Wrighteous86's forum posts

#1 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3876 posts) -
#3 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3876 posts) -
#4 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3876 posts) -

@Levius: Crichton is a quick read, so especially at 385 pages, it shouldn't take too long to get through.

#5 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3876 posts) -

The Tom Clancy games to some extent did this. Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six etc were in the same "Universe". They just never really crossed over.

Same with Rockstar games. The GTA games and Manhunt and (I believe) Red Dead, are all the same universe. GTA radio stations reference the events of Manhunt and refer to Carcer City a few times.

They mostly just amount to Easter Eggs though.

#6 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3876 posts) -

@spacekatgal: Thank you for standing up for yourself. I met my fiancé on this site and have seen her become less active and outspoken in her gaming as time has gone on. Multiplayer is practically a non-option for her and even innocuous comments on gaming forums like "I don't find Zac Efron that attractive" get her called a bitch (I wish that wasn't an actual anecdote). I hate that our shared hobby is completely benign for me, and potentially demeaning, harassing, and frightening for her.

She may not be interested in becoming a game developer (anymore), but even as just a female gamer, I'm glad that there are women like you fighting to make it a more welcoming environment for her and others like her.

#7 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3876 posts) -

@faythdream10 said:

The worst thing is these harassers are constantly getting positive reinforcement when their tactics work. Every talk she has from now on is going to have some kind of anonymous threat like this. It's easy for me to say, I know, but sooner or later you have to call their bluff. Courage is fire, and bullying is smoke.

And the authorities will investigate each and every one of them. It's not like theses anonymous threats never get caught.

And she did try to continue with the event, but the school wouldn't stop people from entering the theater with their guns, so...

#8 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3876 posts) -

@hellbound: Oh, this bit. We are mostly in agreement, haha.

I still stand by my point of leading by example. I don't understand how or why people want or need the crew to make this article standing against this. The way this site is run, the community, and moderators tells you everything you need to know. Lead by example.

Say they write this giant article or a whole podcast condemning it. Great. What does that change though? Everything is still the same. Its like everything they do doesn't matter until there is some sort of official statement and that really sucks.

I was just saying they kind of DO have to state their opinions on this, otherwise, against all reason, the people on the one said will attempt to say that Jeff and the others agree with THEM and not Patrick. So I'm glad that the most recent Bombcast mentions it and decries this, so that will stop happening.

#9 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3876 posts) -

@hellbound: I'd agree with you but literally this Monday, the day before the Bombcast came out where they briefly mentioned it, people were arguing in the forums that Patrick was the only one on the staff with these beliefs and that he was publishing this stuff and advertising his position against the direct will of the rest of the staff, despite Jeff's previous editorial, and the comments they've made on Twitter and Tumblr, and the fact that they choose to continue to employ and support Patrick.

Someone actually said "They've never mentioned this on the Bombcast because they don't believe in it. It's only Patrick."

#10 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3876 posts) -

@sordel said:

Thirdly, the BBC is reporting that "neither [IGN nor Giant Bomb] was able to comment when asked for a response". Seriously guys, that was lead-footed: you have nothing to hide and you made it look like you did. You could have pointed to Patrick's consistent work on this issue and said "we really don't know why Brianna mentioned us ... we're one of the few media outlets that's been taking this seriously."

Able to Comment sometimes means they didn't respond in time before the story was published.

Or CBS could've told them to not discuss it, but that seems less likely to me.