Started as Loki, then during a steam sale I picked up some pack that had a bunch of platinum or whatever. Got Nekros, leveled them up to max. Now I'm back to Loki.
MuttersomeTaxicab's forum posts
@figurehead00: I could get behind Cobalt if Phil McSorley hadn't been such a homophobic shitbag during that short-lived metalgate fiasco in December, which seems to have led to him being kicked out of the band. I really, really loved Gin when it came out, and I respect Erik Wunder for taking a stand on McSorley's horseshit, but it's tough for me to recommend Gin now.
@figurehead00: I'll cosign Deathspell Omega, Liturgy, Wolves in the Throne Room, and Deafheaven. Tombs, too, if they've been mentioned, though they're more like a black-ish post-metal band.
I've really been digging Caina's super-experimental take on black metal's core sonic elements, but it's definitely very weird. Temporary Antennae is probably the most "friendly" of their work. They do comment on some of the genre's tendencies to use satanic imagery, but I've always gotten the vibe that they rarely used those elements just for shock value and instead focused on the more uncomfortable, dark elements of humanity.
@muttersometaxicab: As it has been mentioned many times over, Destiny is not an MMO, and this isn't about getting "left behind" simply because you don't have access to new raid gear. This is about being locked out of base game content because you didn't buy additional content. I don't know how else to explain it - they are reclaiming parts of the game and suddenly telling you that you can't play those parts anymore.
Imagine that someone is definitely going to buy the DLC, but he can't spare the money all December because it's the holiday season - or whatever. Why should this person be penalized all month long, being unable to earn strange coins, unable to do weekly heroics or even daily missions to earn shards? Even without the DLC there was a huge game update that introduced new gear which was better than previous raid gear. You could spend an entire month leveling your new vanguard equipment so that when January rolls around and you can afford the DLC, you'll have a fully upgraded level 31 set and ready to raid with your friends - and you need to be 31 in order to beat the raid. But you can't do the daily today so no shards for you, and you can't do the weekly so no Xur coins, which means no upgrades for your exotics - and we are still talking about upgrading stuff that isn't part of the DLC.
This isn't about DLC being expensive or not offering enough content. We have had shitty, overpriced DLC for years now, thats nothing new or worth getting upset about. This is, once again, about DLC locking you out of base game content. It's completely unethical because they shouldn't have any right to retroactively lock parts of the game you already paid for away from you. What if the next DLC completely locks Mars out for players? An entire world becomes a DLC only zone for a week? How far would you say Bungie would have to go, how much stuff would they have to lock you out of until you purchased another DLC bundle until there was an ethical issue here? What if every other week everything except for Earth was locked out of the full retail game you bought, because hey you know they added new areas to the other planets and you either buy the DLC or you get lost in the dust? Because the moment you start saying "oh it's ok it's just a few parts of the game locked out for a week it's not a huge deal" you're automatically giving Bungie permission to keep going further.
They shouldn't have any right to retroactively lock parts of the game? I'm going to circle back to the "this is a larger question about the ethics of capitalism" point - IIRC, you had to agree to a EULA to even log into Destiny, yeah?
Here's a link to it. http://www.bungie.net/en/View/Bungie/eula
"Bungie may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Program at any time. Bungie may also impose limits on certain features or restrict your access to parts or all of the Program without notice or liability."
It sucks, but that's a pretty standard part of videogame EULAs. Again, to be clear, I think it's a shitty business practice and probably not particularly kind to players, but again, it's not inherently unethical, since that whole passage presumably appeared on the screen before you could even play the game.
Though, agreed, there's a wide-as-fuck gulf between what's legal and what's ethical. I'm just saying that this practice isn't localized to just Bungie.
Or put another way, I can see why that caveat is in there, too, since it also gives Bungie leeway to change the base game on an as-needed basis, too. (i.e. patching in new content or fixing broken/unbalanced parts, which they seem to be trying to do.)
I don't think 'unethical' is the term that applies here.
It's been pretty clear all along what sales model Destiny was going to use and what they would charge for the game over time. You can make the greater argument that 'Capitalism' is inherently unethical, but that's not really for discussion here.
They announced the game, the DLC plan along with costs months before the game was released. Like any other MMO when new content is release the old content becomes garbage you upgrade or you get left behind.
Unethical != I'm Sad
Yep. This. Bungie's gonna charge what the market will bear. Regardless of the end product, um, Destiny cost a metric fuckton of money to make, so I'm not particularly surprised to see the price point on the DLC. That said, I'd say the gaming press is doing its job by saying, frequently and with a fair bit of vigour, that the content in the DLC isn't a super-great value, and that Destiny is maybe not everything that it's been made out to be. I don't know if the record number of pre-orders also emboldened Bungie to give this the go-ahead, but it probably didn't help.
I mean, if you want to get into ethics, you'd probably also need to take into account the fact that Bungie also has a bunch of employees working on Destiny, so making dramatic price cuts or whatever might force them to lay some staff off, meaning they might be short-handed, meaning the next bit of content may not be very good or that they might not be able to make Destiny into a viable franchise in future sequels, which, as Salarn said, is pretty much starting an ethical discussion about the nature of capitalism.
@conmulligan: I haven't seen the actual proof for that claim. Let's humor that one of the devs have one. Would a single neonazi (out of group of a dozen iirc.) working on a game make the game itself bad or toxic?
I'd say a single neonazi, coupled with everything they've shown about the game so far makes its toxicity a very real likelihood. But whatever, nobody's saying they can't make the game (some might be saying they probably shouldn't, but that's neither here nor there) - the question is whether Valve opts to sell it, which is ultimately their call to make.
@muttersometaxicab: ...Except by Gabe's own admission, it was incorrect and made no sense to take it off Greenlight, which is why he personally saw to it being readded, so your little spiel here holds absolutely no weight.
Okay, so Valve decided to add it back to Steam greenlight. My point had more to do with the fact that GG was using it as yet another reason in a long line of tiresome reasons to lose their goddamn minds about the industry. (To say nothing of the frequent calls to add Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and Brianna Wu to Hatred so people could slaughter them.) As for my original point, it still stands: Valve still retains the final call on whether to fully greenlight Hatred, and NeoGAF retains the right to say, "nah, moderating this discussion isn't worth the fucking effort."
Makes sense to me. Not all discussion is particularly productive or healthy.
This particular attitude is what brings about the death of critical thinking. What you're advocating here is for people to shelter themselves against ideas and opinions that they dislike. To take that stance, you might as well lock yourself in your bedroom and never go outside. The world out there isn't perfect, and there are billions of people who all think differently about different things. The key to understanding is communication. Censoring communication and discourse does nothing productive or healthy for the individual, nor for society at large. Instead it promotes introversion and encourages people to live in a bubble. Cultural bubbles lead to tribalism, tribalism leads to hatred, and hatred leads to the dark side.
Basically I'm saying keep an open mind about anything and everything.
No, I'm not advocating that people shelter themselves from ideas or opinions they dislike. I'm saying that NeoGAF doesn't owe you shit. If they don't want to deal with moderating the discussion, and it's clear enough that it's a discussion that warrants moderation, then they're free to do that. You're welcome to go to literally THOUSANDS OF OTHER PLACES to have that discussion or air your grievances. You're free to say what you want, but people don't owe you attention, is what I'm saying. NeoGAF saying they won't host that discussion isn't censorship. It's kindly telling you to take that shit outside.
And yes, there's something to be said for talking to people who hold different viewpoints, but if there is literally no common ground to be found, how is that discussion going to be productive?
Makes sense to me. Not all discussion is particularly productive or healthy. GamerGate is already using Valve's decision to not sell Hatred as another excuse in a long line of excuses to shriek their utter lack of comprehension of basic things like censorship and how industries work into the void and to anyone who'll listen. People are running hot on this game, is what I'm saying, and from what I've seen it's not particularly justified. Valve doesn't owe the makers of Hatred a platform to sell their game, and NeoGAF doesn't owe their users a forum to flip the fuck out over every videogame-related topic.