@notnert427: I bought a new laptop that came with it, installed classic shell and aeroGlass. Now I just have a sexier and faster version of 7. I noticed it was faster generating thumnails and indexing files. I haven't seen the fullscreen start menu in months.
mithhunter55's forum posts
I too found love for the guys during the The Arrow Pointing Down podcast era. This was after I read about the firing of Jeff. I didn't spend much time reading game sites at the time. I was in highschool with a co-op placement at a computer repair shop. I spent most of my time finding funny videos, the slightly older guy would do the hard work in exchange. He explained the whole gamespot X Jeff situation in more detail. I was a really big fan of podcasts at the time, now I mostly just listen to the Bombcast.
@liquidsnakegfer9: I love that feeling of getting stuck. It gives you an action puzzle to solve. Some levels in the first game took me for ever because I wanted to beat them in my own way even if I knew it wasn't the easiest.
The best litmus test for situations like these is to see which side is most open to criticism and discussion. At this point all of the video game "journalism" sites actively refuse any discussion. The side that doesn't let the other get a word in is often the one who is hiding something. I'll continue to support GB by being a subscriber, but only because of this one fact that few recognize; gaming "journalism" has ALWAYS BEEN and WILL ALWAYS BE a fucking joke. Any pro GamerGate persons actions are ultimately futile. You're trying to fix a structure that was built from the ground up on bullshit. Giant bomb is a media website with fun personalities that I like, I hold no delusions of fairness or ethics of it or any website like it.
I agree and would also like to point out these proponents of ethics, seem to be the same ones demanding objective reviews with zero opinion. Like old magazine reviews where graphics, game play and story were reviewed separately. What is the point a review with no opinion.
I hope GG is a lesson for anyone that is attempting to argue a legitimate concern: hashtags do not constitute an organization, and any attempt to have reasonable discussion about a serious topic can and will be hijacked by people that pop up, use your platform to sling a bunch of shit under your name, and then disappear into the aether. The same goes for the anti-gg people, as a simple statement like "we thing GG no longer represents what you think it does and you should dissociate yourself if you are serious about continuing this" has pulled in the same kind of extremists.
Get members only jackets or something next time. Hashtags are never the way to go about a united front.
The same thing seemed to happen with the Occupy movement. Once a hashtag gains populous usage, it can easily become a vector for various agenda. Several arguments are being made under the same binary for or against X-movement.
I'm glad there is an actual open letter and not a skirting around the issue. However, again, I have to disagree with how this whole thing is being viewed. Did this all start with the whole Zoe Quinn thing? To an extent, even though feelings distrust of the journalists in the industry have been around for the past few years, whether you think it exists or not. The thing that has been lacking throughout this whole process has been an open dialogue. Have there been threats against people in the industry? Yes, there have, which is terrible. However, people such as Boogie2988 and Milo Yiannopoulos have also been harassed, with syringes even mailed. The coverage of the whole thing is what seems to be continuing this whole situation. There have been so many different issues that have come up, but reporting on it with as little bias as possible should be happening. I am not naive enough to believe bias can be totally taken out, but after reading week after week of one "side" being reported on on various sites, including Giantbomb, makes people upset. I mean, that much has to be clear. Again, nobody is saying attacking in anyway is right and those people should be reported, called out, etc., but presenting something in one way feels incredibly disingenuous, which compounds the feelings of mistrust. The information should be presented with the reader deciding how to interpret it, rather than being told a narrative that is only half finished. Just today, no matter how people feel about how open it actually was, Huffington Post Live did another 20 to 25 minute discussion about GamerGate. Why can't this be the norm? Are people upset that colleagues are being attacked? Understandably so. Does it help to use vague or poor language to try and group a set of people together based on the actions of some extremists that don't represent the real feeling? No. Trying to define a group by a handful of trolls and outsiders is completely wrong.
This might be a tl;dr, but open dialogue as fairy talking about the subject should be done. 'Bombin' in The AM' could easily be a place that can have this platform, rather than just dumping on. 'Worth Reading' would be the perfect place to just have open points about what this whole thing is, with the audience deciding how to interpret it. I welcome criticism from anyone, but I just think this whole thing has been mishandled on both sides, even though I will admit my official feelings are that I am with GamerGate.
I for one don't care about review ethics what so ever. I flat out never read reviews of video games, I hardly ever play AAA; figuring out if an indie game is compelling or not can come from a quicklook. Discussing it further is just a waste of time for the editors at GiantBomb, as I would rather they make more silly videos for me to enjoy with my dinner.