Malice Song

I don't think the public has an interest, which is why I quoted and linked what's considered proof. You can have whatever interest you like with that. In the meantime it would be pretty awesome not to interpret intent into my posts that's not there. Sure thing, it's removed. Sorry if that's a breach of ToS/etiquette, I figured, as you mentioned, if it's out there and can clarify something. But yes, it is all things considered not even relevant.

Afaik it's addressed in the ex's tl;dr post. I will have a look at some tweets then, the steam page back then struck me as a similar situation to Gone Home, I'll check if something changed. Thanks for the info!

Out of curiosity, since I tried to follow the whole thing a bit and there are apparently legitimate concerns that she might have pulled the harassing and invasion of privacy out of her ass, is there a source or anything that would address concerns like that?

It kind of is.

Allegedly she's done a bit more than that. And the conversation (where it's allowed to happen) actually seems to have shifted to what you are proposing, quite decidedly so. I'm not 100% certain about the whole ordeal (then again, who is with this clusterfuck), but the escapist has a thread on its forum about it that hasn't been locked down, if you want to read up on it.

I can throw 3 additional 25% off coupons for Broken Age into the mix. Valid until Saturday, March 15, 2014 btw.

Is the hair thing even a feminism issue? Slightly reminds me of a similar situation with Metallica ages ago. People just seem to feel entitled to the lifestyle choices of public figures. Guess it doesn't even matter, it's utterly bizarre either way.

Figured it might hint at this, brought up a few pages earlier.

It's definitely not the same and I wouldn't even claim it to be a good analogy. I think it definitely isn't. That wasn't the reason for me bringing it up, though. I have to admit the notion of ignoring the creative work is very baffling to me, but I don't intend to challenge it, rather to understand it. I doubt that I am going to agree in the end, so it is probably a bit selfish to even bring it up, it's just that I think it's important and rewarding to have discurses like this that end in "agree to disagree" instead of outright dismissal. Does feel a bit like steering the thread offtopic, though, apologies for that.

Oh definitely, but I think that a work of art can give enjoyment to other people's lives or maybe even inspire them to pursue something with more tangible benefits like said cure, independent of that art's creator. Of course stating something like that is a bit like constructing a house of cards in that it is so, I don't know, intangible and something I could just easilly be pulling out of my ass, but as you said, art's purely subjective and it's hard to know what effect it actually has, since that's not something you can accurately measure. The thing about that, though, is, as you said, I can't state that the world would be worse off without a specific piece of art, but I think widening that to art as a whole might be a different matter. Might be, I don't know, it's more of a gut feeling that a world without art would be a miserable place. But if that actually were the case and the value of art is subjective, then it becomes hard to see how we could exclude any specific piece of art from that in the first place. Of course, since I feel like I might be running into something here, as a disclaimer that's only applicable to the notion of a general ban on that sort of art. If someone's personal choice is not to consume it anymore because his knowledge of its creator diminishes or even eradicates his enjoyment of the art itself - I personally feel that's unfortunate, but it is what it is and I don't mean my wall of questions to imply something along the lines of "you are wrong, watch this man's movies!".

Sorry, there are a few questions I have to throw out there for those of you who would rather stay away from creative works, if the creator's a dipshit. Would that attitude change if the creation in question was a cure for AIDS for example? If so, why? Even if a work of art would be seen merely as a reflection of its creator, wouldn't it be valuable for society as a whole to have that accessible especially because the creator shows problematic traits and something about that might be learned from his work? Would you welcome the removal of his work from public access, if it was ordered by a governing body and not an isolated case? Is there a difference between a convicted pedophile and one that never acted upon his disposition, thus never broke a law and harmed other people, but displays the same tendencies in his creative work?

Plus it doesn't really help that the game itself presents the matter basically exactly that way. I mean, it tells you how many guys you dropped and your overall chaos rating after each mission. This seems especially problematic considering that I as the protagonist should be concerned with getting the job done and not much else. I think there also might be a difference in morality as interpreted by individual actors and as interpreted by the game itself and thus the developers or some non-fictional entity. The former, as Dragon Age seems to do it, is fine. The latter most certainly is not, since it pushes a set of morals on a character that I am supposed to embody. To stay with Dishonored a little bit longer (Knife of Dunwall Poilers comming up) Of course this isn't an entirely correct assessment, since "morality" here isn't exactly about judgement of my or the protagonist's morals in an absolute way, but rather how the fictional society as a whole is going to perceive and/or react to them. So I guess at least on paper there isn't even an intended moral judgement going on in the first place for all I know. Then again I'm not the one who set up the binary post-mission scoring card tied to body count and nothing else. That's true, but I think there's an argument to be had about whether that might just be slapping a different name on the same thing. In essence the game is still telling you that it tracks how often you kill a guy and that it models the outcome of the game's plot on that number and that number alone - it's really hard to accept this system as just a development of the society you live in rather than a judgement of your personal actions when the former is completely dependant on the latter considering all the things that should actually contribute to it. Especially since that society is not only dependant on the success of your mission, but (minor storyspoiler) Which I'd imagine should shape the world far more than the number of "unimportant" dudes you off. It is very likely that I misunderstand the game's story, but in the end it seemed to me like the most likely outcome for the masked vigilante you are playing, somewhat regardless of how you're doing it, would be to become some sort of folk tale at best. And to throw in a contender of my own: padding out your game by forcing players to play the exact thing again. And again. And again. Or as one offender lovingly calls it: campaign system. I am not sure how worthy this is of even harping on, since to my knowledge it's an mmo thing and by god that genre has enough going on to fill an entire thread of these to begin with, but this one basically presents a piece of content in form of a map with a few quests that let you accumulate a certain ammount of ressources. To progress with whatever the hell it is you are actually trying to achieve you need a specific number of ressources that can only be achieved by playing through that map more than once. More like several dozen times, really. To pad it out even further, the content is gated by a cooldown timer usually in the form of "do this once a day, then go spend some money in our cash shops or whatever". While whining about bad mechanics in mmos is the Citizen Kane of trying to teach cows tapdancing, this one is so incredibly bold I'd admire it if I wasn't forced to quit a game in disgust whenever it rears its head. Alternatives? If your playerbase gets bored of your content faster than you can release it, stop trying and give it systems that let it create their own content instead like the abilty to play actual roles in roleplaying games instead of casting every single player in a substandard singleplayer game where the height of player interaction is chatblocking goldfarmers.

Gotta admit, for the first two reviews I skimmed over I completely bought it. And as has been mentioned, there is something weirdly, I don't know, relevant about it. If I ever needed to know just what exactly a game is at its core, this is a beautifully concise resource. Of course, this gem should probably give it away even for the slightly slower gentlefolk like myself. Well played, sir, well played.

This is just all sorts of amazing.

This is half of what pushes me away from the sleeping option. I don't think it's really an obvious answer. Plus I would not be surprised if you'd miss the structure in your life that sleep provides after a while on a very deep level. If you could choose to sleep for 2 hours or so every day, though, that potential issue might be solvable. No more eating on the other hand sounds absolutely dreamy to me. Since no hidden drawbacks I would assume that your body just stayed in check nutritionally by default (even if you decided to eat something every now and then), so having that part of physical health covered without even trying, the minor time gain from not having to cook and everything that entails plus the substantial savings of not having to buy food (or a kitchen, for that matter) anymore seems like a very appealing mix of benefits.