Holy crap that's awesome, not sure why Jeff was unhappy with his delivery, I was cracking up.
Sweetz's forum posts
All in all, this guy is blacklisted and the media (this article) is saying that is a valid response to this behavior. I don't know if I agree.
It's absolutely valid. Steam is a privately owned store, it's their right to choose what products they do and do not want to sell. Nobody has a right to sell things on their store. Believing otherwise is over-entitlement to the point of absurdity. If I was running Steam, I would have stopped carrying his games for the "incompetent" comment alone. If you want to criticize my business, that's fine, but don't expect that you get to do that and still have your products carried by my store.
Note that there's also a downside for Steam which is that they no longer make revenue from selling his product - though that's obviously a teeny drop in the bucket for them.
Apologies if I'm off base here, but I honestly don't understand the purpose these stories serve. What is accomplished by highlighting the actions of one sociopathic individual? At worst you're encouraging them and inspiring copy cats. At best all you're accomplishing is giving exposure to the victim that may ultimately lead to more sales of their game (which is all well and good, but in theory could eventually lead to a dark outcome where some unscrupulous person feigns victimization for free marketing).
Is there really an endemic problem here worth highlighting, or is it just that a very small set of individuals with a disproportionately large impact? As long as people participate in world wide public communication, you're never going to stop bad eggs from finding a way to say nasty things, no matter how many articles are written about it.
I find the degree to which people are publicizing what is likely one socially maladjusted teenager, possibly not even in the US, making what are overwhelmingly likely to be hollow threats to be a little a surreal. Today's Twitter threat against a woman is yesterday's school bomb threat. The existence of dumb kids emboldened by anonymity is and will remain a constant.
There are 7 billion people on the planet, you're not going to stop a few bad eggs from happening, no matter how many sternly worded articles you write on the internet about it. I believe giving things like this publicity only further inspires the perpetrator and copy cats. However, no one seems to truly care about that or the actions of the individual, instead this is apparently just a convenient event around which to politically grandstand and make statements about entire groups of people. Not so different from world politics in that respect.
Not sure why people still talk shit about Origin.
Are there really that many people actually doing that anymore? There certainly aren't in this specific comment thread.
Even back in the day, there wasn't too much hate about the client itself. Rather the problem is that we were forced to use it for new EA games and who wants to bother with maintaining another login and running another client when we were all already using Steam? Why can't we just buy and play the games through the client we were comfortable with? (Answer: Because Valve and EA had a pissing match about control over selling DLC). Origin isn't bad, but Steam wins simply by nature of being first and entrenched.
That said, while the client is fine, I feel EA has negatively exploited Origin exclusivity for their games more than Valve has exploited Steam exclusivity. Prime example is that because Origin is the only means through which you can buy DLC for newer EA PC games, they rarely or even never discount DLC. Mass Effect 3 DLC for example, has never gone on sale even though the game itself has been on sale multiple times. It still costs you $40 if you want just the the story based DLCs for that game.
The sudden clamouring for this game seems really weird to me. If this game was this beloved where was all the hype for it pre-E3? A lot of this just seems like a bandwagon to me.
It is silly. Everyone that is holy-smokes excited for this will play it once or twice and probably not touch it again. Those who have never heard about it will probably care even less, to a negative degree scale I presume.
It was a novel thing at the time but it doesn't mean it was actually a great game per-se.
People yelling about stuff on social media has managed to bring an old game back out for people to play. This is the best thing that social media has been used for in a good while with gamers. Who cares is some people are caught up in the hype about it? It's brought something back from the dead and all it took was for people to ask Sony a lot.
As for why people had no hype for it pre-E3, it's one of those games you never expected to see another one of ever again.
Ya'll just being sour over nothing. Let people enjoy this.
Classic games being preserved and made available to more people is always a good thing...but to me this is kind of exemplifies of how a few people in the press with symbolic megaphones can affect the market in ways that the actual market doesn't want or care about. That's not a good thing; and I suspect is an underlying subtext driving others that are questioning this move even if they can't put words to it.
Vib Ribbon is unique, but it isn't a very good game. Regardless, it somehow became the avatar for the aging gaming press's nostalgia for quirky Japanese games we never got in the US (most with good reason); I doubt the market at large cares about the game, and yet here we are. Were resources dedicated to this port that would have better been spent on something else? Probably not, and because the press has been effusive about the game it will probably sell enough (to people that will probably play it for 20 minutes and then never again) to cover the cost of said porting, so in the end, not a big deal. But the hypothetical scenario where resources are invested in placating a few highly visible critics or members of the press to actual detriment of catering the game buying market at large is obviously undesirable.
I replayed FF7 when it came out on Steam a few months back. Though I had made a few half-hearted attempts to play through it during college, this is only the second time I made it all the way through the game since when it was new.
It held up a little better than I expected, but yeah, the story as it's presented in-game is a mess and only after reading about it after the fact did I really get a grip on what was going on.
Funny thing I found was that I actually liked the first half of the game which is quite linear and direct far more than the latter half or third when you get the airship and it opens up. Although admittedly I made the dumb decision to resolve to get myself a gold chocobo and it's hard to disassociate my feelings about the horribleness of that task with what I think about the "open" section of the game. Even so, the game really loses it's sense of urgency and driving force when you dick around doing various side tasks.
Regarding chocobo breeding though -- holy crap is it awful. I don't remember minding it at all as a kid, but it's the most mind-numbing, soul-draining process; specifically because of the need to raise the chocobo "stats" through racing. I never want to see that damn Golden Saucer race track again. Between fighting a ridiculous number of random battles to get the right "starter" chocobos and all the racing, I think it took me 5 hours all said and done to get a gold chocobo. 5 hours of repetitious, barely interactive bullcrap. It's the worst. That summon does sure make the end game a lot easier though!
I have to admit, seeing Jenn Frank forced to quit after all these years really hurt.
As a person who is generally most (-constructively-!) critical toward causes I agree with, I've come to feel like the perpetuation of this soul-crushing cycle might only be avoidable in the future if prominent voices in the debate find a way to focus on praising positive examples of their causes, and less on denigrating/attacking/"shaming" negative examples on the other side.
As demonstrated in modern history over a range of two-sided social issues, treating people on the other side like the enemy (whether with open contempt, direct condemnation, or even indirect condescension) makes them want to reciprocate, and be your enemy. It gives them an excuse.
Yup well said, and I hope this eventually happens. The thing that bugs me about the social criticism movement in games is that it's almost universally negative, or at least that's the impression I take away from most authors with a few exceptions (Cara Ellison being one of them, she strikes a nice balance). It's almost always complaining in tone and not constructive. It's also sometimes judgmental and insulting towards creators themselves. How about sometimes positively highlighting games that get it "right" and not always writing about how someone's work is "wrong"?
What is with Polygon these days? The other day they had something saying Riot doesn't have to beg for money like Valve does. It was not sourced and probably misquoted and completely inflammatory.
They've basically discarded the entire pretense that they're seeking to change the face of game journalism and have emerged from the chrysalis having completed their transformation into Kotaku 2.0.
Yup. Controversy generates hits and pays the bills. It also gets people to read your work in a field where egoism is part and parcel with the job (because it takes a certain amount of self-importance to build a career around the assumption that your opinions are worth listening to).