Jimquisition: The Sh*tiest Games of 2012

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Mr_Terrific:

TAdamson:

You do know you can swear on the internet? All you're achieving is making your writing less readable.

Yet you knew they were curse words and you still decided to type this. Nothing like assholes on the internet. Oh...looks like you're right /cheers

I'm not being an asshole. And I don't care about cursing. I care about readability.

If you swear once and you're really so prissy that feel the need to "***" it out then fine. But nearly every single sentence of has one in; if you really want to swear that much just write the damn letters, or use the word "crap", or say or some other dumb fill-in non-swear bullshit.

Reading something with **** every ten or twenty words, not to mention the "lol, jk O.o" business or the quotes embedded in the middle of paragraphs with hyphened attribution, is really jarring. It's like reading a corrupted file with a text editor.

Just fucking swear for fuck's sake.

Is that "Dark Messenger" playing? Thank god for you and your taste in music Jim!

Why is does the Silent Hill HD collection have to be so bad? WHY?!

That Diablo III wasn't on that list is a crime.

For simultaneously being the biggest letdown in over a decade (really. No one actually thought that Duke Nukem Forever was going to be good...) and for shitting upon the previous games that made it good in the first place, along with bringing monotonization schemes into the core gameplay itself. This game, made by one of the biggest "games for gamers" companies out there, couldn't even be released complete! It had to cut content in order to make it's deadline (instead of you know "when it's ready") and that content still hasn't been included!

There is nothing redeeming about Diablo III, other than there will be a whole lot of games already out or coming out in the same genre that will be miles above this piece of drek assembled by one of the most incompetent dev teams I have ever had the privilege to witness.

Now you see people, this isn't about bad games you didn't like, its about bad games that were just pure absolute shit-code.

Yes some of games listed by other forum members might have been bad (to their particular taste) (or just didn't live up to their pre-hype potential) (or changed from previous versions) but are still technically sound on their own, even if you personally didn't like it.

These games that Jim listed ARE pure shit. 100% Buggy, 100% poorly designed, 100% poorly implemented.

As somebody who owns a Kinect (which is only for the dancing games); I still love how that Steel Battalion video is 100% pure fraud. Half the time, the Kinect is reading most of the commands before they user completes them... I wish the Kinect was that quick and sensitive. Never once was there was that awkward 1 pause after you give a command and wonder, did it understand that...

Therumancer:

... As a general rule, REAL racists on the fringe tend to be very overt and open about their work...

I'd rather someone overtly hold a KKK rally than secretly not hire me, not accept me into a college, or deny me a loan or housing because of my race.

But that's just me. The worst kinds of racism (speaking to the modern day US) aren't the overt hatred but the internalized biases that we don't even realize affect our decisions.

Murmillos:

These games that Jim listed ARE pure shit. 100% Buggy, 100% poorly designed, 100% poorly implemented.

That's what Diablo 3 is to me (although it's not that buggy now, but at launch...).

Richard Keohane:
But that's just me. The worst kinds of racism (speaking to the modern day US) aren't the overt hatred but the internalized biases that we don't even realize affect our decisions.

Then why do we treat the people who are guilty of that as if they are fully conscious of it and doing it on purpose, as Jim is clearly doing here?

Wow its refreshing to see somebody who's worst game of the year isn't a big mainstream game but one of the hundreds of bad games nobody buys.

And now I just want to play Saint's Row 3, going on a dildo bat rampage.

TAdamson:

Therumancer:

Showing a bunch of primitive and backwards people AS primitive and backwards people is not in any way, shape, or form racist. Calling a guy who literally walks around and throws spears because that is the cutting edge of his availible technology a "spear chucker" isn't racist either.

Oh. You're racist as well as homophobic huh? Nice to know.

I usually go through your posts looking for when you make the suggestion that every homosexual man is a potential paedophile, but this time you come up with this.

The term "spear-chucker" is an epithet directed towards Africans. It's a racist term. Exactly like "Jungle-Bunny". Exactly like nigger.

And while there is a difference between overt racism (Which is analogous to your overt homophobia) and unconscious racism, media where all the heroes are clean cut white people and the antagonists are brown people depicted as savages still has worrying subtext.

Comparing this to games like this to games made by the KKK is like comparing the films written by Goebbels to those written by Hitler. The racism/anti-semitism in the former is subtle while the racism in the latter is clumsy and blatant. The fact that the racist subtext in Revelations 2012 *might* not be intentional is irrelevant.

Actually it is irrelevent, because racism is by definition is not subtle. Racism is the belief that a group of people are intristically inferior and cannot ever be as good as another group of people. Or conversely that a given race of people are better than all others who simply cannot ever achieve that level of intristic abillity. Anything else is not racist.

Showing a bunch of tribals living like tribals is NOT racist, especially if people really do exist that way. It only becomes racist if you try and say that those people are that way because that's all they can achieve, and will never be anything more due to innate genetics, that's racist.

To be brutally honest I'm probably one of the least racist people out there, simply because I believe humanity actually is equal accross the board, which also means that everyone can be held to the same intristic expectations and standards. Being black, hispanic, etc... is not an excuse for failure, nor do such people need any kind of special treatment to be equal, it's all up to them because they can do the same things. I actually find liberals to be incredibly racist despite their pretensions because their efforts to "help" in most cases come from what amounts to a belief that the people on the receiving end cannot be expected to help themselves. What's more I think too much charity on this level removes the motivation for one to succeed, and actually fuels cultural divide. I actually think a lot of the aid we send to the third world, and even racially themed domestic outreach programs in the US have actually gotten to the point where they have become counter productive. Liberals hate points of view like that, but the bottom line is the world sucks, and sometimes being a bastard is the best for everyone involved. Attempts to call me racist usually come down to people flailing around and trying to find ways to re-define the label "cleverly" to fit because they don't like the point.

Also the whole "invisible knapsack" thing is complete garbage, and has been debunked a long, long time ago. There have been entire threads on this subject here already. The bottom line is that any group encountering a larger group not like them or is more prominant is going to run into the same kinds of issues. Sure, in the US you ask to see the guy in charge, and odds are it will be a white guy, as whites are the majority. That's not unintentional racism, you go to say Africa, Spain, or whatever else and do the same thing an African or Spanish person will tend to be in the same position.

When it comes to media, and the whole "great white hero" thing, again there is no real racism intended, it's simply how things are. Like it or not when a less developed people run into a more developed one, the results are not pretty unless they receive outside aid. Right now the so called "first world" happens to largely be populated by whites, who as a whole are the most advanced, best educated, and best trained. As a general rule most of the world simply cannot touch the training od special forces groups like the SEALS, Spetznatz, Royal Marine Commandos, and other similar groups, never mind CIA, MI6, KGB, and whomever else you want to mention. The infrastructure doesn't exist throughout most of the world to produce people like that. Indeed most countries hire people trained by these organizations to try and train their own military forces/terrorists/gueriellas, and one of the big hot button issues has always been nations like the USA or Russia sending in special forces dudes under the table to train insurgents to fight against guys we don't like from within, or conversely to train a goverment we do like so it's troops have an edge against insurgent movements we don't like. A lot of the nastiest wars we've had (like say the original Afghani conflict) basically involved first world "white" nations fighting by proxy, with American trained Taliban fighting Russian trained goverment troops for example.

As a result games, movies, etc... tying to be realistic (or contain a grain of realism) base themselves on real trends and occurances. Should global balance shift, so will this. It's also interesting to note that as things have shifted you are seeing increasing numbers of asians coming to the forefront in the media accross the board.

Also, it should be noted that whites are a minority globally (a severe one) like 1/3rd of the human race is chinese, 1/3rd of the population is Indian (about to replace China in a few years as the most common ethnicity supposedly), Blacks overpopulate Africa and outnumber whites by a large margin, ditto for hispanics/latinos thoughout south and central America (with a lot of speculation that soon Latinos will also outnumber whites in the USA, and Canada shortly thereafter). Seeing people that are minorities within the USA or other first world countries presented as enemies and such (often based on real politics) is hardly shocking by the numbers since that's how things break down. That said fantasy does seem to be an equal oppertunity portrayer of who gets to wear the snively whiplash mustache. The Russians (other whites) get plenty of screen time as villains, as do other Europeans, the USA is really fond of a bunch of self-critical analysis, portraying itself as the bad guy (something very few other countries do with their media, you generally don't see China doing movies where the thero fights the Chinese goverment). In short complaints about fantasy being "a bunch of white guys terorizing minorities" is complete bunk, it only comes up when someone wants attention in dealing with a work where the sides break down that way, oftentimes without really looking at the story and whether it seems remotely plausible (enough so for fantasy).

At any rate, the point here is that showing people as they are is not remotely racist. It doesn't become racist until you go beyond simply showing things that way and start getting into long-term prospects, genetic destiny, and other assorted things. You might decry the way the world is, but that doesn't mean people who live in the real world and accept it are some kind of racist.

Besides, on the actual subject, how would you have portrayed the return of the ancient Mayans? I means seriously, have them all show up in business suits, and fling lattes? The problem with you and Jim is that this is pretty close to how the ancient Mayans looked, and the ceremonial dress those trying to revive the traditions use when performing rituals.

Likewise, if you happened to be basically invincible for the moment and could throw fireballs and such, would you bother to insist on running around wearing say Kevlar and carrying an M-16 for lulz? "Sorry guys, our ritual worked, but I really think I should go home and change into a suit instead of this ritual garb, I know we're about to destroy everything, but man... what if someone actually sees me like this in the meantime. These other guys, the ones carried through time... yeah someone should at least take them through K-mart or something before we actually get aorund to this whole blotting out the sun thing..."

Stop and REALLY think about what you and Jim are saying here.

Richard Keohane:

Therumancer:

... As a general rule, REAL racists on the fringe tend to be very overt and open about their work...

I'd rather someone overtly hold a KKK rally than secretly not hire me, not accept me into a college, or deny me a loan or housing because of my race.

But that's just me. The worst kinds of racism (speaking to the modern day US) aren't the overt hatred but the internalized biases that we don't even realize affect our decisions.

Which doesn't really happen on any signifigant scale. Racism is generally used as an excuse for failure. You didn't get accepted for college, didn't get a loan, etc... minorities scream "Racism!!!" as a way of getting attention and trying to force what they want which is really the only mainstream way it exists... as a political/personal tool. There is no racism here, this crap happens to everyone. When a black kid doesn't get accepted to a college or whatever it's not because they are black, they are simply in the same boat as everyone else who didn't get accepted. If anything affrimitive action and racial quotas which form "reverse racism" make the odds of minorities succeeding in situations like that far greater.

To be bloody honest with you, the entire "Invisible Knapsack" arguement is just BS to try and justify outcries of racism where none is present. Saying "your racist, but don't realize it, so you should give me stuff" is akin to a kid trying to stick people up with their invisible friend. It's the kind of arguement made by people who want a crutch for their own failures in life. The end of racism didn't mean every minority was going to become prosperous or slot into the high echelons of society, it just meant they would have the same oppertunities, and would fail just like the other 99.9% of the population do. Right now minority counter culture is more to blame for problems than any kind of "invisible racism", the perspective that equality amounts to success, and that your either part of the top 1%, or entitled to be an anti-societal thug because your being kept down. At the end of the day your average minority's life sucks for the same reason mine does: because the world sucks, there are thousands upon thousands of losers for every real winner. You can do everything right, pass every test, and get every degree, and still get crushed under the wheels of society, it's a giant roulette wheel which you are not entirely in control of, which is why there are guys with PHDs begging for change in the park.

Racism exists on the fringes where it has no real effect on society. Indeed all of these outcries, propaganda within the educational system, and other assorted things have made it so that people in the majority's instincts are inherantly anti-racist.

Right now there IS a degree of cultural bigotry present though, mostly brought upon minorities by themselves. That comes from counter cultures that embrace the whole "git rich, or die trying" mentality, which basically glorifies being a thug or part of the top 1%, and considers those who fit in somewhere in between (the majority of losers, who are mere cogs in a machine) to be almost sub human. It's not just blacks, but present among pretty much all minorities at the moment. These counter-cultures have created backlash due to their behavior, rather than any intristic racism. In general a minority has no real problems if they assimilate and try and fit in, but when they embrace that kind of a counter-culture which in of itself is one of racism and entitlement it causes problems.

I tend to think Bill Cosby summarized it better than just about anyone (I take him seriously mostly because of his PHD in Children's Education). He mostly talks about blacks, but I think it applies to all minorities. Simply put the hard part of the civil liberties movement was never the fighting, but taking advantage of what was won once there was no enemy. All that equality meant was chances, not successes, people have bent over backwards to provide educational materials and oppertunities to minorities, only to have those things slapped back. Becoming educated and sliding into the machine as a cog is viewed as being tantamount to selling out, and despite people providing tons of materials and chances to do that, those materials and chances tend to be scorned and destroyed. It's easier to fall into crime and destitution and blame someone else, than wind up living a normal life, working hard for very little, like most people do.... that's not an excact quote on his part, but the basic gist of things.

My basic attitude is that with all the crap I've been rejected for, lost out on, and the quality of my life even before forced into retirement, nobody else has the right to complain, since it's pretty much this way for everyone else as well. OMG, you didn't get into your college of choice, you weren't the one dude who got that job out of dozens (or even hundreds, or thousands) of applicants, cry me a F@cking river. You might not be one of society's top 1%, but neither am I, and neither is that other 99% so get the heck over it. When I'm sitting here with my mediocre life your not going to convice me there is some huge conspiricy (intentional or otherwise) of white dudes out to elevate people like me at your expense. News flash, the lives of the majority suck and are full of failure (comparively), no matter your ethnicity.

Therumancer:
Actually it is irrelevent, because racism is by definition is not subtle. Racism is the belief that a group of people are intristically inferior and cannot ever be as good as another group of people. Or conversely that a given race of people are better than all others who simply cannot ever achieve that level of intristic abillity. Anything else is not racist.

You really need to learn to make your point in a pithy manner. Do you really expect me to respond to 1000 words that you write in every post?

And no. Sorry mate. There are different levels of racism.

Just like there is subtle descrimination against homosexuals eg homosexuals make you uncomfortable or homosexuals on television being asexual campy stereotypes -- An analogy in racial terms would be walking faster because you see a black person you don't know or having all the black characters in a game dress as savages while you shoot them.

And then there is extreme homophobia such as your belief that every homosexual is a potential paedophile. The racial analogy to this being the KKK.

Of course you don't understand any of this because you actually think that your beliefs are reasonable instead of despicable I'm mostly pointing your set of awful viewpoints to others so that anybody that actually wades though one of your needlessly verbose posts gets some context about what you believe.

Therumancer:
Besides, on the actual subject, how would you have portrayed the return of the ancient Mayans? I means seriously, have them all show up in business suits, and fling lattes?

The problem with you and Jim is that this is pretty close to how the ancient Mayans looked, and the ceremonial dress those trying to revive the traditions use when performing rituals.

How about portraying them as people? Not as a zombie-like hoard to slaughter?

It's not about how they look. It's the idea that the you'd respond to the return of brown people from an ancient time by killing them all.

I wanna know where he got that goblet in the beginning from!

TAdamson:

Therumancer:
Besides, on the actual subject, how would you have portrayed the return of the ancient Mayans? I means seriously, have them all show up in business suits, and fling lattes?

The problem with you and Jim is that this is pretty close to how the ancient Mayans looked, and the ceremonial dress those trying to revive the traditions use when performing rituals.

How about portraying them as people? Not as a zombie-like hoard to slaughter?

It's not about how they look. It's the idea that the you'd respond to the return of brown people from an ancient time by killing them all.

Your kidding right?

Let's be honest here, this is a game about a real prophecy, or an interpetation thereof, in which the world is being ended. These "ancient brown skinned people" are coming back to kill everyone and everything like they promised to do thousands of years ago. That is why they are being met with force... and actually it's magical weapons being used on them, not machine guns. Their magic makes them immune to conventional force as part of the "plot". :)

The game is a shooter, the enemies in shooters, especially low budget ones, are by definition, zombie-like hordes.

It's sort of like saying that Wolfenstein is racist because it portrays nazis as a bunch of zombie like white guys who don't act much like real people and have a genocidal agenda. Oh wait... it's a shooter and they are the bad guys, now it all makes sense.

Sorry, there is no racism present here, unless of course you want to go off the deep end with political correctness and basically imply that non-whites are so special that they shouldn't ever be used as the bad guys in video games.

To be fair, if this WAS a game where the Mayans just came back and were minding their own business and you machine gunned them down, you'd be right, but that is hardly what this game is about. As far as them being the bad guys, well the subject is "apocolyptic prophecy" and really this isn't the first mythology tapped for that with appropriate bad guys. I mean honestly, we've had plenty of groups like the Knights Templar, various cults, etc... all with largely white memberships tapped to be the bad guys on numerous occasions, not to mention first world goverments where you fight conspiricies by the CIA, private mercenary contractors, or whatever else.

In this day and age fantasy, including video games, is pretty much equal oppertunity as far as bad guys go, everyone gets their turn. To be honest I see more racism inherant in people claiminng exclusion, or saying a specific group of people or their beliefs should be considered a "sacred cow"... and I use that term intentionally given that one of the more ridiculous contreversies recently was over the usage of Hindu deities in a religion themed fighting game (where the developers should neve have backed down). I mean if I as a Chistian can get over a bunch of spikey haired angst ridden japanese emos killing my god, other religions can grow up enough to have theirs in a fighting tournament and accept fantasy as fantasy whatever they hapeen to believe is real. That's an entirely differant discussion though, but it does have some vague similarities. :)

TAdamson:

Therumancer:
Actually it is irrelevent, because racism is by definition is not subtle. Racism is the belief that a group of people are intristically inferior and cannot ever be as good as another group of people. Or conversely that a given race of people are better than all others who simply cannot ever achieve that level of intristic abillity. Anything else is not racist.

You really need to learn to make your point in a pithy manner. Do you really expect me to respond to 1000 words that you write in every post?

And no. Sorry mate. There are different levels of racism.

Just like there is subtle descrimination against homosexuals eg homosexuals make you uncomfortable or homosexuals on television being asexual campy stereotypes -- An analogy in racial terms would be walking faster because you see a black person you don't know or having all the black characters in a game dress as savages while you shoot them.

And then there is extreme homophobia such as your belief that every homosexual is a potential paedophile. The racial analogy to this being the KKK.

Of course you don't understand any of this because you actually think that your beliefs are reasonable instead of despicable I'm mostly pointing your set of awful viewpoints to others so that anybody that actually wades though one of your needlessly verbose posts gets some context about what you believe.

Actually, yes I do. If you want to discuss serious matters you have to expect me to go into a lot of detail in a hostile enviroment like this one. Not to mention that it generally saves time if you actually read what I say, as I typically head off 90% of what people say in response before they ever say it, not that anyone notices.

Also your ignorance is... well, extreme. To be honest my attitude on homosexuals is pretty much middle of the road, but you for all your claims of worldlyness have never actually met someone with extreme viewpoints to understand the differances. Especially seeing as my attitudes are backed up by a lot of experience and training. See, I'm a trained observer in certain contexts, who has actually been trusted to put those skills to use professionally. This makes me fundementally differant from you, or anyone who has never been in a similar profession. Referred to in training as "colored glasses", once you learn certain things, and how to do them, you can no longer see the world the way someone who is not trained does not. You can basically say I'm wrong about homosexuals and so on, but that's because of what you've heard, read, and want to believe. Your opinion compared to mine being ultimatly meaningless because you simply don't actually know anything, and aren't equipped properly to learn it. This applies to a lot of matters, not just this. You've never been enabled to spy on people (going beyond that training), and to be brutally honest, would probably never be trusted to do so, even in as limited a context as I did. In short, there are subjects you are incapable of having an informed opinion on, and the tradegy of it is that like most in that opinion you'll never really understand why this is, or what a differant person you'd be if you ever did have your eyes opened to the truth.

At any rate, as much as you find it repugnant, understand that my attitude on homosexuals pretty much involves identification, paying attention, and generally leaving them alone unless they step out of certain bounds. Lines that are unlikely to be crossed, or even noticed if there wasn't going to be a problem to begin with, but would represent a problem because of reality being what it is. Like any biological function sex drive can be changed, and with time we will be able to "cure" the problem should the effort be put in. You can argue this, but that isn't the point, this is just a summary of what I think.

In comparison a more extreme anti-gay sentiment, similar to the KKK, opposes homosexuality for more absolute reasons including religion, and sees homosexuality as something to be outright exterminated as opposed to monitored and corrected when the oppertunity presents itself. Things like shipping them all out onto islands to die, or just
outright murdering them.

There is also the point that unlike most I seperate gay men and lesbians into seperate catagories based on behaviors and tendencies, and what threats they present to the rest of society. So you can't even claim I'm anti-homosexual as much as anti- one specific group of homosexuals.

Your incapable of making this distinction in your opponents, lumping them all together, which is half your problem and why you aren't ever going to make any headway. Your basic attitude is "anyone who doesn't agree with me, can be lumped together" and that pretty much causes you to wallow even further in ignorance. On some levels I kind of envy you, my big problem is exactly the opposite, I can't be ignorant or naive anymore. If I could I'd get into a lot less discussions like this one, because today being politically correct is the path of least resistance... the easy way to go, but as is usually the case, the easy path is not usually the right one. You might not admit it to yourself, but ultimatly it's pretty likely you hold onto the belief structure you do because it involves the least amount of effort on your part. Actually acting on something in society takes effort, where just letting it go on and saying "it's right' just amounts to being able to sit back and be lazy, and not having to do anything, as long as it doesn't affect you, there isn't a problem. While the context was limited, I had to actually see the real world to deal with this garbage specifically so people like you could remain lazy and ignorant. I'm the guy who sat there and protected the kids of people like you so you wouldn't have to, and could waddle off to gamble and crap, so don't presume to tell me who the threats and predators in society are, because you don't have the first bloody clue.

-

On the actual subject though, there is no such thing as a "degree" of racism. Something is racist or it isn't. You either believe in the inherant superiority/inferiority of one group of people and act upon it, or not, there is no middle ground, no "invisible" or "unintentional" racism, that all exists specifically for the sake of politics, because racism needs to be around to rally people, and because it's a popular crutch for people to use for their failures. What racism exists is on the very fringe of society and has no real affect on anything.

Now there ARE cultural conflicts, largely caused by aggressive minority counter cultures who use "racism" as a way of justifying not fitting into society and living like normal people, which is of course a big part of why so much effort is spent trying to convince people like you of things like "Invisible Knapsack" theory.

In the end though, you by your own admissions have made it quite clear your not in a position to make judgements about what is reasonable and what isn't. The most you can sound off about is your ideals and what you wish the world was like, but sadly that does not make it so. Go out, study forensics for a few years, get a career working as casino security and become trusted enough to work on monitors and fill in for investigations for a decade. In the process do Code Adam training multiple times, train with the state police, train with homeland security, train with emergency response, then get back to me and I'll accept you might be able to have a valid opinion. Honestly it won't happen, I know it won't because if you ever did all that you wouldn't hold a point of view anything like the one you have now, you would never have made it that long in such a career if you remained so naive.

Therumancer:

Your kidding right?

Let's be honest here, this is a game about a real prophecy, or an interpetation thereof, in which the world is being ended. These "ancient brown skinned people" are coming back to kill everyone and everything like they promised to do thousands of years ago. That is why they are being met with force... and actually it's magical weapons being used on them, not machine guns. Their magic makes them immune to conventional force as part of the "plot". :)

If you think that the Mayan "End of World" idiocy is based on a real Mayan prophecy then you are doubly ignorant.

It's racist. Mildly so but still. It demonstrates no knowledge of actual Mayan culture and instead riffs on a moronic believe that Mayans predicted the end of the world so to provide an bullshit excuse for 4 white-bread Americans to come kill them.

Let me demonstrate how to get your post size down. I'll also point out how little substance there is in a single paragraph.

Also your ignorance is... well, extreme. [Unnecessary and unsupported personal attack - remove] To be honest my attitude on homosexuals is pretty much middle of the road, but you for all your claims of worldlyness [what claims?] have never actually met someone with extreme viewpoints to understand the differances. [Unsupported claim] Especially [especially why? remove word] seeing as my attitudes are backed up by a lot of experience and training. [unsupported claim] See, I'm a trained observer in certain contexts, who has actually been trusted to put those skills to use professionally. [unsupported claim and redundant - remove] This makes me fundementally differant from you, or anyone who has never been in a similar profession. [non sequitur claim -remove] Referred to in training as "colored glasses", [redundant information - remove add paragraph break] once you learn certain things, and how to do them, you can no longer see the world the way someone who is not trained does not. [non sequitur claim and appeal to authority, makes last claim redundant] You can basically say I'm wrong about homosexuals and so on, but that's because of what you've heard, read, and want to believe. Your opinion compared to mine being ultimatly meaningless because you simply don't actually know anything, and aren't equipped properly to learn it. [assertion without evidence] This applies to a lot of matters, not just this. [irrelevant -remove] You've never been enabled to spy on people (going beyond that training), and to be brutally honest, would probably never be trusted to do so, even in as limited a context as I did. [completely irrelevant] In short, there are subjects you are incapable of having an informed opinion on, and the tradegy of it is that like most in that opinion you'll never really understand why this is, or what a differant person you'd be if you ever did have your eyes opened to the truth.

So anyway it ends up being:

To be honest my attitude on homosexuals is pretty much middle of the road, but you for all your claims of worldlyness have never actually met someone with extreme viewpoints to understand the differances.

Seeing as my attitudes are backed up by a lot of experience and training. Once you learn certain things, and how to do them, you can no longer see the world the way someone who is not trained does not. You can basically say I'm wrong about homosexuals and so on, but that's because of what you've heard, read, and want to believe. Your opinion compared to mine being ultimatly meaningless because you simply don't actually know anything, and aren't equipped properly to learn it.

You've never been enabled to spy on people (going beyond that training), and to be brutally honest, would probably never be trusted to do so, even in as limited a context as I did. In short, there are subjects you are incapable of having an informed opinion on, and the tradegy of it is that like most in that opinion you'll never really understand why this is, or what a differant person you'd be if you ever did have your eyes opened to the truth.

I've challenged you before to provide evidence beyond your anecdotal rubbish and you've failed to come through. As such you're just another person perpetuating dangerous myths about perfectly normal people.

If you're claiming experience because you are "a trained observer" (What ever the fuck that means, are you a cop? A social worker? Private investigator? Vigilante?) I think you're probably suffering from exposure bias.

Regardless previous statements you've made have been fundamentally disgusting and in no way "middle of the road".
You want to claim that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, provide statistical evidence from peer reviewed research or fuck off. Your creepy claims that your "experience and training" (Care to name the organisation?) and being "enabled to spy on people"(?????????) provided you with knowledge about the "truth" about homosexuals do not fucking wash and are pretty horrific in themselves.

You make it sound like you spy on homosexuals appropo of nothing. What I'm assuming is that you've been asked (or you do it off your own back for fucked up reasons of your own.) to watch those accused or convicted of child sex offences against boys. This is selection bias which you've turned to bigotry.

Let me demonstrate how to get your post size down. I'll also point out how little substance there is in a single paragraph.

Also your ignorance is... well, extreme. [Unnecessary and unsupported personal attack - remove] To be honest my attitude on homosexuals is pretty much middle of the road, but you for all your claims of worldlyness [what claims?] have never actually met someone with extreme viewpoints to understand the differances. [Unsupported claim] Especially [especially why? remove word] seeing as my attitudes are backed up by a lot of experience and training. [unsupported claim] See, I'm a trained observer in certain contexts, who has actually been trusted to put those skills to use professionally. [unsupported claim and redundant - remove] This makes me fundementally differant from you, or anyone who has never been in a similar profession. [non sequitur claim -remove] Referred to in training as "colored glasses", [redundant information - remove add paragraph break] once you learn certain things, and how to do them, you can no longer see the world the way someone who is not trained does not. [non sequitur claim and appeal to authority, makes last claim redundant] You can basically say I'm wrong about homosexuals and so on, but that's because of what you've heard, read, and want to believe. Your opinion compared to mine being ultimatly meaningless because you simply don't actually know anything, and aren't equipped properly to learn it. [assertion without evidence] This applies to a lot of matters, not just this. [irrelevant -remove] You've never been enabled to spy on people (going beyond that training), and to be brutally honest, would probably never be trusted to do so, even in as limited a context as I did. [completely irrelevant] In short, there are subjects you are incapable of having an informed opinion on, and the tradegy of it is that like most in that opinion you'll never really understand why this is, or what a differant person you'd be if you ever did have your eyes opened to the truth.

So anyway it ends up being:

To be honest my attitude on homosexuals is pretty much middle of the road, but you for all your claims of worldlyness have never actually met someone with extreme viewpoints to understand the differances.

Seeing as my attitudes are backed up by a lot of experience and training. Once you learn certain things, and how to do them, you can no longer see the world the way someone who is not trained does not. You can basically say I'm wrong about homosexuals and so on, but that's because of what you've heard, read, and want to believe. Your opinion compared to mine being ultimatly meaningless because you simply don't actually know anything, and aren't equipped properly to learn it.

You've never been enabled to spy on people (going beyond that training), and to be brutally honest, would probably never be trusted to do so, even in as limited a context as I did. In short, there are subjects you are incapable of having an informed opinion on, and the tradegy of it is that like most in that opinion you'll never really understand why this is, or what a differant person you'd be if you ever did have your eyes opened to the truth.

I've challenged you before to provide evidence beyond your anecdotal rubbish and you've failed to come through. As such you're just another person perpetuating dangerous myths about perfectly normal people.

If you're claiming experience because you are "a trained observer" (What ever the fuck that means, are you a cop? A social worker? Private investigator? Vigilante?) I think you're probably suffering from exposure bias.

Regardless previous statements you've made have been fundamentally disgusting and in no way "middle of the road".
You want to claim that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, provide statistical evidence from peer reviewed research or fuck off. Your creepy claims that your "experience and training" (Care to name the organisation?) and being "enabled to spy on people"(?????????) provided you with knowledge about the "truth" about homosexuals do not fucking wash and are pretty horrific in and of themselves.

You make it sound like you spy on homosexuals appropo of nothing. What I'm assuming is that you've been asked (or you do it off your own back for fucked up reasons of your own.) to watch those accused or convicted of child sex offences against boys. This is selection bias which you've turned to bigotry.

Or you're making the scientificcally fallaceous argument that because 3% of men are gay and 33% of child sexual offenders target boys, that homosexuals are more likely to offend. This disregards the evidence that the mechanics in the psychology between homosexual and hetrosexual paedophilia and that of androphilia and gynophilia are completely different and that.

It also ignores the massive body of evidence that paedophiles do not display erectile response when shown pictures of adults of the same sex as their preferred child gender.

Back on topic.

Therumancer:
. Racism is the belief that a group of people are intristically inferior

No. That's the definition of supremacism.

If you want a completely shallow definition that leaves out the types of racism that you prefer to not include, probably because you exhibit at least some of them, then I guess that works for you.

But you are leaving out social-xenophobia, cultural-xenophobia, aversive-racism, social-racism, and institutionalised discrimination. These are lesser forms of discrimination or racism than outright supremacist notions or the "white man's burden" type of racism but they do exist.

But Therumancer will probably claim that these terms are invented by liberal academics suffering from "white-guilt" and that his "training" to "spy on people" (I call bullshit.) gives him access to information far in advance of what us mere mortals who post less than 1000 words at a time can comprehend.

doggie015:
I find it amazing that WarZ didn't get the number 1 spot! It's even shittier than what was picked!

Considering how The War Z can charitably be described as an early beta, or more accurately a late alpha, not making the Shittiest Games of 2012 list isn't that surprising; it isn't a game, it's a proof of concept that got released to cash in on Day Z's popularity.

Mr_Terrific:
Lollipop Chainsaw- This game has no redeeming qualities. NONE. If you like this game, then you are a piece of s*** and you know you are....lol. J/k....sort of O.o

Metal of Honor: Warfighter a.k.a Metal of Honor: Doorbreacher- The name alone should win it an award for s***iest game of 2012.

Lollipop Chainsaw is fucking awesome, the arcade level is one of the very best gaming experiences all year.

Medal of Honor: Warfighter is literally the best online FPS (infantry vs infantry) this console gen. Danger Close blew both Treyarch and Infinity Ward out of the water with their multiplayer. Warfighter has something EVERY FPS should have and that is LEANING. Hell, even every TPS should have leaning too, it only adds to the gunplay, and I haven't seen a console control scheme for a FPS or a TPS where leaning could not be added rather simply. Plus, Warfighter has an awesome slide and shoot move you can do while sprinting (sliding around a corner with a shotgun to kill a camper is extremely satisfying). Warfighter's single player is fucking garbage though, the worst campaign in a shooter I've ever played.

Is that verdict including or not including the patch for Silent Hill DH Collection that fixes some of the issues?

Capcom & Konami managed to remain on gamers' shit list all year.

I don't know why you guys are being so racist, it's not skeletor's fault his bones are white.

Also, thank you for including him in the video...it was like an aural oasis between periods of Jim speaking.

Gizmo1990:
What is Jims problem with konami? I agree with him but he seems to really hate them. Is it just that they continue to fuck up some of his favorite game series or did something actually happen between him and konami?

cursedseishi:

Gizmo1990:
What is Jims problem with konami? I agree with him but he seems to really hate them. Is it just that they continue to fuck up some of his favorite game series or did something actually happen between him and konami?

Well, my guess is that its because of Konami's studio of choice for the HD collection.

They chose a mobile device dev, mostly unknown, rather untalented, mobile device dev. Devs with absolutely no real experience doing jack squat on consoles, doing HD games much less HD textures.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/company/92768.html
Studio was also formerly known as PhoenixSoft.

The fact that all those issues that exist within the HD collection doesn't surprise me. What DOES surprise me is that they actually managed to do anything at all with the games, though I guess being given access to all of its code, even if it is incomplete, helped tremendously.

Its like how I have a problem with Square Enix, because they decided to choose Double Helix (another group of rather untalented bubs) to create the new Front Mission game. A Turn-based RPG Mecha game was turned into the weakest, shoddiest piece of Armored Core wannabee I've seen yet.

It's also because both studios wanted these games done dirt cheap. Coincidentally, Double Helix did Silent Hill: Homecoming. Which, while not as horribly bad as the HD collection, was still an uninspired and simplistic mess.

There was a Jimqisition on Konami's poor (Read: completely non existant) marketing and PR. This video was apparentlly shown to execs at Konami who decided that as punishment for being a messenger on their failings that Jim Stirling would be banned.

Banned from what is the question. JS isstill the principle Destructoid reviewer for all of Konamis games. He was refused entry to Konamis PAX booth but otherwise all this decision seemsto haveachieved is a small Streisand effect and an increase of Jim Sterling based Konami mockery on Podtoid.

Chides Family Guy game for being offensive while waving a giant rubber penis at the camera.

This show is devolving past NSFW and into noisy, childish rubbish.

TAdamson:

But Therumancer will probably claim that these terms are invented by liberal academics suffering from "white-guilt" and that his "training" to "spy on people" (I call bullshit.) gives him access to information far in advance of what us mere mortals who post less than 1000 words at a time can comprehend.

Thank heavens i am not the only one that has seen this. Problem is reporting it is annoying because they have to wade through so much fluff to see the offensive bit that it is not seen due to the sheer size of the posts.

I just gave up and put him on my ignore list.

Once again Jim Sterling manages to make one of the most offensive statements I've ever heard. "There is no Christ I am your Christ now". Really I don't appreciate someone trivializing my Lord and Savior with such a revolting comment. Even if you don't agree with my religious standpoint you should have enough dignity as a professional not to demean someone else religion.

I am afraid I must strongly protest your unfair allegations. I did not trivialize your Lord and Savior. I dismissed his entire existence and placed myself higher than he in status and majesty.

When I go to the effort of tearing Christ from his gilded throne and taking my rightful place as God's chosen warrior, when I question the validity of his Holy claims -- for I truly, truly believe that my existence disproves any assertion that he could be the messiah -- I can only be insulted at your suggestion I'd stop at merely "trivializing" him.

To be quite frank, your outright blasphemy has been contentious and vile throughout. That you would DARE directly address me, let alone challenge my Word (for the News is Good) is absolutely disgusting. When I ascend, when I rise to my kingdom of glory on high, you shall quiver, and you shall cry, and your punishment shall be terrible, and your punishment shall be beautiful, and you shall not want it to stop, for even an eternity bound in agonized debt to me is far higher an experience than even a MOMENT bereft of my presence.

Now begone, sinner, and do NOT darken these halls again with your putrid filth.

Yours in contempt,
Jim Sterling, Son of Man, Son of God, All Cop.

Nicolaus99:
Chides Family Guy game for being offensive while waving a giant rubber penis at the camera.

How are these two things similar? Family Guy was offensive. My giant rubber penis is beautiful and majestic. No hypocrisy there, just one awful thing and one glorious thing.

Darkja1:
Once again Jim Sterling manages to make one of the most offensive statements I've ever heard. "There is no Christ I am your Christ now". Really I don't appreciate someone trivializing my Lord and Savior with such a revolting comment. Even if you don't agree with my religious standpoint you should have enough dignity as a professional not to demean someone else religion.

Satire, dude. It's that simple. Jim's entire on-site character is a satire. No one can stand higher than God, because God is just a cultural construct that only has bearing on the lives of believers. If he matters to you, cool beans. He doesn't matter to me. I'm an atheist.

I'd much rather join Jim's pretend-cult than acknowledge the Christian faith, which contains some of the more hateful sacks of flesh I've ever had the dubious pleasure to listen to. The most I do is acknowledge Christianity has having cultural value - pretty much like Greek mythology or Mesopotamian creation myths.

Understand that he's pulling your leg throughout his entire videos, or don't watch them. That's all.

Satire only works when it doesn't alienate it's audience. Just as you wouldn't want me to cram my beliefs or belittle your (yes I know there are Christians who do but show me where I have) I don't appreciate someone making light of my beliefs by claiming he is the second coming while swinging around a giant plastic phalace. All beliefs are protected by the constitution from persecution not just Christians but certainly not just Atheists. I don't understand a mentality where it is OK to belittle someone else's belief publicly but here it is. From internet vids to billboards we can tear down other peoples belief systems.

I don't appreciate you making light of MY belief that I'm the One True Messiah. Stop being so intolerant.

Darkja1:
Satire only works when it doesn't alienate it's audience. Just as you wouldn't want me to cram my beliefs or belittle your (yes I know there are Christians who do but show me where I have) I don't appreciate someone making light of my beliefs by claiming he is the second coming while swinging around a giant plastic phalace. All beliefs are protected by the constitution from persecution not just Christians but certainly not just Atheists. I don't understand a mentality where it is OK to belittle someone else's belief publicly but here it is. From internet vids to billboards we can tear down other peoples belief systems.

I think the Saints Row phallus defeats any pretensions of godliness, honestly. That seems to be the entire point of the thing.

Or is it that Jim's character, as his own self-crowned religious figure, can get away with waving a dildo bat around because that's part of his religious tenets?

I'd seriously rather have fun with this goofy setup than pick it apart for hurting someone's beliefs. Maybe you should just look back on all the jokes involving God or the Hereafter and consider that you're being a tad too much defensive of your faith.

You're a believer. That's cool. It won't stop anyone from making jokes about Jesus walking into a bar in your presence.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here