Kingyo's forum posts

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

Hey don't have anyone on my leaderboard at the moment so hope people don't mind that I've added them, feel free to add me
STEAM

#2 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

@paulunga: I think the record was more like 1.5mil concurrent, and that kinda doesnt mean that much, I mean one of wows expansions is (was?) the fastest selling pc game of all time and are regularly top sellers of the years they are released on top of monthly paid subscriptions as paid by eu and american customers. Gotta be honest as well that 30mil number sounds a bit like when world of tanks or league of legends quote players and its just the number of accounts that have ever been made, not that its not impressive, and not that warcraft doesnt massage numbers, just think it doesn't necessarily translate into money the same way as monthly subs do.

#3 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

@paulunga: wow still has 7.7 million active subs, so yeah, still the biggest by a looong way :P

#4 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

@koolaid said:

What I don't really agree with is the idea that the game gives up on the "plight of Columbia's minority population" halfway through the game. While it is true that the game is not explicitly about racism, it DOES have violence as a recurring theme. The Vox are defined by how their uprising became super violent, and the last half of the game features the horror of their revolution as the backdrop.

I feel that the racism is there to create an super bias against the Founders and then that bias is turned on its head. Up until the police station, the Vox have every inch of the moral high ground in the conflict. Even with how terrible the Founders are and how justifiable the uprising is, it all gets turned on its head when the Vox start killing EVERYBODY. Maybe what they are trying to say is that violence is the real enemy? That no one who fights ever ends up with clean hands?

I agree that racism is a huge, deep and complex topic and I agree that it is strange to see it play second fiddle to another story. I think that concept is rare in fiction, which is why is seems so strange to us. But I think Bioshock Infinite knew exactly what it was doing.

@koolaid: This was really how I felt too

I think also this is backed up by the start of the game where you go through this clean, sunny Columbia only to then have it shattered by one the racism of pretty much every single person you've seen (they are all excited about the raffle), but then the sky hook going into that guys face. It to my mind is not out of place as some have suggested because to me it does a really good job of smashing down your view of the place that you are in and counterpointing this clean sunny place. I also think it underlines immediately that Booker isn't a nice guy.

The 'hero' your playing as is anything but, and while you then kill thousands of people because its an FPS it at least begins with this idea. That is why I also think that people who say it in some way glorifies violence are totally wrong especially compared to other FPS's.

Everyone that fights ends up with blood on their hands and violence is ugly. In the end no one has the high ground they are all just pursuing their own interests even if that interest changes. For example Booker starts off killing so he isn't captured and then to survive and get Elizabeth. He then manipulates her and kills to try and wipe and away his debts and even when he switches to wanting to escape with her, he is still just doggedly pursuing that interest.

So I think a more reasonable think to say is that while it isn't perfectly handled, it is a step in the right direction for games, perhaps a baby step but then a lot of games don't even attempt that. Not that all should either, call of duty for example, is an action movie and sometimes action movies can be pretty fun.

#5 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

@Phatmac: I actually think that is the biggest take-away message from all this!

#6 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

@EnduranceFun: The point is not to be objective, he is giving his slant, people come here for his take on the news.... If you don't like that's fine, don't get your gaming news here. Although side note that this article could have been put up by anyone and it would still have the same content those 8 women's opinions don't change just because this is a Patrick article.

#7 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

@Ekpyroticuniverse: Haha thanks!

The internet gets scary sometimes....

#8 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

@Nictel: @Nictel said:

@Chavtheworld said:

GUYS SHE'S GOT HER BOOBS SHOWING IT MUST BE SEXIST GUYS

Seriously though, fucking terrible choice for a picture.

Also hilarious.

You think that's bad?

Rhianna Pratchett

I’m accustomed to game companies marketing towards men. But rarely is it quite so blatantly i.e. "Here are some tits!"

She worked on Tomb Raider and Heavenly Sword. Lets take a look shall we?

PS3 box art (cropped)
360 box art (cropped)

Lets make a game where a girl runs around in her underwear the entire time.

Umm why cut off her face? OW you're concentrating on her boobs.

@asantosbr said:

Good video to counter balance Patrick and these 8 girls opinion:

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/9noiop/annoyed-gamer-zombie-bikini-bash

I find this much more intelligent. Also he might be right, here in Europe we have more problems with games like Manhunt than we do with boobs. Besides the point that indeed the statue is anything but sexy.

Because Rhianna Pratchett clearly made the decision on how those games should be marketed .. good work you've uncovered the hypocrisy!

Also since when were women not allowed to show cleavage, or wear what they want? I guess I missed a lot of memos...

#9 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

Anna Kipnis says things well, but states in the same breath why there's little hope for change. So many people don't take the industry seriously, nor issues like sexism for that matter. The comments bear that out too.

People don't take things seriously, and don't want to. It's as though enjoying something and thinking about something have to be mutually exclusive. Any time someone asks them to stop and think about something, to really dig into the implications of their actions and views of the world, they get indignant about it. How dare someone question your world view? How dare someone suggest that you don't see something they do? How dare you talk about a topic they don't care about?

Disagreement and discussion are incredibly valuable, but dismissal, as is the most common comment around here, does nothing but hold this community and the discussed issues back. I applaud anyone willing to keep fighting the good fight to improve the games industry and fight back those who just can't be bothered to give a shit about how others see the world. Patrick Klepek, I can't imagine how exhausting this interaction must feel, but good on your for trying.

Here here.

#10 Posted by Kingyo (44 posts) -

@MMann said:

@Babylonian said:

@BlastProcessing said:

At least Patrick didn't quote himself this time. Still, this progressive, Kotaku-esque clickbait shit needs to stop, It's a horrible statue made in bad taste, nothing to cry about.

The fact that you just used the word 'progressive' as a pejorative is FUCKING TERRIFYING to me. Kill all nerds.

b..but.. if we don't defend the status quo things might change!

I'm tired of your progressive, pro-equality, ANTIFA agenda Babylonian!

ITS A GODDAMN CONSPIRSY I SAY! TODAY WE DON'T CRITICIZE PATRICK AND DEMONIZE THIS ARTICLE... TOMORROW WE ALL WAKE UP EQUALS!!1

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2