WWE & TNA Forum
Wrestling News
Loading...


Go Back   WrestleZone Forums > Non-Wrestling Non Spam Sections > The WrestleZone Symposium
Register FAQForum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Arcade vBookie

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-07-2018, 02:43 PM
enviousdominous's Avatar
enviousdominous enviousdominous is offline
Behold my diction
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,866
enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

I don't usually get into the fray when there's a controversy involving video games. And I'm still cautiously on the fringe of what I'm about to touch on, mainly because when it comes to people on either side of a video game related argument chances are good that either side has an attitude that would make a sailor cringe. Gamergate introduced me to some pretty disgusting people on either side of the debate.

Video games are like wine, even the terrible ones have a following. As technology evolved, certain aesthetics were discovered as being conducive to making people who play video games want to spend more money on them. Dare I, a very proud and staunch capitalist, suggest that there are moral limits to when a company should stop making as much money as they possibly can and by doing so afford concern toward addicts of their brand. Pretty much what I'm doing here is going against the grain of my fiscal ethics and rant about a particular genre of video game.

Freemium games. These things are horrible, and are also insanely lucrative.

Freemium games wouldn't exist if video games hadn't been built previously on a principal of ultimate achievement. You hack through an impossibly hard game like Ninja Gaiden and end up with an Engrish sounding "You are winner!" and thus have years of bragging rights among your peers at school. Imagine if one of those lowly friends of yours had a few bucks to spend while at that crucial moment in the final level and could invest that money into the game to not have to waste another week trying in vain to be as good as you. They'd probably go for it.

For people who play video games; video games make us feel good, and they make us feel great when we are known as the best at them. At times we'll pretend as though it's not such a big deal, because having reflexes as awesome as ours make it child's play that a particular challenge was bested while it keeps several million other players blocked from discovering more content. Trust me; for all gamers the ultimate prize is being known among your peers that they cannot beat you.

In video games, if someone says "you cheated, blah blah blah" after you defeated them, they just sound like a poor loser to other gamers or a complete loser to those who don't play video games and wonder why a source of pride could be derived from them. Freemium games with an option for players to play against each other prominently feature a ranking system, that provides a worldwide perspective on who is the best at the game. Notice that there is no such thing as a freemium game that has a worldwide system that differentiates those who paid real money for an advantage. By not stigmatizing those who essentially bought their status, these games tap-dance around the idea that you have to pay up to be the best.

I'm guilty of putting real money toward a freemium game for the sake of easing the challenge of that game slightly by having a more powerful avatar. I would say, at the most, I've invested $10 in a game similar to the old 1942 game that I honestly never even play anymore. I might take pride in the fact that I haven't spent a lot of my hard earned cash on these games, but then I think about how many more weak willed people might have had the same attitude and thus it rained virtually-endless amounts of $10 bills for that company.

I'm offended by the marketing practice, not because it's an unfair way to achieve status in a pretend world, but because it's literally an investment in nothing. These games are minimal in what they offer in terms of graphics and plot, and their updates are typically just a means of spending more money on them. The WWE currently has four freemium games that I know of. I've played them all, and they're all cheap garbage. If you paid five thousand dollars on any one of these games, you would find yourself only slightly closer to the status of an addicted whale who has collectively spent ten times that amount on their addiction. Spending money on these games gets you nowhere, and does nothing to encourage the developers to honor you in some way. If you want status, you have to spend more than everybody else.

Time is currency. I have a few friends who religiously play games like Clash of Clans or Game of War, and they are completely oblivious to the concept that their time is worth money. When you're bored and want to kill some time, a video game is a fun alternative to reading a book on carpentry. When you have responsibilities and thus have a mountain of tasks that need to be completed, a video game is an unhealthy means of procrastination. If you really want to spend your money on a freemium game, it's your money. I find it startling that so many people don't even consider their time to be worth anything. Most freemium games employ a concept of having a timer setup to prevent constant upgrading or limit an amount of attempts at a challenge. My friends will literally be checking the time every minute just so that they can pounce back onto their phone and play their game some more. If you're a wealthy businessman who needs a vice to replace a more unhealthy addiction and can afford blowing through $500 every time they play a game, that's fine. I ask that people consider the amount of time they spend tapping away at their game, and consider just how much actual progress was made within the game in the weeks that they spent playing.

The most egregious example of this concept is the concept of loot crates. I cannot play any game that employs or casually permits this marketing concept, thus I'm saying that I've quit all MMORPGs. Beyond loot crates, I'm as offended at the notion of entire markets being in place that trade real money for in game content. I even feel this way toward life simulators, where if you dig deep enough you'll realize that people only participate in them for sexual content. It's worse in these examples, because you're essentially paying a fee on top of a fee. Most of these games can't be played for free, you have to buy them or pay a monthly fee to experience them. These games can't technically be called "freemium" because they're not even free. When the experience isn't fulfilling enough, instead of quitting the stupid game and doing something more fun and less costly, there are people who will invest so much money into these games that they're stuck with a sunk costs fallacy if they ever think about deleting the game. That game is all they have to show for their efforts that earned that money.

I wish that this was a problem like Bitcoin or the housing crisis where eventually interest would wane and profits would plummet. Freemium games are a totally different beast. If a game loses popularity, a new one is made and some of those who found the strength to leave the old one are now tempted to begin an entirely new experience and potentially get a head start on anyone else who might get on board. I don't think that mankind will ever evolve to recognize that there should be a spending limit regarding our own petty indulgences.

We're going through a bit of a virtual revolution. It's not catching on with everyone, thankfully. We love to immerse ourselves in some kind of online persona, whether it be a Twitter handle with tens of thousands of followers who like every stupid thing that you post, or being an obscure curmudgeon named enviousdominous on the WrestleZone forums. For some, their choice in an online persona is that of the top player in Game of War. I personally think that it's horrible that people are charged money for what amounts to moving a little faster on a road to nowhere, and that games that employ that concept are shameless about advertising that their game is more addicting than the rest.

I won't tell someone what their definition of fun should be. For some people, spending money on anything is more fun than anything else. For some people, being lured into an unhealthy spending habit which offers literally nothing in return when they hardly have the financial means to support the habit is more fun than anything else. I consider someone's idea of fun to be a delusion when they're only playing the game to cope with what they've become, an addict.

I grew up on video games, prowrestling, and Pink Floyd. Video games for me should be something that you play for fun, maybe for bragging rights, but ultimately something where if you put it away and never played it again you wouldn't be out any more money than your original investment of $59.99.
__________________
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. - Hamlet

Last edited by enviousdominous : 03-07-2018 at 02:49 PM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-07-2018, 06:06 PM
THTRobtaylor's Avatar
THTRobtaylor THTRobtaylor is offline
Once & Future Wrestlezone Columnist
World Heavyweight Champion
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,324
THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...THTRobtaylor is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enviousdominous View Post
I don't usually get into the fray when there's a controversy involving video games. And I'm still cautiously on the fringe of what I'm about to touch on, mainly because when it comes to people on either side of a video game related argument chances are good that either side has an attitude that would make a sailor cringe. Gamergate introduced me to some pretty disgusting people on either side of the debate.

Video games are like wine, even the terrible ones have a following. As technology evolved, certain aesthetics were discovered as being conducive to making people who play video games want to spend more money on them. Dare I, a very proud and staunch capitalist, suggest that there are moral limits to when a company should stop making as much money as they possibly can and by doing so afford concern toward addicts of their brand. Pretty much what I'm doing here is going against the grain of my fiscal ethics and rant about a particular genre of video game.

Freemium games. These things are horrible, and are also insanely lucrative.

Freemium games wouldn't exist if video games hadn't been built previously on a principal of ultimate achievement. You hack through an impossibly hard game like Ninja Gaiden and end up with an Engrish sounding "You are winner!" and thus have years of bragging rights among your peers at school. Imagine if one of those lowly friends of yours had a few bucks to spend while at that crucial moment in the final level and could invest that money into the game to not have to waste another week trying in vain to be as good as you. They'd probably go for it.

For people who play video games; video games make us feel good, and they make us feel great when we are known as the best at them. At times we'll pretend as though it's not such a big deal, because having reflexes as awesome as ours make it child's play that a particular challenge was bested while it keeps several million other players blocked from discovering more content. Trust me; for all gamers the ultimate prize is being known among your peers that they cannot beat you.

In video games, if someone says "you cheated, blah blah blah" after you defeated them, they just sound like a poor loser to other gamers or a complete loser to those who don't play video games and wonder why a source of pride could be derived from them. Freemium games with an option for players to play against each other prominently feature a ranking system, that provides a worldwide perspective on who is the best at the game. Notice that there is no such thing as a freemium game that has a worldwide system that differentiates those who paid real money for an advantage. By not stigmatizing those who essentially bought their status, these games tap-dance around the idea that you have to pay up to be the best.

I'm guilty of putting real money toward a freemium game for the sake of easing the challenge of that game slightly by having a more powerful avatar. I would say, at the most, I've invested $10 in a game similar to the old 1942 game that I honestly never even play anymore. I might take pride in the fact that I haven't spent a lot of my hard earned cash on these games, but then I think about how many more weak willed people might have had the same attitude and thus it rained virtually-endless amounts of $10 bills for that company.

I'm offended by the marketing practice, not because it's an unfair way to achieve status in a pretend world, but because it's literally an investment in nothing. These games are minimal in what they offer in terms of graphics and plot, and their updates are typically just a means of spending more money on them. The WWE currently has four freemium games that I know of. I've played them all, and they're all cheap garbage. If you paid five thousand dollars on any one of these games, you would find yourself only slightly closer to the status of an addicted whale who has collectively spent ten times that amount on their addiction. Spending money on these games gets you nowhere, and does nothing to encourage the developers to honor you in some way. If you want status, you have to spend more than everybody else.

Time is currency. I have a few friends who religiously play games like Clash of Clans or Game of War, and they are completely oblivious to the concept that their time is worth money. When you're bored and want to kill some time, a video game is a fun alternative to reading a book on carpentry. When you have responsibilities and thus have a mountain of tasks that need to be completed, a video game is an unhealthy means of procrastination. If you really want to spend your money on a freemium game, it's your money. I find it startling that so many people don't even consider their time to be worth anything. Most freemium games employ a concept of having a timer setup to prevent constant upgrading or limit an amount of attempts at a challenge. My friends will literally be checking the time every minute just so that they can pounce back onto their phone and play their game some more. If you're a wealthy businessman who needs a vice to replace a more unhealthy addiction and can afford blowing through $500 every time they play a game, that's fine. I ask that people consider the amount of time they spend tapping away at their game, and consider just how much actual progress was made within the game in the weeks that they spent playing.

The most egregious example of this concept is the concept of loot crates. I cannot play any game that employs or casually permits this marketing concept, thus I'm saying that I've quit all MMORPGs. Beyond loot crates, I'm as offended at the notion of entire markets being in place that trade real money for in game content. I even feel this way toward life simulators, where if you dig deep enough you'll realize that people only participate in them for sexual content. It's worse in these examples, because you're essentially paying a fee on top of a fee. Most of these games can't be played for free, you have to buy them or pay a monthly fee to experience them. These games can't technically be called "freemium" because they're not even free. When the experience isn't fulfilling enough, instead of quitting the stupid game and doing something more fun and less costly, there are people who will invest so much money into these games that they're stuck with a sunk costs fallacy if they ever think about deleting the game. That game is all they have to show for their efforts that earned that money.

I wish that this was a problem like Bitcoin or the housing crisis where eventually interest would wane and profits would plummet. Freemium games are a totally different beast. If a game loses popularity, a new one is made and some of those who found the strength to leave the old one are now tempted to begin an entirely new experience and potentially get a head start on anyone else who might get on board. I don't think that mankind will ever evolve to recognize that there should be a spending limit regarding our own petty indulgences.

We're going through a bit of a virtual revolution. It's not catching on with everyone, thankfully. We love to immerse ourselves in some kind of online persona, whether it be a Twitter handle with tens of thousands of followers who like every stupid thing that you post, or being an obscure curmudgeon named enviousdominous on the WrestleZone forums. For some, their choice in an online persona is that of the top player in Game of War. I personally think that it's horrible that people are charged money for what amounts to moving a little faster on a road to nowhere, and that games that employ that concept are shameless about advertising that their game is more addicting than the rest.

I won't tell someone what their definition of fun should be. For some people, spending money on anything is more fun than anything else. For some people, being lured into an unhealthy spending habit which offers literally nothing in return when they hardly have the financial means to support the habit is more fun than anything else. I consider someone's idea of fun to be a delusion when they're only playing the game to cope with what they've become, an addict.

I grew up on video games, prowrestling, and Pink Floyd. Video games for me should be something that you play for fun, maybe for bragging rights, but ultimately something where if you put it away and never played it again you wouldn't be out any more money than your original investment of $59.99.
With you on the freemium games, the WWE Supercard one was relatively fun for a while in a "can play it on the train or while queing type way... but then they started the "team" game, which you needed to be part of a team to get decent card.

And almost immediately, posts on various groups from "team owners" came into being using words like "grinders", "proof needed", "must co-ordinate battle" and the worst one? "We get the event card in 3 hours?". Basically these losers who play a freemium game their whole life, cos they don't work, or seem to do anything else now expect others to do as they do and act like bosses... literally like the team is a job. Suddenly anyone who doesn't quite measure up was a "freeloader" and it killed the game for me.

I DID find a good team, but even then it was too onerous...and it soured the game, and others like it for me.

To be fair, the model of grinding is a big problem for me in games... it's pointless and kills the fun. Something like Elite Dangerous was interesting but ended up endless small missions and grinding when I worked out again, the "community goals..." grinded one to a silly degree as it was easy, and ended up with enough money to buy and upgrade any ship... so stopped playing as the challenge was gone. It even made the WWE2K games now where you have to "grind" currency to buy shit, or pay double the price of the game.

DLC at times I don't mind... Fallout New Vegas was the pinnacle for me, where it was well thought out, added to the game each time and was worth paying for... Fallout 4, never bothered with...though I did for Farcry 4... but lo and behold, for 5 you need to spend more. It's getting stupid.

Personally, I think some games like the WWE2K ones should work like this.

Buy the game/engine for 15... it includes the basic match modes/game modes and 20 wrestlers, a couple of the "top names" that the E want to push, some dross like Rawley that no one is gonna by and a couple of tag teams... Then you select the rest of how the game works according to what you want... you want a retro only game with legends and oldschool graphics? that pack is 15, but there's no Cena, Reigns or the new guys and only retro matches/ring set ups etc... likewise, if you want the modern game you do the same...that too is 15 but doesn't include ANY legends...

Likewise you can go somewhere in the middle and do an Attitude Era pack... no-one after 2002 included or before 1997 and everything more "adult".

The key here is they get EVERYONE in the packs... so if you buy the Golden Era pack, everyone from Hillbilly Jim to George The Animal to One Man Gang to Savage and Warrior are in there and all the old tag teams.

Same for the Attitude, so the Mean Street Posse, Gangrel, Al Snow and even Brian Pillman are in there. The modern one, use NXT to bump up the numbers with guys like EC3, Ricochet and of course Ronda...

You can then have some DLC additionally that costs upto another 15, for move sets, exclusive character packs or the ability to have custom ring music, but the game still only costs you 75 tops to buy it all.

Most would spend the 75 eventually... you'd get bored playing endless Hogan era stuff when you can't do Elimination Chamber or TLC matches for example but the idea of having that retro version would appeal to many fans, likewise they'd want the Attitude pack.

The danger is that the modern pack would be the worst seller I guess.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-08-2018, 09:32 AM
enviousdominous's Avatar
enviousdominous enviousdominous is offline
Behold my diction
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,866
enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THTRobtaylor View Post
With you on the freemium games, the WWE Supercard one was relatively fun for a while in a "can play it on the train or while queing type way... but then they started the "team" game, which you needed to be part of a team to get decent card.

And almost immediately, posts on various groups from "team owners" came into being using words like "grinders", "proof needed", "must co-ordinate battle" and the worst one? "We get the event card in 3 hours?". Basically these losers who play a freemium game their whole life, cos they don't work, or seem to do anything else now expect others to do as they do and act like bosses... literally like the team is a job. Suddenly anyone who doesn't quite measure up was a "freeloader" and it killed the game for me.

I DID find a good team, but even then it was too onerous...and it soured the game, and others like it for me.

To be fair, the model of grinding is a big problem for me in games... it's pointless and kills the fun. Something like Elite Dangerous was interesting but ended up endless small missions and grinding when I worked out again, the "community goals..." grinded one to a silly degree as it was easy, and ended up with enough money to buy and upgrade any ship... so stopped playing as the challenge was gone. It even made the WWE2K games now where you have to "grind" currency to buy shit, or pay double the price of the game.
I got into WWE Champions for a little while, and it was like peering into the lives of the saddest human beings in existence. With most freemium games you're encouraged to join a group of other players so you can help each other out and such. The group chat had some insane examples of human misery where people were posting links to screen shots of messages that they had sent via email to the devs of the game complaining that they are upset that it costs $25 for a booster when it should only cost $20, or that they paid $30 for a chance to buy their favorite wrestler which they didn't end up getting due to rng and in the wording they share that they needed that money for their power bill. About every week someone would state that they're quitting the group because the game is causing their marriage to fail.

To me, grinding is one of those concepts that these games subtly tries to discourage. That's a pretty obvious point, but I make it to elaborate more on the business model. If you're able to have a fulfilling experience not spending any money whatsoever, they lose. They all present you with initial challenges that you can easily obliterate with your awesome skill, and you'll level up on top of leveling up while earning what seems like more resources than you could possibly spend in a week. Close to the end of that period, they offer up an awesome deal where you can upgrade your stuff even more for the ridiculously low price of $1.99. If you spend that money, then it's obviously important to you that you have something to show for your investment. Then they start slashing prices, but only for a limited time as indicated by a ticking countdown clock, and offer you 1,000 of their premium currency for a 50% markdown of only $49.99. If you had stuck to grinding, you'd be going back to old challenges so you can complete them several hundred times over only so that you can be on par with the guy who happily threw away a weeks worth of groceries so that he could be better than you. Bottom line; to freemium develolpers, grinders are the enemy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THTRobtaylor View Post
DLC at times I don't mind... Fallout New Vegas was the pinnacle for me, where it was well thought out, added to the game each time and was worth paying for... Fallout 4, never bothered with...though I did for Farcry 4... but lo and behold, for 5 you need to spend more. It's getting stupid.
I hate to admit that I'm a huge sucker for DLC. For me; it's not so far removed from the logic of spending money on freemium games. I could have the regular old game, or I could have the game with a season pass and thus challenge any of the so-so fans of a franchise on their loyalty by asking if they bought the season pass. The extra content is secondary to the pride I feel for having more game than everyone else.

Fallout New Vegas had the greatest DLC of any game I've ever played. New Vegas was set apart from all the other Fallout games because of its DLC. Fallout 3's DLC was lame, and Fallout 4's DLC was pointless for me as I was playing on Survival.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THTRobtaylor View Post
Personally, I think some games like the WWE2K ones should work like this.

Buy the game/engine for 15... it includes the basic match modes/game modes and 20 wrestlers, a couple of the "top names" that the E want to push, some dross like Rawley that no one is gonna by and a couple of tag teams... Then you select the rest of how the game works according to what you want... you want a retro only game with legends and oldschool graphics? that pack is 15, but there's no Cena, Reigns or the new guys and only retro matches/ring set ups etc... likewise, if you want the modern game you do the same...that too is 15 but doesn't include ANY legends...

Likewise you can go somewhere in the middle and do an Attitude Era pack... no-one after 2002 included or before 1997 and everything more "adult".

The key here is they get EVERYONE in the packs... so if you buy the Golden Era pack, everyone from Hillbilly Jim to George The Animal to One Man Gang to Savage and Warrior are in there and all the old tag teams.

Same for the Attitude, so the Mean Street Posse, Gangrel, Al Snow and even Brian Pillman are in there. The modern one, use NXT to bump up the numbers with guys like EC3, Ricochet and of course Ronda...

You can then have some DLC additionally that costs upto another 15, for move sets, exclusive character packs or the ability to have custom ring music, but the game still only costs you 75 tops to buy it all.

Most would spend the 75 eventually... you'd get bored playing endless Hogan era stuff when you can't do Elimination Chamber or TLC matches for example but the idea of having that retro version would appeal to many fans, likewise they'd want the Attitude pack.

The danger is that the modern pack would be the worst seller I guess.
I'm honestly off-put by that business model. I'm somewhat spoiled by what became of games with character selection, where sequels had to offer more and more options while only omitting a few of the old ones. I noticed that you can download a bare bones version of the latest Dead or Alive game in the PlayStation Store, and you'll have spent over $200 if you buy all the characters and fighting modes and arenas. On top of that, you'd be spending even more if you wanted to buy extra skins for the fighters. I hope that some developers are still focused on releasing an entire game where you get extra content by playing the game and earning it.
__________________
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. - Hamlet
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-23-2018, 02:01 PM
enviousdominous's Avatar
enviousdominous enviousdominous is offline
Behold my diction
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,866
enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

In what will likely be my most confusing rant of all time, and that's saying something, I've been urked by something that most of you are probably too socially responsible to ever encounter in the first place. The very presence of "Video Game Journalists".

What is a video game journalist you might ask. I would shrug my shoulders, because I don't think that they even know what in the fuck one of those would be.

What inspires my aggravation toward that lifestyle is that I recently played the worst game I've ever played in my life. This game was so bad that I won't mention it in the "What Videogame Are You Currently Playing?" thread, because I don't want ANYBODY to ever go near this game. It was a little ditty by a company called ID Software and was published by Bethesda called Rage.

My (don't ever fucking play) Rage Review:
Click for Spoiler:


You launch a fucking satellite. Oh shit, I just spoiled the ending.

Now, you might imagine that with a video game that costs $60 there would be a little more nuance to the launching of the satellite. Maybe.... you had to fight your way past an epic boss and had to make a tough decision to launch the satellite and save all of mankind or save the love of your life. No, you literally just launch a satellite and that's fucking it.

In Rage you play as an epic hero named No-name McBumblefuck. You woke up in a chamber of a space capsule that landed at some point in time, and a random guy voiced by John Goodman finds you and takes you back to a small town so you can run stupid errands for him.

You need a car, so that you can drive across the map and do more stupid errands. The cars of this game were apparently the crux of why a game was ever created in the first place. How many cars do you get to utilize in this entire game? Four, and only three of them can fight back against bad guys.

You walk up to people, and they immediately start with "My Daddy told me that the Sheriff is up to no good. But I doubt it. Them bandits have been causing all kinds of trouble, and we need the sheriff to yadda yadda fucking yadda". Can you imagine that? You're standing there at a bus stop, and some random stranger just starts blurting their entire life story to you. One guy had back pain, so he asked me to drive across the fucking map to get him a flower.

You run through abandoned places to acquire random stupid items for other people that want them, and after the first half of the game you've seen all but one of the enemies that you'll ever see. That last enemy that you haven't seen yet is a big reveal for the end, and it ends up just being the same mutants that you've been fighting except with a pulse cannon on its back. You don't fight them until you're near the very end, and you'll likely have no clue that you're near the very end until you abruptly watch a fifteen second video of a satellite launching and credits. You kill some of those pulse cannon mutants, hit some switches, and you're done.

This game was a tech demo at best, and an attempt to screw gullible parents out of $60 during Christmas at worst. I rank it worse than such legendarily bad games such as Plumbers Don't Wear Ties and Hotel Mario because this game was developed by a reputable company and then marketed by an even more reputable company in an age where you would think that this type of garbage wouldn't be possible.

Everything about this game screams "half-assed". It's as if they had big plans, and an unfortunate combination of lack of resources and concern caused this pile of shit to be sold to us. I played it on PSNOW, so while I didn't have to buy it I'm still bereft that I lost 15 hours of my life playing it.


Rage was given decent to glowing reviews by Gamespot (7/10), GameSpy (3.5 stars), Giant Bomb (4 stars), IGN (8.5/10) and PC Gamer UK (84%). If you read between the lines of their reviews, the consensus seems to be that Rage is a game that lacks in certain areas but has amazing graphics.

Charles Onyett from IGN said in his review that "Rage is a visual marvel" and that "Rage controls smoothly". No Charlie, Rage is not a visual marvel. There's nothing that could possibly marvel anyone about what you see, it's another redundant barren wasteland game. You see a barren wasteland for the entire fucking game, there's nothing that happens that deviates from that at any point. It doesn't control smoothly, in fact the first thing I did was go into the options and set the movement sensitivity to its lowest possible setting because otherwise I'd be whipping my gun around like a moron trying to aim.

On track and on point; there are fucking morons out there who are paid to tell you that shit games are visually stunning, and they're called Video Game Journalists.

I get it; if I had an option to make money doing little more than lying through my teeth about something as inconsequential to the betterment of society as a video game, I'd probably jump on that. No wait, I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to tell me parents that at best, I'm a skill-lacking fucking bottom feeder in a collapsing industry. Video Game Journalists have chosen to professionally waste away as human beings so that they can positively promote the practices of an industry that often tries to feed us bullshit.

At least when a real life Journalist feeds you bullshit, there's a strong chance that they actually had to go to a dangerous place or apply an education in Journalism to do it. People who get paid to judge the quality of a video game are doing so for only one reason, to sell that fucking game. What was supposed to be a form of consumer protection has become an arm of the video game industry to dupe you into allowing it to spend as little as possible on whatever stupid shit you've been cheaply duped into buying. At least when Yelp behaves abhorrently by only showing you good reviews for companies that advertise their brand and bad reviews for companies that didn't advertise their brand, you're seeing real reviews from real people. Video Game Journalists get paid to tell you that a video game that you're supposed to buy has "good graphics", in an age where any fucking idiot can take a computer programming course and pump a bunch of free-use content into a graphics engine that someone else made and thereby produce "good graphics".

There are some great games out there, but you'll never hear it from an esteemed critic of the Video Game Journalist variety. Trying to find a good game in the mess that is their praise of every shit game in existence is virtually impossible.

Here's a few of my reviews of our society's more famous Video Game Journalists

Adam Sessler

Click for Spoiler:

Adam Sessler of X-Play once did a review of one of the worst games I've ever played, Enchanted Arms. His review is on YouTube, and throughout he points out all the terrible things about the game. The horrid voice acting, the tiny worlds, the stupid story, and the moments of dialogue where it's just a still frame of each character showing an emotion while staring directly at each other. He covers all of that, and then he turns around and praises the graphics. Adam Sessler gave Enchanted Arms a 4 out of 5.

Another issue I have with Adam is in how some idiot must have told him that he was a funny person, because he seems so fucking inspired to create a skit based on how he interpreted a game he played. Some advice for those of you out there, creating a comedic skit about a video game often misses the mark because people relate to video games in very different ways if they even relate to them at all. Most people watched Titanic, most people didn't play Enchanted Arms. I'm also not sure how seeing Adam dance around like an effeminate cowboy relates to Enchanted Arms.


Jim Sterling

Click for Spoiler:


Jim Sterling, who is famous for calling out bullshit reviews, up and created a video where he was frustrated with a game that I loved. He hated The Last Guardian. I get that video games can be very subjective, and some games aren't for everyone. What upset me about his review is that he wasn't playing the fucking game correctly. In the very beginning of the game you're given visual cues on the screen of how to preform the next task.

The game will literally show an image of the controller itself, and show you which buttons to push to give commands to your animal companion Trico. If push the wrong buttons, eventually Trico will just get bored and show you what it was supposed to do. You'll be pushing the buttons like an idiot for a good ten minutes before Trico will save you by the way.

Jim reviewed the game as he was playing it for the first time, and he grumbled with hatred for the entire time. He mentioned that it upset him that after telling Trico what to do for ten minutes, Trico would just stop fooling around and do it. Jim stated something like "Why in the bloody hell didn't you just do that in the first place?"

In this game you hold down a button (L1 I believe) to initiate that you want Trico's attention. If you just press the button and let go, you say "Hi Trico". Clearly not what you intended to do. You hold down the command button, and press a direction that you'd like Trico to focus on. If there's an obstacle, he'll react appropriately. It's really quite easy. Jim was playing, and saying "Hi Trico" over and over and over again, upset the entire time at how the game was failing him.

The comment section for his review was rife with idiots saying basically "I never played this game, but it's horrible."


Angry Joe

Click for Spoiler:


Angry Joe only plays a few of the games he reviews, and he doesn't play them all the way through. Case in point, his review for Dragon Age Inquisition. All Joe did was ask a few friends of his about their experiences playing the game, and then he filmed a fucking review. He didn't play a fucking minute of this fucking game. Albeit; it was a decent game and he gave it a decent review. Where the bullshit comes in was in how he described features of the game.

Joe explained that in this game you could romance anybody, literally anybody that's a named character can be romanced according to Joe. He claimed that for his playthrough he romanced a dwarf NPC that gives you status updates on your territories. Now, you can flirt with a lot of characters in this game, and you will get rebuffed by a lot of characters in this game. The dwarf NPC doesn't even really rebuff you, she says that you make her nervous and then nothing is ever said about it. Depending on what race and sex you choose for your character, there's a possibility that you won't be able to romance anybody in the game.

This isn't about misinformation about that one feature, this is about yapping like a jackass about a game that he never fucking played.



Larry Bundy Jr

Click for Spoiler:


Larry Bundy is great at doing research, but he's the worst attention whore out of any of the other names mentioned, and that's no small accomplishment.

Larry has bought into the practice of numbered lists. He often recycles his own information to bait clicks for a list of obscure easter eggs or rehashed video game conspiracy theories. His videos can be very fun to watch, but the whole point is to hook you in so that you won't mind so much when he gives you yet another watered down set of redundant game reviews.

There's also the fact that he uses misleading thumbnails for his YouTube videos. In the same manner that Buzzfeed used to use a faked picture of a disgusting image to fool you into thinking that it had anything to do with their video, Larry will make a video entitled "Top 5 Stupidest Things Ever Said By A Video Game Reviewer" and put pictures of people like Jim Sterling on the thumbnail and yet nothing in the video acknowledges Jim Sterling.



James Rolfe

Click for Spoiler:


I love this guy, seriously. This isn't so much a review of him, as much as it is a review of the video game industry in general.

James Rolfe created a comedic persona called The Angry Video Game Nerd, changed from The Angry Nintendo Nerd for copyright reasons. He does his best to rip into video games as a neurotic alcoholic dweeb who just can't be pleased, and oddly enough his reviews of video games are pretty fucking spot on because of this.

Typically, video games are either so bad that they just don't get any attention by Video Game Journalists or they're bad in ways that a Video Game Journalist thinks they can cover up by praising the "good graphics" of the game. The Angry Video Game Nerd isn't swayed by good graphics, he explains to you what sucks about supposedly great games. He might be doing it as a joke, but he ends up pulling the wool from our eyes.

A lot of games are fucking terrible, and were designed to be fucking terrible because the video game industry only gives a shit about a consumer as long as they're dumb enough to buy their horrible games. At times The Angry Video Game Nerd goes after a game that's famous for being great, but he shows us the flaws of the game that we had long ignored due to being so wrapped up in the obnoxious fad that was video games.

James Rolfe isn't employed by a publication or obscure cable station, he posts his reviews for fun, while most other Video Game Journalists do it to float their ego. As his Angry Video Game Nerd character; if he's not warning us about a horrible game currently on the market, he's consoling us by showing that the games that we fucking hated and the other Video Game Journalists loved really were crocks of shit.

James Rolfe is the only exception to the rule that Video Game Journalists are living examples of failure.



I don't preorder games anymore. I wait, patiently, for the real consumer reviews to come out from real consumers and for the price to go down. Getting lured in by "exclusive preorder content" is impossible at this point, it's the same bullshit every time.
__________________
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. - Hamlet

Last edited by enviousdominous : 04-23-2018 at 02:13 PM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-31-2018, 05:40 PM
enviousdominous's Avatar
enviousdominous enviousdominous is offline
Behold my diction
WWE European Champion
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,866
enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...enviousdominous is going to make some noise in the draft...
Default

The Symposium is likely on the verge of extinction due to lack of use, so I'll happily spend my creative energy to share a concern that has been bugging me lately.

The main subject of this post is, the obscene clusterfuck that is social media in 2018. (fair warning, this is going to be a big one)

Social media is a strange place. It's evolved from a place where you post random thoughts with the assumption that only a few people in your circle of friends and family will see it, to a data mining empire where comments one had made when social media wasn't taken so seriously are now being used as evidence in the court of public opinion to ruin lives.

Those that understand social media, no matter what their true intention might be, can and will manipulate it to push unwitting viewers into a state of mind that is meant to be very harmful to some and very beneficial to the person that shared it.

Social media these days is oversaturated with commentaries on basically everything, if you have a question Google has an answer given to someone who asked it ten years ago. The only way to really stand out is to share an idea that nobody else has thought of.

Infowars is one of many fringe think tanks that operates online in an effort to keep its fanbase in a steady state of shock and horror regarding vague conspiracy theories that have never actually followed through with a predicted result. These think tanks emerged due to a need to stand out with commentary that seemed more insightful than the rest, by predicting outrageously unlikely occurrences that stand on a shaky foundation of vague speculation being disguised as actual proof.

Alex Jones has been the figurehead of Infowars for as long as I can remember, and there was a time that I had respect for him. I had had an unhealthy fascination with the Freemasons, and so did Alex Jones. When I was a young adult, it was fun to wonder if our government is being manipulated by a small group of oligarchs. Then I got to know a few Freemasons (I can't become one, due to being an Athiest), mainly through their association with my Great Uncle who I hadn't previously known was a Lodge Master in Canada. Today I can honestly say that I was wrong about the Freemasons, and I can say that just because some elected officials join a club that doesn't mean that the club has influence over how they exercise their elected duties.

Alex Jones has never, to my knowledge, backtracked on an idea that he had attempted to exploit that later turned out to be false. Even if that idea is abusive toward individuals that are victims of a tragedy.

We can often be fooled by speculation, if it's given to us in an authoritative and/or professorial tone that claims absolute certainty of its intended message. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the Zapruder film capturing the horrific moment also captured something startling. Just before the assassination occurred, a man named Louie Witt opened his umbrella. It was a very odd occurrence, that some believed was meant to be a message to Lee Harvey Oswalt to shoot right at that moment. Why would a man open an umbrella on a calm summer day with no chance of rain? Louie Witt voluntarily testified before Congress, and admitted that he opened the umbrella as the President was riding by in his motorcade in an effort to protest Ambassador Joseph Kennedy's (JFK's father) support of Prime Minister Chamberlain. Prime Minister Chamberlain is known to be the reason why Adolph Hitler was able to seize Czechoslovakia prior to invading Poland and starting World War 2.

So, it's not always good to imagine that several vague indicators, or one major indicator as was the case with Louie Witt, to determine that a conspiracy is absolutely true.

Alex Jones has since quadrupled down on his past transgressions, notably by encouraging his fanbase to harass the parents of children that were killed in the Sandy Hook massacre. I believe that Alex Jones was desperate to appease his investors from the NRA by implying that the focus shouldn't be on proliferation of firearms, and the inforwars fanbase followed through with harassment because they're fragile and desperately need to believe that they live in a world where the massacre never happened and could never happen. However; maybe I'm wrong and I'm just making an accusation against Alex Jones and his base that's no different than what Louie Witt had to endure. My point is that unlike Alex Jones and Infowars, I didn't have to ridicule families that lost children to have closure in my accusations being on a steady foundation of plausibility, and I'm not too proud to apologize to Alex Jones and his fanbase if I turned out to be wrong.

Things have gotten out of hand however. Most people on the internet go there for information, and are more apt to regard an article's credibility based on how many petty social aesthetics are related to in the article. If an individual hates gay people, but are too ashamed to say so, they might believe anything written in an article by someone who often cherry picks articles that exploit gay people as being a menace to a well ordered society. Now that individual can wonder out loud about how gay people are negatively affecting society, and throw their hands up and hide behind doctored statistics and an author's opinions when confronted regarding their biased attitude. This type of belligerence seems to be the standard form of social engineering for racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and those with an unhealthy political bias.

One other strategy is to manipulate others through false accusations of prominent figures in society, which are often meant to cover up occurrences in the manipulator's past that would make them a pariah unto their current base. The main reason for doing so is to make people who are appalled by something universally appalling relate to the individual conducting the manipulation. Bill O'Reilly had at one time done this, by going after judges who seemed to be giving light sentences to convicted pedophiles. Most of us are opposed to pedophilia, and thus we can be duped into believing that any other concern on the mind of Bill O'Reilly is inline with our concerns as well. It wasn't until I saw Bill share a video on his show that was obviously doctored, that was meant to depict a Black man as the aggressor in a fight that occurred in a pizzeria. The original video had already been posted to Ebaumsworld (of all places) and clearly showed that the opposite had happened. After that, I saw through the wool over my eyes and was able to see that I shouldn't be so focused on self-proclaimed demagogues.

The Alex Jones Show has been regularly hosted by a guy named Mike Cernovich, who recently made a name for himself. Some of you may be aware that James Gunn, the director of the Guardians of the Galaxy films, has been fired by Disney regarding old tweets that were unearthed by Mike Cernovich where Mr. Gunn had joked about rape and pedophilia. Now, it's perfectly understandable that a company like Disney can't afford to be associated with someone that had at one time shared a sense of humor regarding such serious issues. The stars of Guardians of the Galaxy are currently petitioning Disney to reinstate James Gunn as the director of the Guardians franchise, but if I was Disney I'd give this a few years before I entertained the idea of hiring James Gunn back. I'm not saying that James Gunn deserves what has happened, it's not my place to assume as much. I'm saying that jokes about rape and pedophilia have no place in any format, and that that's as far as I'll judge James Gunn.

Why would Mike Cernovich feel compelled to reveal these tweets? I'll get to that later, fair warning, the content described in the below spoiler will be very disturbing for reasons that will be made clear in the spoiler. I'm not joking, avoid opening it if you're easily offended.

Click for Spoiler:
So, Rick and Morty is a very popular show. I think it's a fun escape where I can watch the cartoon character Rick engage in rampant hedonism. Morty is relatable as well as someone with strong inhibitions and a more steady moral compass than his grandfather Rick.

Rick and Morty was co-created by a man named Dan Harmon. If you asked Dan Harmon about his past as a writer, he would likely admit to you that he wasn't a very good person but that he's made amends with those he wronged and that he strives to be a better person today. To my knowledge, he was famous during his younger days as a writer for Community and a director for Channel 101 for belittling and harassing female staff members. He doesn't hide any of this by the way, and has granted everyone he's wronged with an apology and accepted that not all of them were granted forgiveness as that was never a condition of his apologies.

Dan Harmon also wrote, directed, and produced a skit where he was a time traveler who would go back in time and rape eventual serial killers while they're still infants in an effort to traumatize them and prevent them from carrying out their eventual murders. This was meant to parody the show Dexter in that a horrible act might seem less horrible when perpetrated on an evil person. This skit is the basis for why I put this section of the rant in a spoiler box. Awareness of it, means that one might look for it. Don't, look, for, it.

Dan Harmon has apologized for making the skit, and for what my judgement is worth it was a sincere apology.

The skit was unearthed by Mike Cernovich, and has since invited a tidal wave of accusations to flood the twitter feeds of left-leaning comedians. The momentum of this wave was bolstered by the reaction of ABC to fire Roseanne Barr from her show for sharing a tweet that implied that Valierie Jarrett is an ape. Valerie Jarrett appears light skinned, but she has close African American ancestry and if the one drop rule is still in effect then it's to be believed that Roseanne Barr was associating being Black with being an ape.

These tweets have gone beyond merely mocking Dan Harmon for believing that baby rape can be viewed as a comedic device. Now the effort on part of Mike Cernovich and his Infowars fanbase is to imply that Dan Harmon is a pedophile, and is part of a pedophile ring among left leaning celebrities.


A similar question to the one asked before comes up; why would Mike Cernovich feel compelled to share the video that was the subject of what's in the spoiler?

To his credit, Mike Cernovich is a lawyer. A lawyer who had at one time worked with Alan Dershowitz regarding a successful libel lawsuit filed by Alan Dershowitz. He was also a young man at one time, and he shared a passive attitude toward rape on Twitter and in his blogs. Maybe he was only joking, but he had already declared his political views and thus wasn't going to get any leeway from those on the left. How this ties into his association with Alan Dershowitz is in that Alan Dershowitz had been one of the lawyers working to defend convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Now, I don't believe most of the hype surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. When I read the speculation surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's supposed influence I think about all the accusations surrounding the Freemasons, and my eventual realization that they're just an upscale club. There's been unfounded speculation that Jeffrey Epstein ran a pedophile ring and that he had Alan Dershowitz and Donald Trump as clients unto that pedophile ring. I can promise anyone reading that I myself have looked into this, and I haven't found any proof that Alan Dershowitz or Donald Trump are pedophiles or that their association with Jeffrey Epstein had ever involved that. But, some people fall into the "where there's smoke there's fire" fallacy and find reason to accuse Mike Cernovich of being a pedophile. I should also note that there is absolutely no proof that Mike Cernovich is a pedophile.

At worst, Mike Cernovich was convicted of sexual battery in 2003 and was sentenced to perform community service. The charges were not brought by the alleged victim as she dropped her original charge of rape, and the judge then imposed the charge of sexual battery on his own volition. Mike has since shared tweets and blog posts that indicated that he feels that date-rape is a myth. Maybe he's a monster who really believes that, or maybe he was misinformed due to a series of unfortunate events.

What we end up with is a false accusation of pedophilia against someone, and the attempted character assassination that typically follows such accusations, being made against someone who seems to understand how social media works better than those who were making the accusations. Things got real.

I believe that Mike shared the tweets made by James Gunn not as an attempt to bring to light a wolf in sheep's clothing who wants to prey on your children, but as an attempt to put those with opposing political bias on the defensive. I feel that Mike shared the video described in the spoiler above to bolster speculation of a pedophile ring, but not to potentially expose an actual ring of pedophiles, rather I believe it was shared to keep the fires of discourse burning long enough for speculation regarding his own lack of character to become old news and to get revenge on those who falsely accused him. I feel that I should mention that I have found no evidence that James Gunn, Dan Harmon, Sarah Silverman, Patton Oswalt, or anyone else that was wildly accused of pedophilia by fans of Mike Cernovich are reasonably worthy of such accusations.

Last I had heard, "Stuttering" John Melendez claimed that he had dirt on Mike Cernovich and that it would destroy him. And the beat goes on.

I feel that we have to learn to let false accusations, even if they're for something as upsetting as pedophilia, be decided on the reputation of the person making them. A smoking gun like a tweet that clearly shows a flippant attitude toward pedophilia can't be excused, but I feel that a sincere apology and the assurance of decent individuals in their circle of friends should assure them a place as a writer, or a director, or the host of a show on Infowars.

Social media doesn't like to forgive, and I feel that it has turned the court of public opinion into an emoticon-saturated contest of who can make the most immature and dismissive remark. Things can get better if we learn to mind our manners even if we're absolutely outraged at an accusation made toward ourselves or someone else, or if someone outright tries to destroy our lives. Mahatma Ghandi said it best when he said "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", which is a lot nicer than social media's current ethos based on the words of Bhagavad Gita that were "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds".

I blame Infowars for where the world has gone in regard to social media, and Twitter mostly. I feel that they made shots in the dark in an effort to get ahead of other speculative news sources, and doubled down everytime they were questioned on the validity of their claims. It seemed more attractive to fight their fire with more fire, and now social media is a blazing inferno ran by compulsive douche-bags. The king of these douche-bags, in my humble opinion, is Mike Cernovich.

Mike Cernovich has never apologized for his claims that date-rape is a myth, among many others of the same level of being outrageously false and inappropriate, and has instead made every effort to shift focus onto matters that serve the tastes of the alt-right. He's also claimed that he's not a member of the alt-right, which in my opinion was only so that he could spin us in another circle with a pointless argument that distracts from the core point that he's a shitty person. For the record; I feel that one has definitely raped someone if they drugged them to the point of having a limited or non-existent capability to resist prior to having sex with them, which is the very definition of date-rape.

If I was to go on a social media campaign to influence others to believe that Mike Cernovich is a bad person, and permitted those who fell into my influence to spread falsehoods regarding him, then I wouldn't be any better. Sadly, this is precisely how I see most of Mike's more famous detractors (like "Stuttering" John Melendez) fighting his influence.

Here's a fun idea. Don't make jokes about pedophilia or rape. Nip this cycle of abuse on social media in the bud, and strive to be a better person without trying to positively or negatively effect a disreputable social media campaign.

That's all I got.

P.S. Leave the umbrella people of the world alone.
__________________
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. - Hamlet

Last edited by enviousdominous : 07-31-2018 at 06:02 PM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 AM.

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"
Contact Us - Clear Cookies - Lost Password - WrestleZone Forums - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Top - AdChoices