danm_999

Having a look at the dates between some of Feminist Frequency's content releases in the past few years, a gap of two or so months does not appear particularly remarkable.

Is this simply another instance of some people piling on the project because they dislike/disdain/feel threatened by the message? I'm not suggesting that everybody who dislikes it has that motivation; the first video was far from perfect, and there are some really good criticisms/counter arguments against it out there, but it really seems like this video, partially because of its creator, and partially because of it's subject matter, has to jump through all these hoops other similar video series don't.

Patrick doesn't render an opinion though, he simply creates a list of what's being said about video games on the internet. For some reason, people like yourself take that for an endorsement of what's being said and froth uncontrollably over an alleged P.C agenda.

How dare Patrick link an article written this week on the role of women protagonists in video games in an article designed to summarise what's being said on the internet about video games. He must be pushing a P.C agenda! Clearly he must agree with everything listed here, even though some things he links contradicts over things!

And if you want me to not assume you're talking about CNN or Fox or the Telegraph or the mainstream media, how about actually list wtf you're talking about when you mention 'credible news sources'.

Yes most credible media sources and non-game journalists do such a wonderful job examining those contentious issues in relation to video games.

After all, they've always played the games they discuss, and so talk about them in a way that's both accurate and in full context. They don't have the mindset games are for kids and have no inherit value, and don't jump to blame video games for tragedies.

Who can forget the wonderful coverage of Sandy Hook, where huge media outlets like CNN pointed out prominently that the shooter played Call of Duty? Or when Fox News had a segment where they called Mass Effect "Luke Skywalker meets Debbie Does Dallas". Or when a CNN op-ed called men "pathetic" compared to women and boys because they play more video games. Or the Telegraph called video games an addiction that leads to mental illness.

Yep, you sure are right. When I want a serious discussion about racism, sexism and basically any contentious issues in video gaming, I go straight to these credible mediums and these wonderful journalists that are fighting tooth and nail to stay relevant in the face of the increasingly digital and specialised news world. They're bound to tell me what's what.

What wading? What constant pot stirring? Of the like 30 things here, only two are even tangentially related to a discussion of racism and/or sexism. Why do you seem so horrified Patrick would dare mention what's being discussed on the internet recently in an article designed to summarise what's being discussed on the internet recently?

There is somebody that definitely likes to get riled up for no reason here, but I think it might be the person you see in the mirror.

XCOM was definitely GOTY for 2012. I really enjoyed TWD, and it's high points were better than anything else last year, but it was just too inconsistent in too many ways to take the trophy. I also agree with a comment made on the Bombast (by Patrick I think) that eventually in TWD when characters die, you begin to figure out the game is just screwing with you to get an emotional reaction. In XCOM, when characters die, it's because you actually made a shitty decision that you have to deal with.

I don't think you understand the issue of free speech. Nobody tried to censor Orth, nobody tried to hide his tweets (except Orth himself when he realised what a huge mistake he made), and nobody infringed his right to free speech. This isn't a free speech issue in any way, shape or form.

For some reason these days, an increasing group of people, which you appear to be among, think their right to free speech also means that when they say something stupid or hostile or gross, they have a right to be protected from the consequences of that speech, and that they shouldn't be criticised. They don't, and they shouldn't.

Having freedom also means being responsible for your own actions, so if Orth has the freedom to disseminate his views, his detractors similarly have the freedom to criticise him.

The review score isn't supposed to be a strict measure of a game's quality.

A review score is supposed to be a numerical measure of the degree to which the reviewer recommends you play the game. When Jeff gives Bioshock Infinite 5/5 stars, he's not saying it's a flawless game, or no better game could/should be made, he's saying he is giving his strongest recommendation available that you play this game.

If you re-read his review, this becomes pretty apparent; Jeff criticises that some of his big questions were left unanswered, and he echoes the comment he made on last week's Bombcast that the AI ignores Elizabeth which can hurt the immersion. But he finishes the review by saying;

Watching Columbia fall while attempting to take Elizabeth away from the floating city is a fantastic way to spend a few days.

This is the thesis of the piece. Jeff gives the 5/5 because he recommends you play Bioshock Infinite so strongly.