It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Telika: but but but :

BEWARE OF WHO WILL

DENYYYY YOU

ACCESS TO

INFORMATIOOOOOOOOOOON
avatar
RoseLegion: Why quote me quoting but leave out the citation? :P
Ah well, either way I suppose.
The point is how irrelevant it is, the sort of pompous dramatic sentences that people fetch to parallel their gaming frustration with the issue of totalitarianisms. The matter is not where the pseudo-illustrative quote has been fetched from.
Man, do I miss the times when VGs were just a hobby that had little to do with politics and activism... nowadays it seems no one can't even breathe without unwillingly taking sides, stepping on someone's agenda, or angering X group rather than Y. What the hell happened to the community?
avatar
Avogadro6: Man, do I miss the times when VGs were just a hobby that had little to do with politics and activism... nowadays it seems no one can't even breathe without unwillingly taking sides, stepping on someone's agenda, or angering X group rather than Y. What the hell happened to the community?
I point to the time Reggie Fise-Aime went and killed off the NSider Forums to being a major point when gaming forums started to die off.
avatar
RoseLegion: Why quote me quoting but leave out the citation? :P
Ah well, either way I suppose.
avatar
Telika: The point is how irrelevant it is, the sort of pompous dramatic sentences that people fetch to parallel their gaming frustration with the issue of totalitarianisms. The matter is not where the pseudo-illustrative quote has been fetched from.
avatar
RoseLegion: Why quote me quoting but leave out the citation? :P
Ah well, either way I suppose.
avatar
Telika: The point is how irrelevant it is, the sort of pompous dramatic sentences that people fetch to parallel their gaming frustration with the issue of totalitarianisms. The matter is not where the pseudo-illustrative quote has been fetched from.
If you're looking for relevance you should consider the enitre post, also know as the context rather than picking one sentence out of the entire statement, a quote from a game no less, and focusing on it.

For example this from the same post
avatar
RoseLegion: If it is simply a case of GOG having a set of non-subjective criterion which the game did not meet then there is no reason to look further, much less release it.
or this also from the same post
avatar
RoseLegion: I would like to add on this point however that while having such a set of standards it completely legitimate in my view. Such non-subjective and recurrent standards should I believe be a matter of public record.
This would allow members of the community here, as well as future prospective members, to make informed choices (avoiding controversy such as this thread topic) and as GOG has been a great place for Indy games it would also allow their Devs to be better informed at an early stage as to whether their particular game is likely to be a good fit for GOG thus saving both those Devs and GOG time and money in the cases where they wouldn't be a good fit.
There's the further relevant context that my post you are quoting from was in response directly to the repeated concepts voiced by other users rather than as any direct reply to the specific game or situation in question which I openly stated was not something I felt all that invested in or inclined to assess as I do not believe I am all that suited to assess the value of this particular title given it is outside of my tastes.

None of which fits the defining characteristics of pompous ( Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious ) but which were quite relvant to the context and content of the posts quoted in my response. Unlike your prior which seems to highlight being willfully irrelivant and frankly rather pompous in its own right. Sensationalizing something, quoting out of context, or "shouting" in caps does nothing to foster a high quality or more mature conversation, nor does applying psudo ad hominims in response to a simple request for clarification.

If your intent is to improve the quality of coversation then I would strongly urge a more approprite method. If it was something less constructive then I suppose I see no further motive to continue this particular coversation.
avatar
Klumpen0815: I came to this conclusion because the in-game activation key is the same one that is used to add it to the Desura account. I'd really like to play it but my XP is offline and there's no Linux port, too bad. -.- Damn DRM.
Ah no, that's pretty normal. Keys are 'self generated' by devs on Desura, so they most likely used the same key list.
avatar
RoseLegion: None of which fits the defining characteristics of pompous ( Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious ) but which were quite relvant to the context and content of the posts quoted in my response.
Sorry but when you quote huge generalist and important-sounding philosophical statements on democracy, political censorship and dictatorship, to illustrate a point about legitimate access to porn violence, in the context of complains about a particular videogames shop not selling a particular game, then yeah, the relevancy is feeble, and the disproportion of the notions dragged in makes it pompous. Bringing "denial of access of information" (freedom of the press) in a matter of accessibility to a kill-all-my-neighbours-lolz videogame is illustrative of this rhetorical instrumentalisation of serious notions for ridiculous disputes, that irks me throughout all these threads. That is Calvin yelling about oppression when his mum drags him to the bathtub.

I cannot take seriously those who jump back and forth between "oh noes gog doesn't sell hatred" and "beware beware, remember how dictatorships always limitate access to information". No matter how cool and self-validating it sounds, it's just ridiculously out of place.

I'm pointing this out (and it concerns a huge lot of people in these threads). You're free to disagree, and if you think that hatred-on-gog is illustrative of (or in any way relevant to) the struggle to ensure the access and diversity of information within modern democracies, then carry on. The price is just some remote snickering.
Post edited May 27, 2015 by Telika
avatar
Vainamoinen: snip
Doug Lombardi never said he rejected it based on the trailers. In fact, he seemed to reference some of the accusations and complaints brought up in the Greenlight forums at the time which implied the game promoted genocide and racism and was created by neo-Nazis which all seem to be untrue.

This actually prompted the publishers to reply how the protagonist hates everybody equally and that no children or animals can be killed.

In short, it was originally rejected based on false rumour and false innuendo. Presumably, Gabe stepped in, looked at the situation and corrected the misunderstanding.

Why are so many people claiming Steam's first decision to remove it was justified and correct, when Steam corrected coarse and allowed it? Wouldn't the more informed answer be the latter choice? That Steam realized they actually made a mistake and was listening to uninformed complainers?
avatar
Telika: Sorry but when you quote huge generalist and important-sounding philosophical statements on democracy, political censorship and dictatorship, to illustrate a point about legitimate access to porn violence, in the context of complains about a particular videogames shop not selling a particular game, then yeah, the relevancy is feeble, and the disproportion of the notions dragged in makes it pompous. Bringing "denial of access of information" (freedom of the press) in a matter of accessibility to a kill-all-my-neighbours-lolz videogame is illustrative of this rhetorical instrumentalisation of serious notions for ridiculous disputes, that irks me throughout all these threads. That is Calvin yelling about oppression when his mum drags him to the bathtub.
Thanks.
How could GOG say no to this?

https://youtu.be/tgI41zVTbiY?t=11
The content of this game is suitable for persons aged 18 years and over only.
It contains: Extreme violence - Violence towards defenceless people - Strong language

The content of this game is suitable for persons aged 18 years and over only.
It contains: Extreme violence - Multiple, motiveless killing - Violence towards defenceless people - Strong language

PEGI ratings...
The only difference between Witcher 3 and Hatred is..."Multiple, motiveless killing"
avatar
RoseLegion: None of which fits the defining characteristics of pompous ( Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious ) but which were quite relvant to the context and content of the posts quoted in my response.
avatar
Telika: Sorry but when you quote huge generalist and important-sounding philosophical statements on democracy, political censorship and dictatorship, to illustrate a point about legitimate access to porn violence, in the context of complains about a particular videogames shop not selling a particular game, then yeah, the relevancy is feeble, and the disproportion of the notions dragged in makes it pompous. Bringing "denial of access of information" (freedom of the press) in a matter of accessibility to a kill-all-my-neighbours-lolz videogame is illustrative of this rhetorical instrumentalisation of serious notions for ridiculous disputes, that irks me throughout all these threads. That is Calvin yelling about oppression when his mum drags him to the bathtub.

I cannot take seriously those who jump back and forth between "oh noes gog doesn't sell hatred" and "beware beware, remember how dictatorships always limitate access to information". No matter how cool and self-validating it sounds, it's just ridiculously out of place.

I'm pointing this out (and it concerns a huge lot of people in these threads). You're free to disagree, and if you think that hatred-on-gog is illustrative of (or in any way relevant to) the struggle to ensure the access and diversity of information within modern democracies, then carry on. The price is just some remote snickering.
Again with the single passage out of context quote/reply. Very well your intentions and motives are clear enough and as such I excuse myself from further interactions wtih you unless/until the day when actual context and content become relevant to your posts and replies sans the current heavy helpings of these sorts of things:
http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/02/iib_rhetological_fallacies_EN.png
Post edited May 27, 2015 by RoseLegion
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: That may be true for this particular instance - but what of the future, when multiple distributors refuse to carry a title? Every time they decide to avoid controversy, they become increasingly inclined to avoid anything that they view as dangerous. By refusing to carry certain titles, distributors effectively become censors.

Letting an individual distributor off the hook will only tell other companies that it is okay to restrict their customers. I will oppose any company that threatens my goal: Legal access to all media, without DRM.
So, did GOG refuse to release Hatred to avoid controversy, or are you just guessing?
avatar
RWarehall: The only difference between Witcher 3 and Hatred is..."Multiple, motiveless killing"
Not really. I sometimes wander the country side to kill anything I come across.
These human opponents do have weapons but one of my witcher spells will turn most into mindless cattle, just waiting to be slaughtered.

Not looking forward to playing Hatred but I will most certainly purchase it with the hope to see more. Watching the pointless shitstorm surrounding a game that is no different than 90% of other games is very amusing.
Post edited May 27, 2015 by skylinux
avatar
Telika: Sorry but when you quote huge generalist and important-sounding philosophical statements on democracy, political censorship and dictatorship, to illustrate a point about legitimate access to porn violence, in the context of complains about a particular videogames shop not selling a particular game, then yeah, the relevancy is feeble, and the disproportion of the notions dragged in makes it pompous. Bringing "denial of access of information" (freedom of the press) in a matter of accessibility to a kill-all-my-neighbours-lolz videogame is illustrative of this rhetorical instrumentalisation of serious notions for ridiculous disputes, that irks me throughout all these threads. That is Calvin yelling about oppression when his mum drags him to the bathtub.

I cannot take seriously those who jump back and forth between "oh noes gog doesn't sell hatred" and "beware beware, remember how dictatorships always limitate access to information". No matter how cool and self-validating it sounds, it's just ridiculously out of place.

I'm pointing this out (and it concerns a huge lot of people in these threads). You're free to disagree, and if you think that hatred-on-gog is illustrative of (or in any way relevant to) the struggle to ensure the access and diversity of information within modern democracies, then carry on. The price is just some remote snickering.
can I just copy-pasta this in all the 100 Hatred threads popping up?
Post edited May 27, 2015 by amok
avatar
Telika: Sorry but when you quote huge generalist and important-sounding philosophical statements on democracy, political censorship and dictatorship, to illustrate a point about legitimate access to porn violence, in the context of complains about a particular videogames shop not selling a particular game, then yeah, the relevancy is feeble, and the disproportion of the notions dragged in makes it pompous. Bringing "denial of access of information" (freedom of the press) in a matter of accessibility to a kill-all-my-neighbours-lolz videogame is illustrative of this rhetorical instrumentalisation of serious notions for ridiculous disputes, that irks me throughout all these threads. That is Calvin yelling about oppression when his mum drags him to the bathtub.

I cannot take seriously those who jump back and forth between "oh noes gog doesn't sell hatred" and "beware beware, remember how dictatorships always limitate access to information". No matter how cool and self-validating it sounds, it's just ridiculously out of place.

I'm pointing this out (and it concerns a huge lot of people in these threads). You're free to disagree, and if you think that hatred-on-gog is illustrative of (or in any way relevant to) the struggle to ensure the access and diversity of information within modern democracies, then carry on. The price is just some remote snickering.
avatar
amok: can I just copy-pasta this in all the 100 Hatred threads popping up?
can you? someone should be paying you! good read +1 to both