byterunner's forum posts

#2 Posted by byterunner (306 posts) -

@starvinggamer: That really doesn't excuse her for putting on the farce that AJ was dead. That's just fucked up to do to a person. Kenny was not in a good state of mind, for any normal standard. I can't understand how you believe that a man that has had everyone he has loved taken from him time after time, and be constantly reminded and prodded about his failures would have any semblances of a stable mind. No Kenny was not in a fucking normal state, any functioning human would be able to tell he is unstable. Didn't stop Jane from lying to Kenny to prove a point. But wait, she miscalculated and didn't think Kenny would get this violent, that excuses everything she did, obviously.

Also lets not forget, whether in self defense or not, she escalated the situation by pulling out a knife.

And finally, and really the kicker for me, she never even tries to reason with Kenny, OR Clem. She never tries and convince Kenny that the baby is still alive, which is really stupid when you're about to fucking die. But why would Jane do that, she is a smart gal, she wouldn't just sit there and accept death. No she would try and reason, even as a last ditch effort. No, she didn't try to because of Clementine. You see, clementine was there the entire time, she had access to a gun! Why in gods name did she never mention AJ, not only to try and convince Kenny, but to try and get Clem to help her more? I would think its because she thinks the point she made, about trying to make an emotionally and mentally unstable person become dangerous, had already convinced Clem. I feel as if Jane was trying to manipulate Clem. The idea that Jane is so sure that Clem has got her back that she doesn't even try and reason, feels so scummy to me.

#3 Posted by byterunner (306 posts) -

So the couple people here who think there is a conflict of interest because of the kickstarter are basically still ignoring the fact there is no monetary gain when you back something.

Also missed @jeff s post the first time but that's basically my stance.

I'm going to give a random example of how a Journalist backing a game on kickstarter may or may not lead to an issue of ethics.

Lets say that a journalist funds a game and gives 100 dollars because they really like the idea and the team behind it. The development seems to be going smooth and everything is fine and dandy for say 8 months after the kickstarter ends. Then one day, that same Journalist gets an email stating, and showing evidence, that the lead devs at the studio are using shady business practices and the development life at the studio is steadily getting worse and worse. In a normal situation, the journalist would totally make a story from that and publish it. Not only does it give a spotlight to an issue in the industry, but it could be a big break for the Journalist to further their career. But wait, they funded that game. Their money has already been taken, they wont get that money back, and this game could fail and never see the light of day. What if the Journalist really wants that game, and decides not to report about the issues because they invested the money and they don't want to lose that money.

Now, I think that situation is a bit extreme, the idea that a journalist risks their career for a game is a bit silly, but this is just one example, and you can see where issues can arise. There needs to be a line drawn, and a people need to do better to disclose their personal affiliations to the people they write about, and overall not let the industry be so incestuous.

I think that the disclosure of support through Kickstarter and Patreon is important and needed, and I feel the industry's response to the scandal last week was disgusting, including this site. But thats just my opinion.

#4 Posted by byterunner (306 posts) -

Well I've never been on Twitter, and I kinda find some of the things people get real tried and afraid of to be overblown. I always feel like the Twitter Hivemind likes to create boogymans

#7 Posted by byterunner (306 posts) -

ex posted blog with info on all that stuff. It implies some pretty shady stuff with Journalist giving unfair coverage to a developer they are having a sexual relationship with.

Its a pretty fucked up situation.

Also, this topic will be locked soon.

#9 Posted by byterunner (306 posts) -

I have two things that I think about when thinking of Link as a Male or Female. 1. The general public's opinion of the topic, and 2. My opinion on the topic.

While I think that everyone has a specific reason for why they are for or against making Link female, I do think that it boils down to two opposing ideas that people have about the Character of Link. One that believes that Link is a generic avatar and has no notion of character and is instead just a avenue in which we as the player can interact and play with the game with. And the other in which players believe that while Silent, Link is still a person in the universe and is his own self. I've felt there was a divide between the two ideas growing for a while and I think its because the way Nintendo has gone about Show Casing Link and recent games. Older games game little to no personality in Link while later ones have had him react and seem like a person in the games. This could just be a product of Nintendo not have the ability to showcase Link's personality with the limited hardware, but the effect is still there.

Basically the idea is that those that think of Link as an avatar have an easier time excepting Link becoming Female, because the physical appearance of the avatar is irrelevant. While on the other hand those that think of Link as a character, will be more reluctant to accept a female Link.

Personally, I fall in the latter category, in which Link is his own character, and I am reluctant to have Link become female. I have a big attachment to Link, and I feel changing a basic fundamental aspect of Link is somewhat like stealing the character that I love. I think that if someone said that even if they change his gender, he will still be the same character, I have to disagree, but that is my opinion. I just feel that the idea that a single character has to encompass so many different facets of the population. We don't expect it in ourselves, we expect ourselves to be understanding and respectful about peoples ethnicity and sexual orientation, but we don't expect them to act and demonstrate that they are these different things. So it frustrates me when people want to change the gender and race of a character simply because we don't have enough of these kinds of characters. I agree that we don't, but going out and "stealing" these characters that people already enjoy is not the right way to go about it. In my honest Opinion

#10 Posted by byterunner (306 posts) -

Its interesting seeing someone ardent in their enjoyment of nintendo systems. The fact is is that Jeff is more of a sony/sega guy, and Brad/Patrick/Vinny/Drew don't seem to care to talk about old nintendo, unlike Dan.

I feel that other than Mario 64, the GB Crew always shat on the N64, and seeing them being forced to play it is probably the most amazing thing ever