danm_999

The parents weren't really all that understanding. They freaked out and told her it was a phase and she'd stop being gay if she met the right boy. Pretty textbook homophobia.

All the fluff about school could be replicated easily in a boy and girl relationship,

Not...really. I don't see why a bunch of people would bully a straight couple for their sexuality. They might bully the couple for things other than their sexuality, sure, but then, you've not replicated the situation, have you? You've created an entirely different situation.

you pretend that only lesbians experience bullying at high school.

Nope. Obviously anyone can be bullied. But not everyone can be bullied for everything.

Making a comparison to Romeo & Juliet is silly. Changing the entire story is not the same as a gender swap.

The fact that Sam and Lonnie are the same gender, and having a relationship is the story though. Sam accepting that she's got feelings for someone of the same gender, then pursuing those feelings, then feeling backlash from her parents, from her peers, that's the main plot of Gone Home.

It's what sustains the dramatic tension. It serves the same function as making Romeo and Juliet from rival families. It creates the barrier that must be overcome.

You're joking right? There's tons of homophobia. Sam's parents calling her sexuality "a phase" and denying her. Sam and Lonnie being taunted at school and having their lockers vandalized because they're gay. The school admin ignoring it because they probably did 'something' to warrant it. The whole DADT mention in relation to Lonnie's military service. The whole subtext of the comics Sam makes about the woman striking out against her social oppressors.

And the point is, if Sam was straight, she'd never have to run away with a boy in the first place, since her parents would accept the relationship out of hand as 'normal'. She mentions how cool they were when Katie brought boys home. Shit, look how they try to push Daniel on her through their passive aggressive notes, even though he's someone who she has no chemistry or connection with. The reason she runs away is because she's in a gay relationship, and her parents recognise that, and get upset about it.

If you made her straight, the game's thematic underpinning would fall apart since there'd be nothing for the parents to reject, and nothing from her to run from. It's like saying Romeo and Juliet wouldn't be as critically acclaimed or interesting if the Montagues and the Capulets weren't feuding families.

Yeah no shit, because then there'd be no character conflict to fuel the game's premise. Homophobia is a pretty important theme in the game. Completely removing it would make the game far less complex.

And it wouldn't make sense for Sam to run away with a boy because her parents weren't opposed to her having a relationship with a boy.

Hold on, morally reprehensible? Killing children is morally reprehensible. Committing genocide is morally reprehensible. Running away from home because your family can't accept you're gay is far, far greyer.

So, I get your point that what Sam and Lonnie have done is impulsive, and probably even foolish, but morally wrong, let alone reprehensible? I can't really see that.

Sam's family is completely disfunctional, and completely unable to provide her even the most basic emotional support. Her dad is an alcoholic consumed by the memories of his molestation and channels that into writing his shitty sci-fi. Her mom is involved in an affair with Ranger Rick, and completely distant because her husband has lost the ability to connect. When Sam does come to them with her honest feelings, they shut down and treat her like shit. These people are broken. They're going to get divorced at some point anyway. They can't help or support themselves, let alone their daughter. Why the hell should she stick around the few extra months until she's 18 and goes off to college? Why is that 'moral'? Why is it on Sam to stick around to stop the Greenbriars from breaking down completely in the misery and disillusionment they've created for themselves?

In fact, the only person who doesn't seem completely broken in the family is Katie. And Sam isn't leaving her behind to never hear from her again, as the prologue specifically states. In fact, the connection Sam wants to maintain with Katie is kind of the premise of the game. Katie willhear from Sam again, she herself promises.

And whether Sam and Lonnie work out, and whether Lonnie goes to jail for not showing up to basic training (unlikely honestly) is kind of irrelevant to this. Sam cannot stand to be in that house another moment, because the people living there are all fundamentally broken and miserable, and have nothing to offer her.

I don't understand how the criticism you make of the game makes Gone Home the Lost of video games.

Lost's problem was that it raised a whole bunch of questions it never really adequately answered. The show actually tried to build tension through creating mysteries which actually had no answers, until it became a rather silly mess. At the end of the series, it turned out the thing people had long suspected and even joked about being the answer was the answer, and it was super unsatisfying.

Gone Home isn't like that. All the questions it raises it answers in clear, logical ways. It's not building bogus tension, and the ending makes complete sense given the context of the story.

Now, you may have thought it was unsatisfying because you weren't given the answers you wanted (and seem to be implying that since it uses some horror tropes, the premise should be horror), but that's kind of a subjective thing, isn't it? Personally I found it quite refreshing I didn't know where the story was going, and don't think the game would have been any more meaningful an experience by simply adding ghosts in for real.

This is kind of a fucked up thing to say.

I mean, if the community is so immature (and honestly, I don't think it is, but for argument's sake) that even bringing up the conversation turns to shit, isn't that a poor reflection on the community, not the person who initiated the conversation (completely neutrally I'll add, Patrick neither advocates for, nor opposed Sarkessian's video)?

Are we so far gone that we can't simply say and think things like "hmm, I'm not very interested in reading/watching that link", or "I disagree with that and here's a rational explanation of why" or "that's just clickbait". Are we instead people who you simply can't bring up certain topics around, because well, we'll react very badly and silly Patrick simply should have known better.

What would that say about the Giant Bomb community at large? It doesn't seem very flattering to me, and it's almost like the point seeks to infantilise us.

Because at the core of this, I don't get why there's so much outrage that Patrick has linked a video of what people are discussing in gaming on the internet this past week or so in an article designed to summarise what people are discussing in gaming on the internet this past week or so.

I get not likingthe videos. I don't think they're very pertinent or useful myself, and they do blatantly mischaracterise things and cherrypick examples, but I continually fail to understand this obsession with decrying even having the conversation, and shitting on Patrick as being the grand instigator for linking to something that's being discussed anyway (even on this very site via the forums).

Movies critics are not harsher than video game critics. The reason films like Elysium score a 60% and are considered 'fine' is because there's a much lower critical bar for films than video games. Basically, you can go much lower on the film rating scale than you can on the video game scale before things become intolerable.

The rating system for games is far more punishing. Always has been. It's not that movie critics are generally harsher,it's just that video game critics often seem trapped in a system where anything that falls below a 4/5 or an 80% or an 8/10 is treated as nearly worthless. But a similar score to a movie? I doubt you'll have a problem with most audiences. Movies are just a more forgiving medium for public consumption. I can't speak for myself, but I have a lot of problems with playing a game that gets a 5.5, but if my buddies are asking me to go and see a 2.5 star movie, I don't freak out as much.

And the reason for this is that there's a lot endemnic to the medium of gaming that causes higher expectations. A dumb, loud and bad movie will cost you $10 to see, and will probably take 90 minutes of your time. A dumb, loud and bad video game will, in most cases, cost you between $40-60 and require anywhere from 15 to 50 hours of your time, and it's been preceded at some point by a prerequisite of some expensive hardware. Built into that there's a whole bunch of technical issues likely to arise that might impede your enjoyment, which are never usually present in film, since video games as a medium is an infant compared to film.

Yeah it's more a case of screwed up regulations for classifications that nobody with any real power wants to rectify; nobody really gives a shit, and the OFLC is a long running national joke. It's not really an innate social conservatism of the Australian government or its people.

After all, this is a country where the drinking age is 18, the age of consent is never higher than 17, where gambling is legal everywhere, and where prostitution is legal everywhere.

Yeah finding out that the fact nobody on Nintendo's board is below 60 just made a whole bunch of things that have happened in the last few years make sense. Startling lack of age diversity there. No wonder you hear all this stuff about difficulties in developing HD, janky online systems and general misunderstanding of Let's Plays and gaming tournaments.

I mean, I don't expect 20 year olds, but shit, that is a leadership that is totally missing out on input from a hell of a lot of demographics important to gaming.

Well Phil Fish, if you're going to try and troll the internets, it's probably going to try and troll you back. Makes you look a tad thin skinned if you're happy to dish it out, but not necessarily to take it.