D_Mac

I'm uncertain on the nature of the conflict between the "Darknesses", but there has been some speculation by the characters in Destiny itself:

"Everything is becoming more ruthless and in the end only the most ruthless will remain (LOOK UP AT THE SKY) and they will hunt the territories of the night and extinguish the first glint of competition before it can even understand what it faces or why it has transgressed. This is the shape of victory: to rule the universe so absolutely that nothing will ever exist except by your consent. This is the queen at the end of time, whose sovereignty is eternal because no other sovereign can defeat it. And there is no reason for it, no more than there was reason for the victory of the atom. It is simply the winning play." - Toland the Shattered, Ghost Fragment: Darkness 3 Grimoire card


It's one of those things that's so fundamental, so atomic, the answer will likely never come.

I've seen a few of them, not all. The one on the various theories of what The Darkness is, and the one about The Black Garden, are interesting, and vague. These two quotes come to mind:

"Certain positions - often labeled heretical - imply that the Traveler itself triggered the Collapse, or that it knew the Darkness was coming for it and hoped to use the Solar System as a sacrifice or a proxy army. The Binary Star cult is one notable example" -The Darkness Grimoire card

and

"The Garden grows in both directions. It grows into tomorrow and yesterday. The red flowers bloom forever....The Traveler is life, I said. You are a creature of Darkness. You seek to deceive me. But I looked behind me, down the long slope where the blossoms tumbled in the warm wind and the great trees wept sap like blood or wine, and I felt doubt." The Black Garden Grimoire card

I haven't unlocked anything more than that, so I don't know if anything directly contradicts my theories or not, at this point.

I came here just to read Brad's statement.

This is precisely the problem, the vitriol and the hate serve to distort the reality for everyone involved, on "both sides". That's why I think these recent discussions about journalistic ethics are so productive. Initially, it may have started with some really hateful stuff (the event that shall not be named), but it's really refreshing to see it actually evolve into something productive, and enacting positive change.

I was just having a conversation with a friend about a feminist blogger, and he said something to the effect of "this is what the trolls, conspiracy nuts, and abusive people have taken away from us, they've dominated the converstation, to the point where metered, legitimate criticism, of that persons work, gets drowned out, or lumped in with the sickos."

It's nice to see there are places where we can have mature conversations about video games, the media that covers it, and some pretty serious topics therin, without devolving into mud-slinging, name-calling, or full blown conspiracy crackery.

You make a valid point, my analogy is flawed, it doesn't translate directly to crowd funding as smoothly as I had originally conceived. Crowd funding as a concept blurs the lines between the exchange of goods, and investment. You're right, backing it does mean you have a stake in the project, even if you're not financially profiting from it. I spoke to a senior business writer, and a business journalist here at work, to get their opinion, and both of them, without hesitation, agreed that disclosure is paramount if you've crowd funded something that you are reporting on, whether that be an opinion piece, or some kind of factual journalism. They didn't feel it was necessary to recuse themselves completely, but, certainly, disclosure.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. As someone who works as a news producer, I'm subject to journalistic standards (which are made public here, largely because we're a public institution). I feel very conflicted about recent goings on in the "games media" industry. It's especially hard to say what "games journalism" is, is it art criticism, is it straight up journalism, is it consumer advocacy? Is it all of these things? Journalism as a whole is on the precipice of a tremendous change, the internet, bloggers, native journalism, youtube; these things, they're changing who can publish and broadcast things, the audience they can reach. It's an interesting time, and we need to have these conversations.

That being said, I don't think crowd funding a project means you have a special relationship with that project, you've essential preordred it, you've exchanged money for goods. Movie reviewers do the same thing, they preorder tickets, and in some rare cases screenings or stage performances get cancelled because they're under sold. These aren't unusual circumstances, and the journalist doesn't gain anything special. I agree that publishing an article, to push a game over finish line, and help it get funded ,is crossing the line, if only because the journalist is using their special access, and publication, to alter the course of events.

I think your problem is that you're hung up on thinking that Giant Bomb is meant to be impartial. When you get over that, you'll start having a lot more fun.

Yeah, Austrailians and Europeans get reamed on game prices compared to NA, even with the markup Canadians live with.

I didn't send them any brew yet. I live in Canada and shipping beer (or anything with alcohol) in Canada, let alone cross-boarder, is complicated. I know Andy has sent them stuff, and I think one other person; but, no, not me.