, while increasingly and rightly talked about, are almost a classic example. Personally I think law enforcement agencies do a poor job of providing real life consequence to harassment and endangering of people's lives, speak nothing of angry hate speech. It's an interesting question though because ignoring the bigger issues with state control over internet in terms of censorship, a ton of horrible things get posted to internet services all the time that need moderation. Photos and videos of torture, beheadings, rape, and so on down the line that get moderated by third party companies.

Keeping internet free can mean a lot of things but so it can in the physical world. Freedom is an important value in modern society but one which usually shouldn't be absolute because it doesn't play out well. For as much as police systems are subject to corruption and a whole host of issues, when dealing with populations of a certain size, the institution itself becomes necessary in order to maintain some amount of peace and accountability. As such policing is inherently tied to law and other systems and so with freedom comes that execution concerning law and rights. As it happens, the internet is an imperfect derivative, caught somewhere between the current jurisdiction of physical life and more anarchic freedom.

The way I see it is that freedom on the internet as a value can only take us so far since we don't successfully operate that way in real life. The internet can and has been liberating, vital, disruptive, important, enlightening. But in all that vast space, there's also a lot of opportunity for hate, violence, damaging content, and all the ugliness that comes with people being able to do stuff. I don't know if all that ugliness will go away but I have to imagine we come up with a better compromise to address the cost associated with human interaction without sacrificing what's valuable about it.

#8 Posted by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

As much as Anita has gotten a lot of attention and skyrocketed in attention, I would say Zoe is the one who trended the most meaningfully in the circles that I care about. I've met her a few times and she's great; all this awful business couldn't be happening to a nicer and more fun lady who in spite of all this business has kept a sense of humor and a level head.

As for the advisory board/jury I think that's as straightforward as old guard/senior editor selection effect. Jeff has talked about this before where he does this stuff out of courtesy and so has kept doing it year after year whether it was the VGA's or E3 judges. So while a lot of women are coming into the fold in gaming editorial, they're not the same old that have been used and/or the senior staff at their respective publications. I would counter-argue that and say Susan Arendt should at least be on there though.

Although looking over the whole thing it's a bit bunk. Assassin's Creed: Unity is nominated in "Action/Adventure" category which I think is laughable as is Alien: Isolation for a different reason. For one reason or another they don't have a horror category which could have included Alien, P.T., Neverending Nightmares, Five Nights at Freddy's, and I'm sure some others. Monument Valley, which is a deserving game, takes up a slot in indie and mobile which given all the great independent games that came out this year, is a bit of a waste. That and there's no local multiplayer category which is one of the most important new categories they could recognize.

Overall I don't there's any category I wouldn't have one major complaint about why something is there or generally having a big budget bent at the expense of recognizing what were the more interesting games this year.

#9 Posted by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

I don't know if it's a question of degrees as much because frankly, I could do without the guy period. I'll echo what others have said though and say that he's here as an editor to help the duders out; he's doing his job and I'm fine with that and he should keep doing it. It's been great to see what the other guys have done in reaction but in a lot of ways Dan works because I'm here for everyone else. I don't want to be too negative because most of the time it's fine and I'm not someone who actively avoids stuff with Dan in it (shit like Mario Party Party is brilliant and I think he is a fine guest on podcasts and UPF) but I can't lie and say I wouldn't prefer the fam I'm here for.

More than anything though, the narrative that Dan is the best thing to happen to this site in a long time is crazy to me because I've had no real complaints in the 6 years they've been doing this thing. Criticisms sure but most of it is constructive and I always trusted their better judgement. Whenever people have said they were in a slump I genuinely couldn't see what the hell they were on about. It's more about that initial perspective than Dan really because had it been someone else, I probably would have felt the same even if I was more enthused myself.

#10 Edited by BaconGames (3544 posts) -

I bet this is here at least partially because people like Total Biscuit and PewDiePie command huge YouTube audiences that can drive promotion of the awards. Audience choice stuff certainly isn't for prestige and even jury chosen awards are inherently promotional due to the format. That Jeff is here is the real mystery to me because while Giant Bomb is big, it's not that big and I can't say Jeff skyrocketed in particular this year over others. Part of the reason I find this as entertaining as it is the thought of Jeff and co. receiving something this superficial and weird knowing as much as they do about the industry.

In a lot of ways it's "smart" like a lot of clever marketing strategies are, particularly in this day and age of social media promotion. This stuff will come and go, and opportunities to honor cooler people or see the result of Jeff actually winning may be wasted but honestly if this is going to happen I'm at least looking forward to it not being an embarrassing mess like it's been for years. That and I'm not against using this as a platform to announce games and in some cases, really help stuff out that probably deserves it like No Man's Sky.