joetom

@MiniPato said:

@Terramagi said:

@Rafaelfc said:

@perfectlizardwizard said:

Jeff's outright insistance that spoilers are to be spoiled

God, I hope they start talking more openly about games, only save the big huge spoilers (like, game changing revelations) but knowing minor stuff like "you get a cool outfit for completing mission X" is totally harmless. Maybe then, some REAL game discussion can take place, instead of the usual "woah guys, there is this moment, where, uhm.... a thing... that is relevant to the...... thing.... happens.... and...... not to spoil it for the folks at home........ but................ it's awesome" which is completely ridiculous.

Man, I hope they just start dropping bombs all over. This "THPOILERTH" bullshit really has to fucking stop.

"Oh man, I have to sequester myself in a bunker under the earth and rip the internet wiring out of the walls of my house in order to preserve my TV show virginity! I can't know any plot points, and nobody can discuss it for fear of hurting my precious little feelings!"

It's like, fuck off. If the quality of your shit depends on not knowing somebody's a templar despite the UI outright lying to you and then going "AHA, WE SURE FOOLED YOU" you make bad shit and you should feel bad.

Not having something spoiled takes a lot less effort than you think. Besides, I'm pretty sure Jeff would have avoided Persona 4 spoilers if he could. He wouldn't have liked Saints Row 3 as much if everyone told him all the crazy shit that happened beforehand. Everyone has their threshold and I'm sure everyone would prefer to go into something cold rather than expectant.

If someone wants to avoid forums, podcasts, youtubes and the facebooks, how the fuck does it affect you? It takes about as much effort to avoid spoilers as it does posting a comment on the internet. Giant Bomb is not like food or something. Skipping a podcast isn't like skipping school. If someone wants to skip a podcast because they are going to talk about The Walking Dead, a story driven game that only got released recently, then how can you not understand that?

You only have a right to complain about "SPOILERS" people if they are forcing you to censor yourself for their sake. But if they decide to take responsibility for their own enjoyment and choose to ignore something rather than force others to accommodate them by censoring themselves, than I'd say that's rather inoffensive. But people who want to avoid spoilers but still spend time on the forums and listen to podcasts that obviously will spoil something, they have no right to complain either.

It really depends on what you mean by a "spoiler." Giving away plot points that are obviously supposed to be shocking or surprising is a dick move and totally unnecessary. And if they really want to talk about it, why don't they start doing "spoiler-casts" or something. It's not like it takes a ton of effort to open a new recording session and talk about the game in a separate podcast.

However, if people are complaining about talking about the game's basic story beats or mission designs, then yeah, it's kinda stupid and whiny.

Basically, I think they should leave it up to their own discretion. If they think a detail could ruin someone's enjoyment of the game, they probably shouldn't talk about it. But they shouldn't have to go out of their way to avoid saying something that might reveal a minor story beat or gameplay moment.

Hmm, I'd like to avoid Spec Ops spoilers myself. Any hints on timestamps I should avoid when I listen to this at work in a few day?

I once saw a white guy steal something. ALL WHITE MEN ARE THIEVES!

This thread is hilarious, seriously.

Anyway, OP, your post adds absolutely nothing worth talking about. Yes, the people attacked this man are assholes, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the feminist movement.

What the hell does this title even mean?

@twigger89 said:

@bigsmoke77 said:

I want a COD2 type story campaign from the German side of ww2, the soldiers in the German army were not all Nazi believers. A lot of them where just German citizens fighting for their country and fighting for their lives. There would be plenty of cool imagery and stories that could be shown but the fox news headline of " Video game lets kids shoot their veteran grandfathers!" is preventing a big budget WW 2 German FPS.

I don't think there are any developers that can walk down that tight rope without falling off. It would be incredibly difficult to make a German based WW2 shooter with interesting and empathetic characters and not seem like some kind of affront to WW2 vets.

I think it could be done. It'd just have to be a story about "the horrors of war" rather than trying to make the protagonists out to be heroes. I don't think the world is ready for a WWII story that features a German soldier as a hero.

I think he's trying to make a good point, I've always thought it's kind of mess up how the middle east is portrayed in most American media. However, I think he's expecting a little too much from an EA shooter, if he expects to have the enemy humanized in any significant way.

I'm doing it for my first playthrough, because I just kind of want to get through the game without having to restart my first time through. In the future, I'll play it on Ironman.

@JazGalaxy: Football and Poker aren't an artform. A better comparison would be movies or novels striving to be more than what they are. Which they have. Compair what movies were in 1910 to what they are now. So much of that has been achieved because they tried to be something bigger than just a way to pass the afternoon. Better yet, look at the difference between TV now and TV 2o years ago. We wouldn't have Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones if people hadn't worked to make TV into something greater.

Video games are more than just a game in the sense that poker and football are.

And the argument about opportunity cost makes no sense. It might work if you played every single game that came out in a year, but most people only play a select few games in any year. No matter what happens, there will be plenty of good things to play, just like there is always plenty of good music, movies and TV shows to keep people entertained.

I never understand why people get so pissy about stuff like this. When someone goes and suggests that games can strive for things other than just being fun, people freak out over the concept. I don't get it. If you don't want those games, don't play them. Just like there are movies that don't try to be entertaining, I don't see why games need to be always fun.

The Walking Dead isn't a fun game, but the story and characters are extremely engaging, which makes it an enjoyable game, even when it's making you feel like shit. It's the same reason people want to watch depressing movies, because trust me, people don't love Schindler's List because it's "entertaining."

There are people who don't like depressing or dramatic movies, but they don't freak out over them. They just don't see them. I don't see why games would be any different. If you don't want a game that's trying to be engaging or depressing or dramatic or whatever, just don't play it. Why get angry about the concept? No one's saying that every game should try to be like Heavy Rain, I don't think anyone wants that. I still love the fuck out of stuff like Borderlands which try to be nothing but fun. There's just plenty of room to try other things.