RockyRaccoon37

Yesh.

@MAN_FLANNEL said:

Yes, they should tell us that the frame rate on the console isn't very stable. The comparison to the PC version is valid and is something they should do when they have the games side by side like that. But they don't have to act like they are seeing their parents 69ing every time the frame rate drops below 30, or jack off to 60fps while saying the console versions aren't "the real version". I dislike a bad frame rate as much as the next guy, but I also dislike when grown men (mostly Brad, some Jeff) FUCKING MOAN about frame rate in a video game. And why didn't they show any multiplayer or coop? Is any of that stuff any good?

If the frame rate isn't a concern for you then what do you care if Brad complains about it?

Hey mods, can you perma-ban everyone here who has been using the phrase "this times a thousand"

Thanks.

@CaptStickybeard said:

@Dogma said:

@MEATBALL said:

Straight up - I have no goddamn idea how to deal with this stuff. I feel like I'm being made to feel guilty for things that other people have done and then feel shitty about myself that that's my gut reaction to this sort of thing. I try not to be an awful person.

THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS.

Hey, MEN WITH PENISES You can't possibly ever begin to understand the plight of other human beings. And how dare you try to worm your way out of it by pretending you're a nice person. You can't be nice! You're a man!

You have issues.

It's not about feeling guilty, it's about having an understanding of the social strata that exists, specifically in the video game industry, and that people who aren't white men are at a significant disadvantage for a number of reasons. And along with that disadvantage they must also deal with an ingrained sexism that permeates the culture of video games, and as a result, many of the people who work on video games.

I understand people who are straight up sexist, or racist, or just clearly filled with hate for a person who is different-- what I don't understand is the person who seems to hate people who voice an opinion or belief that is in conflict with their own.

@WinterSnowblind: Oh absolutely. I'll be interested to see what their follow up to the Mario Galaxy games ends up being.

Still, some cool new challenge modes in Mario Bros. U make it stand out from previous games, and from the nostalgia that those games all play on.

But I'm not gonna lie, I'm pretty stoked to see a spiritual successor to Super Mario World, mostly because that's not at all what I expected from this game.

The Polygon and Ars Technica reviews of New Super Mario Bros. U are very promising. More variety in level design, enemies and environments; an actual world map with branching paths and hidden levels; steeper difficulty; and it doesn't sound like the game was designed with co-op in mind.

From the sounds of it, it's a true successor to Super Mario World.

Such a bummer that they couldn't just call this Super Mario World 2 or Super Mario World U or some shit.

@CrossTheAtlantic said:

@MikkaQ said:

@Milkman said:

@smitty86 said:

Just saying, this week alone (3 days) , the forums have just been loaded with the following requests at one point or another:

• more structure to the bomcast
• less non-game related talk on the bomcast
• shorter bomcast
• shorter quick looks
• less quick looks
• quick looks with much more prep time
• less spoilers (in regards to video)
• more spoliers (in regards to the bomcast)
• less Patrick
• no Patrick
• more premium content to make up for the apparent lack of current premium content
• changes in the main crews personalities as they are too jaded in their opinions
• better reviews
• a return to the old days of giantbomb
• more effort in everything
• stop being lazy
• get a better camera for non-game videos
• less personality, more information
• less information, more personality

Exactly. The userbase has no idea what they want. They just like to scream complaints into the void. Just smile and nod. It will pass.

Yep, the community is exactly one person who suffers from indecision. Or it's thousands and thousands of people who have different ideas on a site they are passionate about. I can never remember which.

Or maybe... indoctrination.

COLLUSION!

Some solid criticisms for sure. Personally I've found the "Whatcha Been Playing" segments to be overly long, too deeply steeped in basic mechanics, and often redundant.

Ryan has been a great host for the podcast, but he needs to channel some Rich Gallup and bring some semblance of authority to the podcast-- dude needs to cut a conversation when it's been going on for too long or covering old ground, and also he should always be standing. People fear a man who always stands.

I think it would be really cool to see news stripped from the main podcast and turned into a separate, maybe hour long podcast, hosted by Patrick with a rotating crew of people. It would cut time from the main podcast, allow them to restructure a bit, and give more attention to news stories. Plus I'd love to see some people who don't get on the podcast the opportunity to jump on something similar-- maybe some Gamespot and Comic Vine people should the news require their input.

I still love the Bombcast and the last few have had some exceptionally strong moments, but I think it's reached a point where some new direction and maybe some experimentation would be useful to bring back some energy to the thing.

@YOU_DIED said:

@RockyRaccoon37 said:

Man, you couldn't be any more American if you tried.

Anyway, you're wrong to be upset by this, nothing is really changing from the sounds of it. You can mute and block players if you choose, but Microsoft does have a system in place where you can submit a complaint against another player if they breach the terms of service.

From the terms of service: "1.12. Are there things I can’t do on the Services? You must not use the Services to harm others or the Services. For example, you must not:

• use the Services to harm, threaten, or harass another person, organization, or Microsoft"

We're only now seeing stricter enforcement of a policy that has been in the Xbox Live terms of service-- it has existed and surely people put it to use, contrary to your claim that Microsoft let users police their own social experience. What we're seeing with Halo 4 is no different than the rules already set up-- presumably, people will file complaints against others that are accused of using hateful speech that is classified as harassment and those people will be banned, rather than given a warning or suspended as they may have been in the past (not sure what happened to those people in the past personally).

If one finds no harm in being harassed and in fact enjoys freedom so much that they take it with a smile, then they can choose not to report the player hurling freedom at them. But should they find themselves hurt, offended, or harassed by a player using racial, sexual, or otherwise disgusting epitaphs, then they may submit a complaint against said player. Which, in your words, still allows the users to police their own social experience.

I guess I'll take your first statement as a compliment. As someone who has been on Xbox Live since the beginning of the service, I know what the terms of service say, but it seems like they are just now starting to take interest in enforcing them. I have never seen or heard of anyone (just my personal experience) being banned for harassing someone on the service, and the only permanent bans I have witnessed were for cheating/modifications on Halo 2. So from my point of view, my statements are still correct whether or not MS meant it to be so. Anyways, I don't think anyone is genuinely upset over the news, personally I just thought it was interesting.

My bad, didn't mean to assume you were upset if you weren't. I agree, it's interesting and personally I'm happy to see Microsoft enforce the policies they tout.

That being said, you aren't correct even if according to personal experience you feel you are-- objectively speaking the terms of agreement prove your comments to be false.