OfficerMeatbeef's forum posts

#1 Posted by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -

Hey folks, for what good it will do, I'm posting this to apologize for my statement earlier in the thread. I may have edited it to soften it somewhat, but I knew the damage had been done, and I also made the personal decision to step away from the whole thing at that point because I didn't feel great about it either.

In retrospect, I think I really wanted the statement to be more a tongue-in-cheek response to the ideas being espoused in the comment I posted in response to (though unquestionably still very much coached in a fair amount of pointed derision for the ideas), but the reality is I let my ire at the ideas get the better of me and it ended up being delivered as much too much of a personal attack, and that just isn't cool.

I've made a personal apology to kindgineer for my statement, so this general apology here is for anyone who (quite rightly) felt my post was over the line. I'm sincerely sorry for the way I conducted myself on that one.

#3 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -
@kindgineer said:

I just want to be able to log onto the internet and not be told I'm a misogynistic bastard because I enjoy saving the princess in distress, and have to endure every politically correct media-representative saying "Not that it's wrong to like X/Y" whenever they mention a relationship in a video game, as if its politically incorrect to want to be sexually attracted to a woman as a male (or vice versa).

Maybe we'll get that when 95% of games don't star men, most every woman who shows up doesn't have to be "rescued" at some point, and most big game companies don't straight-out believe a game won't sell with a female protagonist.

#4 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -

I hadn't seen The Thing when the game was coming out, but the concepts behind the game intrigued me such that I finally searched the film out. It immediately became one of my all-time favorites. I was really excited for the game.

Sadly, it started out quite strong, but by the end I can't honestly say I wasn't disappointed. Not for lack of trying on the dev's part, you could definitely tell the stumbles were likely simple lack of time to make all those cool innovative systems work as intricately as they needed to, coupled with simple limitations of the hardware gen. The scripted burst-outs and the fact that there was a "soldier" teammate type who literally appeared like twice (maybe even just once!) in the entire game were pretty clear evidence of that.

The failings were pretty expected for a first try at something like that, and this article both made me really happy to hear the passion the devs did indeed have for the project, and super bummed that we'll never get to see the sequel that could very well have cleaned up those gaffes. I'm very curious to see how someone who hasn't played it ends up feeling about it, when they've had a chance to read that article beforehand and have some context for its limitations.

Though perhaps the greatest crime is that had they just made it to last gen, those Unreal Engine shininess shaders would have been just the thing to make the Things look as slimy and gross as they should have, and that would have been half the battle right there.

#5 Posted by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -
@mb said:

Is this a "Maybe we'll get more DLC sales out of this" promotion?

There's truth to this, certainly! Though to be accurate, Rising Storm is actually stand-alone and normally comes with the RO2 content anyway, and they've never had any "DLC" of the spend-money-on-it for either game.

The advantage of already having RO2 and Rising Storm integrated, but technically separate products (owning RO2 still lets you play RS, though you can only use the basic rifleman class) is definitely what gave them the leverage to do this give-away; they get a more permanent boost to player numbers than the free weekends they've done in the past, and still know they won't be completely shutting themselves out of any potential revenue from the series. It's pretty much a win-win for everyone,

It helps that Rising Storm is pretty fantastic in its own right. It's unquestionably the same game at the most basic mechanical level but the setting and classes are so different that it really does end up feeling like it's own game. Which makes sense, considering it was originally conceived as a simple mod for RO2 that the devs liked enough to hire the team and make it a full product. It really has some of the most beautiful maps I've ever seen in a game of this nature; I can't think of much else built as a multiplayer-focused FPS that nails stuff like pacific jungle the way it does.

#6 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -

Hey peoples, I just wanted to help make everyone aware that the rather hardcore (though you can play it in "Action" mode but why would you want to) PC WWII Eastern Front multiplayer FPS, Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad is totally free today (that's April 23rd until April 24th 10AM PST according to the announcement page) on Steam. This isn't a standard Steam Free Weekend deal though, as long as you install it today it's part of your Steam library forever.

There's an old classic Drew 'n Dave Quick Look you could check out, though since it's 2 years and change on now, things have been refined quite a bit since. In fact, a new update just came out this week to finally add APCs and a host of other changes, which prompted this whole free thing.

I've been meaning to make up a little blog post on here about why I feel like this game is kind of the multiplayer FPS Dark Souls, in that it is extremely uncompromising and will kill you dead repeatedly if you don't play smartly, but is all the more satisfying when you do well. Maybe I'll get that done sometime soon, but if you need further help getting your head around what this game is, it might help to think of it as bridging the gap between the very large scale, somewhat overwhelming sim level of Arma, and the fast-paced action of a Titanfall or CoD. You're generally never more than a corner or two away from a potential bullet in this game, but it also rewards (really, demands unless you're just destroying the enemy) smart positioning and careful maneuver.

Anyway, if you have Steam and the bandwidth to spare, why not give it a shot? It's not for everyone, but if you like it you might really like it, and I just want more and more different people to shoot at from a few hundred meters away.

#7 Posted by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -

@brodehouse said:

I do love the idea of "religious hospitals" and "religious businesses", which I've heard a lot lately. As if a corporation can have religious beliefs. My corporation will be a Buddhist, that way it can never die, it just comes back as a Taco Bell.

Heh, now I know you're kinda saying this as a joke, but it takes on a certain seriousness when we remember that a corporation has been for most intents and purposes legally designated as a person, and the very idea that they can thus have a religious belief is indeed a serious legal issue that has been in debate as recently as just a week or so ago. Is that ridiculous? Yeah, pretty much. But it's not something we can just mention as such and brush aside because it IS still law and thus can't just be ignored for the nonsense it is.

#8 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -

@milkman: @joshwent: A person acting belligerent and a person being gay are two very different things. If a person comes into your store and is being an asshole, then obviously you can refuse them serve. Someone getting a swastika tattoo is a choice and one that represents hate of a certain group of people. No one was born with a swastika tattoo.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. It's a person's born sexuality. Refusing to a serve someone who is gay is the same thing as refusing to serve someone because they are black. Again, I don't care what your religious beliefs are. It's wrong.

Yes yes yes. Also, I apologize for the wonky formatting here, I'm having a real problem getting the forum stuff to remove and change what I want to change.

@joshwent said:
The irony is that this is the exact thing that the store owner who doesn't want to serve the gay couple would say.

I agree with you that it's wrong. But who are we to legally force another human being to act based on nothing more than our own moriality?

You are right, they probably would say that. And they would be wrong. If you believe in not being a total asshole in this life, they are wrong. Simple as that. Who we are "to legally force another human being to act based on noting more than our own morality" is kind of the entire basis of laws governing civil rights; guess what, there are still people TO THIS DAY who believe people of a different skin color to them are sub-human and should be exterminated. This is "their morality" and ABSOLUTELY we need to legally force them to not just murder everyone who doesn't look like them because that is fucked up and wrong.

Here's an easy test: does your belief that something is "wrong" fuck over a group of people who are trying to live as they were born and not hurting anyone? Then it is YOU who are wrong, and you need to change that belief. If you understand that but still refuse to change, well too bad, fuck you, you're making the world a worse place for innocent people and you need to change, and there's no reason the rest of society should accept your shitty belief because doing so just serves to allow it to strengthen and propagate its horrible message, just as if it was a deadly virus we had the tools to treat but didn't.

We don't really put these laws into practice expecting them to change the awful mindset of the people who need them in place, we put them in to prevent them from hurting others and to make it clear that their beliefs are hurtful and cannot be allowed to stand.

#10 Edited by OfficerMeatbeef (74 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

Sounds like a shitty police officer and victim blaming to me, not rape culture.

How is that all that different from "You were mugged, huh? Let me get this straight, Sir. You were walking alone at night in THIS neighborhood?"

And let me add that I hope she filed a complaint against the officer in question. :(

What? The phenomenon of victim blaming is one of the core concepts of rape culture, so much so that it's the first thing listed in the definition you quoted in the first post! I'm afraid this statement makes you look like you don't really understand what the entire concept actually means and deals with, which can be a fair misunderstanding because there are definitely more and less extreme definitions. It's akin to saying "sounds like easy access to high-powered automatic firearms to me, not gun culture" in response to an example of a mass shooting. Which, I must emphasize, is not meant to be an argument on that topic but simply an hypothetical illustrative example.

This was undoubtedly a shitty police officer, but a core difference would be that if a suspect in a mugging was actually arrested and taken to court, there would be absolutely no consideration of "this guy was asking to be mugged by being alone in a bad neighborhood", it would be purely about the crime perpetrated, end of story. Nobody would give a shit about what precipitated the mugging. Whereas in the case of a victim of sexual assault, the police/defense/etc. will still frequently ask the victim if they may have "provoked" the perpetrator. That shouldn't be relevant, yet many will still believe it so. It's the difference between "you perhaps made a risky/poor choice, but that doesn't make what happened to you ok" and "you made a poor choice and so you deserve what you get".

It's that godawful prison system "joke" that shlub earlier said and I refuse to quote. It's funny because those people are criminals and deserve it! Why, they might have been selling marijuana!

The concept of "rape culture" isn't just the extreme idea that it makes rapists into rapists, though it could certainly contribute to how some perpetrators might justify it to themselves and thus undertake the act when they otherwise may not have. But in general, that is indeed rather unrealistic if not a bit silly; of course there will probably always be individuals who do terrible things, and we can no more expect to eradicate rape than we can expect to eradicate homicide. But just because we'll never completely stop murder doesn't mean we just stop considering how a culture of violence could lead to people being more prone to commit violent acts.

More moderately, considerations about rape culture are really often more about making the rest of us non-rapists/sexual assaulters less shitty about how we treat rape and sexual assault so we don't end up contributing, knowingly or otherwise, to a culture that would make a victim ever hesitant to report such a crime or feel guilt for having it occur to them. It's often just about something as innocuous as making you consider that, hey, maybe this thing I was going to say about this person or joke I was going to make might just make people feel bad, so it's probably not a good joke or a good thing to say.

The overwhelming majority of college people know it's wrong and won't ever commit rape, yes, and supposedly they have for decades if not centuries, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a shitty attitude about it that's continually lead, year after year, to shit like rapists being found not guilty or not even being prosecuted because the victim was deemed to be "asking for it". Supposedly just as many people know murder is similarly wrong and won't commit it, yet pretty much nobody would ever expect a murderer to be absolved of the crime because the victim was "asking for it" by being somewhere they shouldn't have, say, wearing the wrong gang's colours, would they? I think most in our society would consider these two crimes nearly equally heinous, yet this glaring discrepancy still exists, so clearly there's something in the culture at play here that has allowed it to persist for decades.

Page 3 of the report:

These evaluations should focus on the true end goal, reducing rape, not intermediate goals such as changing attitudes (despite the fact that these intermediate goals are vastly easier to measure).

RAINN isn't saying that "rape culture" doesn't exist and should be forgotten about and ignored, it's saying it is important that when we're considering these things we don't let it overshadow the fact that a rapist is a criminal, responsible for their own actions, and that they need to be dealt with appropriately harshly and justly, because that still isn't happening like it should. It's simply saying that when it comes to instances of actual rape, they believe the way colleges treat it needs to not lose sight of the actual crime, and they should refocus that effort accordingly.