Malice Song

Well, it's God, so it's probably not that simple. I figure the dude can basically do and incarnate however he pleases. However, wasn't Jesus fairly cross with him at the end? ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?") That's a bit weird then.

Yeah, I just love that people usually make actual points instead of flinging polemics. Half the time I still don't agree (while lurking in general, not this thread), but it does force you to think about your opinion instead of just having it and hopefully grow as a human being in the process. So thanks, community! Also don't ever think a topic is stupid, tired or overdone. Someone's bound to get something out of it.

And that is exactly why I brought up SecretAsianMan's example. It's also what I mean by common courtesy. If I know someone dislikes certain words, I try not to use them. By the same expression of common courtesy I would expect that an accidental slip isn't perceived as a personal attack. Oh no, what I was saying, and maybe wasn't clear enough in doing so, isn't that it's their fault, if they're offended, but potentially how they deal with it. I'm as much against telling them what to think as I am against telling me what to say, but if the latter is the desired outcome of stating to be offended, then I think my perfect logical vulcan nerd brain has every right to ask for a logical explanation to why it should censor itself. And you may consider this petty, but I think it's important to seek a dialog about these things, just because it potentially sets a horrible precedent, as people can be offended by very different things and not all of those situations can nor should be treated equally by the offender. Hence the initial question. I think it's utterly stupid not to do something, just because it offends someone, but it's almost always worthwhile to try to understand why that is the case. If my reading comprehension doesn't fail me, this seems like something everyone can agree on.

I would have thought it's terribly obvious, but I might have miscommunicated. It's the expectation that what other people are offended by should have an impact on other people's behaviour to a bigger extent than what common courtesy would dictate. People can get offended over whatever they want, however as soon as I am supposed to change my language because of that, at the very least I inquire why that is the case, as I am doing now, to figure out an appropriate reaction.

If language means more than just bare translations (which I agree with), then surely context is a deciding factor in this, which is what I was proposing. Unless of course the recipient of the message completely shuts out everything else and focuses purely on that one word and letting it colour the entire message in a predetermined way, when there's so much more to it. Just take SecretAsianMan's example. Surely it is very reasonable to cut down on swearing or completely cut it out, if you know that your friend is uncomfortable with it. So if you use it regularly under different circumstances, but in that situation accidentally drop your first f-bomb two hours into a conversation, don't you have to take into account the whole course of the conversation? How can this, when it's clearly showing the effort of restraint, be equally offensive as if he didn't care, at all? I realize that this has nothing to do with whether the word itself is offensive, but at that point it hardly even matters anymore, because my point wasn't but rather: "Words are a tool for communication. Words themself hardly matter beyond the point of conveying meaning. If people twist the message into something else than its meaning by focusing on a single word while completely disregarding context, that's just ridiculous." And yes, unless the implication here is that the function of the message is to actually offend the recipient or make him uncomfortable, twisting the message is exactly what is happening, if the recipient is genuinely offended. I did ask for an explanation and I got one. And I will reflect upon it further. For now, I fail to agree. On a hopefully more amusing note I'll let a far wiser man than me speak on the topic in the meantime:

Yeah, I can't argue with that or anything else you wrote, for that matter. As I said, I can't state with certainty that it is indeed a misunderstanding. Maybe all those openminded talks have been had already, to no effect, and I just wasn't around to witness them. Your post implies as much and I would assume you to be more knowledgable about this than me. And the last thing I want to suggest is to load the burden onto the feminists, I think a mutual understanding can't really be reached without mutual effort. I don't know, I guess I'm just comming from a rather naive or idealistic place. Like you've put it, "hopping on board for some of the basic feminist positions"? Here's the thing, I am not even entirely sure I know what that means. Which probably doesn't come as a surprise. If it means what I think it does, then yeah, and I have no idea how anyone could disagree with that. Maybe that's why am playing devil's advocate and want to give the benefit of doubt. It's just something I was wondering about. I don't know Mr Krahulik and can't speak for him but the whole thing had a "deer in the headlights" vibe for me personally and I might be totally wrong in that judgement. I just know that I had the luxury to be quiet, soak up a lot of information and not having to make too much of an ass off myself. If I was in his position, I might have reacted in a similarly unfortunate manner. But I'm not making that judgement. It's just a point I felt I needed to bring up and see what you guys think about it. In the end, listen, read, learn is probably all you can do to really gain an understanding. I think I can understand the whole boycotting thing, but I was hoping there's a better way to deal with it. Potentially having to acknowledge that there may not be one is unfortunate, to say the least.

What, you mean you wouldn't listen to that? Anyways OMG good luck guys!

Yeah, this is my baby request for today, but if someone could explain this ... It ain't my first language and different cultures have different approaches expressed in language, but surely there's a difference whether I tell another adult "that movie was fucking great" or a child to "go fuck yourself", so already the word itself is merely an expression and it's all about context. Why anyone would be universally offended by a word itself just baffles the shit out of me.

Is it really a tactic? Personally I am tired of people whining about being offended about everything. Whether or not I can make good points for why I think that way, at least to me (and that may be a wrong perception) it seems there's been a lot of that recently. And I was genuinely ignorant enough that the Penny Arcade incident just felt like more of that at first. It may be a trope, but I can kind of empathize with feeling as if a moral judgement is constantly pushed upon you for the things you enjoy. Of course that's not the case here, but that might not be initially apparent to everyone. I totally agree with you about attitude. This is why I enjoy this place, I know there's real conversation to be had with intelligent people and if I have a differing perspective, I have breathing room to reflect upon it. What I've seen in the usual comment sections is a bit different, however. The self proclaimed free speech defenders are dropping some pretty vile statements, but at the same time the other side isn't exactly patient, either. I don't know, maybe that discussion has been had too often and I am just fashionably late to the party as usual. Of course that goes the other way, too. As Gormongous said, you can try to seek a dialog, but you might not know beforehand if it has any hope of success. Meh, I guess I am just slightly frustrated about how the first victim of any heated argument is empathy. See, that's the thing. I think I can understand that, but you also might be a lot further than other people. And I think (or at the very least sincerely hope) the respose isn't to the pain and distress (I don't have much faith in humanity but at the end of the day I have a hard time believing the majority of these people are actually advocating sexual abuse), but to the reaction to what they perceive as just a joke. That that amounts to more or less the same thing might be flying over a lot of folks' heads. Of course it would be great if no one had to be educated on this and I'm not going out of my way to try to, either. I just know it can be pretty tough to put yourself in someone else's shoes, especially if you don't have a good point of reference, so there's probably a lot to what clyde wrote. But yeah, I don't really have an answer, either. It's just that I started to wonder whether it might be a good idea for "us" to try and understand "them", too, because I can't shake the feeling that a lot of the barking is just defensive posture over an unfortunate misunderstanding. But as mentioned, the whole thing is a bit puzzling to me on that level, so I am just glad to read some opinions.

Okay, this might make me appear as a giant douche, but something about this has been bothering me for a while now and while it may be trivially basic for someone that isn't me, I'd still be interested in reading some opinions. Initially I was probably pretty far one the side of the hopeless individuals. I enjoy dark, shocking and offensive humor. My basic reaction in cases like this where I am reasonably sure something isn't just done with the sole intention to be hurtful is pretty much: "Oh, you're offended? Deal with it." However, reading a bit into this saga I stumbled upon a blogpost or something (sorry, didn't keep the link) from a rape victim stating that a reference to the act, no matter the context, can be enough to trigger a case of PTSD or anxiety attacks. Which changed a lot. Imo there's a clear difference in people getting pushed to the edge of their comfort zone (not a bad thing) and being affected on a psychological and/or physical level (certainly a bad thing). So I changed my personal tune quite a bit and while I don't see a clearcut solution for the scenario, I think I did get a much better understanding where "the other side" is comming from and that this isn't a matter of having an opinion, but a real tangible problem that needs to be adressed. So my point is: I probably was pretty naive/sheltered not knowing these things, granted. But I can't imagine I'm being alone in that and I had the good fortune to keep away from comment sections, do some reading and stumble upon a post that basically was "look, let's not resort to namecalling, there's a real problem and I'm going to explain it". Obviously I can't speak for other people and whether they're just as ignorant as me or genuinely ill-spirited bastards, but wouldn't it be better to try and establish a dialog and educate them on the real problem, instead of vilifying them? You know, just in case.

Since we had that "blowjob in the car" incident, isn't that line technically more or less crossed already?

Yeah, I can see your point, there is definitely something to be said for being slightly forced to try new things. And I am still undecided whether I enjoyed the game. It is seriously addictive, though, I will say that, and it's the first game ever I cleared out in terms of achievements, something I usually never bother to do. So there is definitely something there. Reflecting on it a bit it just feels as if it is working against itself in a few places and the heir randomness is not a bad example of that. On paper I really enjoy the random element, upgrades, however, aren't random and that's just one of these things. The upgrade path being a deliberate player choice at some point just feels like being sabotaged by the randomness of heir classes. Such as in rolling a triple Hokage after dumping all your money into Crit%. Random is good when it's across the board, but those instances merely felt like the game trolling to me. Same with fairy chests that are unreachable without specific runes, which cements this vibe of being stuck with an underachieving character. Then again, as you said, that type of challenge might actually be the charme that I am missing. And it's not like I disliked the game, it just feels like a solid foundation that needs a sequel to finetune the concept a bit further. I guess what I'm saying is they probably should make a trilogy afaik. Rogue Legacy 2 - Return of Rogue and Rogue Origins gogogo.

Now the question is how are we going to get Jeffgold Coolgame into the 2014 version.

That was actually the exact opposite for me. Then again, I usually like options to have a choice, not to experience them all and that hit pretty hard here. At some point I figured out that all I really needed was a Spellsword, preferrably with Flame Barrier, for bosses and a Lichqueen/-king with Crow Storm for anything else. The repetitive nature of some of the achievements and upgrade system notwithstanding, that and a significant dislike for the Knave and the last class turned having a choice at the heir selection screen into a mechanic I'm not sure I'm too thrilled about. It's like you're having some amount of impact, which makes getting stuck with an heir you're not too thrilled about even more shaded in meh. Being stuck with a spelunker with muscle weakness because your other candidates either had vertigo or were farsighted (legitimately stomachturning in my case) on a run that won't really lead to anything makes it rather tempting to just give in to carelesness. And at that point you're not far from grinding the heir select screen. Maybe not something like levelgrinding in the traditional sense, but it did remind me of old CRPGs and rerolling stats at character creation for hours. I just might have my priorities wrong and should be more accepting of that challenge, but I couldn't help but make comparisons to stuff like Binding of Isaac or Dungeons of Dredmor. What you start with there matters only to a certain degree, the interesting part is what it develops into. Rogue Legacy, on the other hand, stretches progression over the entire game and almost entirely eliminates it from an individual run. Which isn't necessarilly bad, but it went a bit weird for me personally, when I was rooting for that Crow Storm Lich to roll, because I knew I'd be in for a favorable run, with a certainty I felt I shouldn't have had.

So I (hopefully) finished Rogue Legacy. I am not really into achievements, but this one got the 100% treatment. The first one to get it (since I can't ever remember to fire up Costume Quest on christmas). Snagged the last chievement on NG+++ and may or may not go ahead and purchase every single upgrade. That game is extremely addictive. However, I'm not sure if I enjoyed the ride. I think I didn't, but really, how do you judge stuff like that?

Obvious pick imo: edit My bad, doublechecking reveals you are quite correct.

It's such a downer, though. We're all rushing towards death. And there goes the mood. I'll just forage for some dark eyeshadow and stand in the corner with the other sunflowers.

Good effort, execution would have benefitted from hose.

Not sure if item combinations in these games are considered spoiler-ish, but On a sidenote, Link's Awakening seems to get quite a bit of love around here. This makes me happy.

In case this is not a rhetorical question, it is the latter. If I haven't completely misunderstood the concept and am just pulling shit out of my ass, the brain perceives time differently depending on information intake. (Should this be bogus I'd be happy for someone to point that out, because it's one of the most depressing things ever.)

If I am not entirelly mistaken, it didn't really make a difference, by trying to get further you should have unlocked everything that came with finishing that run up to that point and the only thing you potentially missed out on was the ending scene. There's actually still a good chunk to do after that, Isaac always seemed somewhat ambivalent in terms of when its actually finished, since, surprisingly, it's not entirely providing a clear-cut "propper" path from that point. Also just beat The Walking Dead. That game's kinda good. I don't know, there isn't even much to say except that I'm really glad with the way this was constructed. At first I thought "wait a second, this isn't a game", echoing some of the criticism I've heard about it before, but you know what, the most fun with a Telltale title (with any adventure game, actually) was with Back to the Future, and I attribute that to the fact that I never got stuck on a puzzle with that one and it just flowed really well. Same here, even though in hindsight some of the choices I had to make don't really seem to have had much of an impact, it seems to me that a lot of the focus was on story and choices. In which case, yeah, why throw some arbitrary stuff in there that distracts from the flow and the writing, which was excellent and highly deserved to hog the spotlight. Extra props for

Some coupons on Steam, if anyone is interested. Edit: Timelimit expired.

At one point I'm going to sound like a broken record, since I am championing this all the time, but since you mentioned it: If you want survival feeling and are willing to do some research, Fallout 3 with mods can seriously deliver. Hunger/thirst/sleep, injury systems including bleed out, broken bones, traumata and radiation poisoning, the need to cook meat on a campfire to avoid food poisoning, greatly reduced ammount of bullets and medicine lying around untouched, more realistic sneaking and combat, the beautiful shock when you hear the sound of ants and realize that you're actually scared ... basically whatever you want the wasteland to punish you with, there's some mod out there that provides it.

Well, as far as Tetris is concerned, definitely the GB version imo. But the whole thread is kind of touching the direction I hinted at a bit and you've said it yourself: you'd chose games that are actually fun to play. However, that's a rather subjective term. For example, at the end of the day I think I'm what can be referred to as a "Gamer". However, I didn't enjoy the Mario games I played (with the exception of SMB 3), I didn't enjoy the Zelda games I played (with the CRAZY exception of Link's Awakening), I flat out resented Sands of Time and the list of classics I cannot associate with fun goes on and on. Which is part of why this is so difficult, games are just already fairly varied in terms of genre and, at the end of the day, individual reception. Which is why I had to think for a bit about my examples, because the goal was really to find games that do several things really well within an acceptably short timespan: story, atmosphere, exploration, action, puzzles, customization and so on and so forth. Those are fairly strong titles imo, I thought about Pong myself.

Not having seen anything about that game, this was pretty much the most marvelous description I could have expected. I was trying to picture the game in my mind based on your input and the result was a giant clusterfuck of panda, baumkuchen and sheer, beautiful entropy. I will never play that game, but today is the day I regret that fact. I'm not even joking, that was a gorgeous write up.