Jump to content

SteveHNo96

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by SteveHNo96

  1.  

    These guys aren't even close to their goal, but I like the concept and I know fans of retro 1980s games will like it too.

    Play as EMILY, a teenager who fell victim to a vicious pandemic. In a desperate attempt to counter the infection, she was injected with an untested vaccine containing Nano-bots. However, a malfunction in the system caused the Nano-bots inside her body to overload, resulting in total absorption of her DNA, morphing her physical body into a mechanical structure.

     

    The play puts me half in mind of a hybrid of Metroid and Castlevania, I think you guys will really dig it. They need a lot of help so spread the word to your friends and if you don't have any friends, tell your enemies and tell them you hate people named Emily.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pixelworm/e-m-i-l-y

  2.  

     

     

     

    Blazing Saddles (like The Producers) works because it sends up the racists - it uses racist language and images to show just how fucked up we are as a species, and how idiotic humanity is. It is a diatribe against racism, and this is why it works. It isn't politically correct, and is one of the reasons why I would also not consider myself as part of this caricature of "the PC police". I love things like South Park and Mel Brooks' works that attack our idiocy through exposing it in parody. If a piece of art, a computer game, a movie, or whatever else can do that and make a legitimate point, then it is doing exactly what all good art should do. If it's just using racist, sexist or generally stereotypical tropes as a lazy device to avoid story telling, then it's a damaging. It simply reinforces latent prejudice. That's why people like me ask people to have a quick think before they act. That's it. Critique is not censorship. And critique does not immediately lead to calls for certain thoughts to be banned.

     

    I am well aware of the movie Blazing Saddles. However, Mel Brooks even said bluntly that he couldn't make the movie in 2014 because of the number of people who would get butthurt by it. I did a little research, actually because I am a devout metalhead and found several things that explain pretty much exactly why.

     

     

    You do realise the superb irony that you're doing EXACTLY this by using the term "political correctness", don't you? I think the people who have made rational arguments in this thread have moved beyond name-calling, and explained why something might be construed as offensive.

     

    Do you understand the main problem with the idea that something may be offensive so we have to ban it? Books were burned in Germany in the 1930s that were offensive, do I dare to state what they moved on to?

     

     

    Indeed. But the problem is we don't have equality, do we? And while we don't, those people who have disproportionately more power need to be a little mindful of how they act and think. It won't be solved over night, but it will be solved if, as a species, we learn to respect difference. Equality isn't about treating everyone the same - it's about giving everyone equality of opportunity by ensuring that people can be who they want to be without fear of insults, denial of opportunity and outright discrimination.

    By allowing the same people to use the same bully tactics that are considered no-nos in Caucasian culture? Let me give you a great example and he's not even a minority. Eminem. I can't even quote a song lyric that he released in October of 2013, look it up under the term "rap God". Now compare those to the comments that Phil from Duck Dynasty made and tell me what is more egregious. One reason I believe more in the free market is that by doing this, we have more equality.

     

     

     

    South Park? Family Guy? Modern Family? Will and Grace? Coupling (UK version)? The Office? Men Behaving Badly (UK)?

    South Park and Family Guy are nothing BUT fart jokes and kicking a guy in the jimmy! You're proving my point. Will and Grace and Modern Family rely on the fact that one or more people being gay is automatically funny. The others I have not seen.

     

     

    Two things happened. One, sitcoms were told that resting on lazy ethnic and gender tropes was unacceptable. (We had loads of shows cancelled here on the same basis). It took a few years for TV to work out what was and wasn't acceptable. And in the mean time, other types of show became popular, relegating the sitcom even lower. Things change. As a historian I don't believe in absolute progress, but I do believe we gain and lose in the process. Hopefully, it's a better world today for black lesbians than it was in 1975.

    Yes, Black Lesbians can watch two guys eat chili, drop trou and fart for 30 minutes. That's much better than the slapstick comedy or showing the error of their ways like The Jeffersons.

     

    Actually, one of the reasons for this entire change of mindset is very bleak. You are basically being told what to think by a man who practically destroyed the British economy. That sounds ridiculous. However, anyone who studies history knows it is true. In 1983, fifty media outlets controlled 90% of what you watch, listen to, or read. In 2012, that number is six. Comcast (who owns NBCUniversal, Focus Features and The New York Times, this one is very important), NewsCorp (who owns Fox, Wall Street Journal, and The New York Post), Disney (ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramax, and Marvel), Viacom (MTV, BET, CMT, Paramount), Time-Warner (CNN, HBO, DC Comics) and CBS (Showtime, The Smithsonian Channel, NFL.com)...

     

    In 1992, a man named George Soros basically destroyed the British economy by speculating that the Pound couldn't hold its value in the international commodity markets and invested so much money against it that the Bank of England collapsed when it finally was unable to hold a minimum value.

     

    Soros actually owns NBCUniversal / Comcast, he also is tied to ABC, the Washington Post, CNN, The New York Times, The Associated Press, etc., and has donated over $8 billion to keeping his monopoly alive through a fund called Open Society Foundations, which actually runs over 30 different news organizations. So basically, Soros is telling you what to think through several companies that he either owns a partial or complete share of. Lovely, isn't it?

     

    Anyways, without boring you to death, basically any of the fringe agenda of liberals including the policies of Barack Obama all basically are met through the ideals of this guy, George Soros. that includes everything from blacks being infallible (we had to "understand" these people and they aren't thugs) after the L.A. Riots to the fringe agenda of gays or the man-stomping of some psycho bitch like Beatrice or Berta from Two and a Half Turds.

     

    It's also why you hear the same crappy songs on the radio -- most of the radio stations belong to either Clear Channel, Cumulus, CBS Radio, or ABC Radio. 80% of stations in America have a playlist that matches exactly one of another station because it's cheaper for these companies to play "Mrs. Robinson" and pay Simon and Garfunkel the same rate they negotiated for in 1968 as opposed to letting the best new stuff come out.

     

    "Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you want". ~ Devo, 1980.

     

     

    That said, your idea of "the four big B.S." can still fuck right off. Gareth said it absolutely right: You are clearly oblivious to how ironic you sound when you call us the "P.C. police" (a misnomer if ever there was one). If we're going to play that game, it should at least be "the five big B.S.".

     

    Alright, I'll throw down. A lot of people in the left-wing use those terms if you oppose them on anything. If you go against the psycho feminist agenda, you're sexist (watch for this word to be thrown around a lot if Hillary gets elected), don't want gay marriage? Forget any actual reason you might have, you're a homophobe. That's why I call it the Big Four of B.S. -- because that's all it is. It's a tool used to control people, kinda like George Soros does. Nice, huh?

     

     

    And I can't speak for Gareth or Frederik, but I definitely don't consider myself politically correct. I consider myself a humanist. But I am also a cynic and I think there is truth to Carlin's words that we will never attain our ideals. The peaceful world of Star Trek where everyone is united in peace with no money and a military hierarchy that somehow works will never happen. We're too far gone; we've already fucked it up for ourselves beyond repair -- there has to be a cataclysmic event where we nuke the site from orbit, final-scene-from-Fight-Club style, just like a drug addict has to hit rock bottom, before we're going to get anywhere.

     

    I honestly believe that the world is always going to be screwed up. However, the problem we're having is we're creating too much of overcompensation. Think about it this way. 30 years ago if a teacher said something offensive, the parents went down, had a word with the teacher, the teacher apologized and tried not to do it again and all was right with the world. Today they call for the firing of these teachers. These people go too far. Simple as that.

     

    If you want to be treated equally, you have to be made fun of equally. That means everyone gets a turn. What happens instead by some people is the "humor" is so macabre anymore that it loses its humor. It reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy" where the best movie of the year was called "Ass" and the best TV show was "Ow! My balls!". that's basically what "humor" has become.

     

    oh and yes, I do see a lot of things in black and white. (not literally, I'm not color blind but a comment was made that I see everything in absolutes). Very much so. I am a certified Aspie so that whole "It's okay to treat this guy like crap because he's white" or "it's okay for a 60-plus year old woman to ogle an 8-year old boy's abs" doesn't wash with me. (The latter was on a sitcom called Sullivan and Son, JSYK). That is not liable to change. Sorry.

  3. No. I'm sorry, heck no.

    Space Quest is a great series, it's a great comedy series when usually sci-fi doesn't delve into comedy. However, it doesn't qualify really as the "greatest sci-fi" of all time. To say that ignores the impact of Star Trek on our culture, Star Wars on our ability to be a freakin' nerd, 2001/2010 on our ability to dream beyond the universe, or for that matter, Twilight Zone for the ability to simply think of imagination.

    What Space Quest is is comical, amusing, funny, irreverent and a bit foppish, but in no way can you objectively say it's the best sci-fi of all time. It's a lot of fun, but not THE BEST SCI-FI EVAR!!

  4. This is probably the dumbest thing I've read today; pardon my bluntness. Are you actually suggesting that we shouldn't care about racism, sexism, bigotry or homophobia? To me, writing "big four of BS" about these topics is just self-servingly ignorant.

     

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not intent on upholding some PC standard for behavior or to encourage self-censorship in any way. I'm just going to reiterate the point that I already quoted Carlin on in the "damsel in distress" post, which is that it's the intent behind a statement that's offensive, not the words or wordings themselves. Your "intent" here, however, seems to be that anyone who decries racism, sexism, bigotry or homophobia is by default trying to control your thoughts and force you to conform to a certain world view.

     

    No, actually, it's extremely valid and I'll tell you precisely why. I don't know if you live in 'murica, but the last twenty years or so, three of the "big four of BS" started to be used with incredibly reckless abandon. During the 1992 L.A. Riots, people who referred to the rioters as "thugs" were labeled as racist. The fourth one, "homophobe" has been catching a lot of fire in the last six or seven years. Either way, it's reminiscent of the boy who cried wolf.

     

    You brought up this topic at a great time. Did you know this week is the 40th anniversary of the movie Blazing Saddles? Mel Brooks got permission from Richard Pryor to use a particular ethnic slur a total of 14 times during the movie. was the movie racist? In the end, it turns out that the black sheriff was the best thing to happen to the city, even though he didn't get a warm welcome coming in. Nowadays, you'd never get a film like that made, even though the movie got its point across rather well.

     

    He came up with a quote celebrating this topic that I'd like to share with you and this pretty much puts it in perspective: "You've got to really examine these things and see what's right and what's wrong. Politically correct is absolutely wrong. Because it inhibits the freedom of thought."

     

    The reason I call these the "Big 4 of BS" is because in the overwhelming majority of cases, the people who shout these terms the loudest:

    1) Do not have a valid argument so instead they resort to these name-calling put downs, and

    2) Are nowhere near free of the accusations they accuse the other person of, in fact in many cases they'll use homophobic terminology to describe a person they believe is homophobic or use racist terminology to try and prove they're not racist.

     

    Some people who used to follow me on the Replay Games board may be familiar with a quote that I came up with about 3 years ago. "This post brought to you by the Progressive Equality Fairness Coalition. We'll find a bigoted post in whatever you write, whether it's there or not!"

     

    This came because certain people in America use the terms "progressive", "equality" and "fairness" without even one iota of an inkling of an idea what these words really mean. They butcher the meaning to conform to their own agenda and if you don't follow it to the letter, you might as well don the 21st Century equivalent of The Scarlet Letter.

     

    I could give you tons of recent examples of where these words were used for opposition to ideas that are borderline insane. There were people in the media who said if we referred to Barack Obama as from Chicago, that the word Chicago was racist. My favorite was when a teacher made kindergarten students march in a gay pride parade in the name of "diversity". As a result of this, some teachers were outraged (gee, I wonder why they wouldn't want a five-year old marching next to a guy in his underwear with glitter all over his body and kissing a pink phallic object) and called the parents who objected "homophobes".

     

    If we embraced true equality at all, that means that things like gay pride parades and Miss Black Teen USA would be things of the past, terms like homophobia would disappear completely because duh, if you kill someone, that's it's own version of a hate crime. It's pretty much a given you don't kill someone you love.

     

     

     

    Not so. You can tell me a racist joke if you're not racist, because I know it's not coming from a prejudiced mind. You can tell me a sexist joke or a gay joke, too, if you fundamentally believe in gender equality or gay rights. If you don't, however, and tell me a joke on either of these anyway, I'm going to assume that you're just a bigoted a-hole who thinks it's funny to pick on people different than yourself. That's the fundamental difference between being PC and being able to joke about things.

     

    I've argued for a long time that political correctness has castrated the sitcom. Archie Bunker was a bigot who often expounded his beliefs from his mouth and you knew he was going to get it in the end. Yet in this day and age, very few sitcoms do anything more than bodily function humor and kicking a guy in the jimmy. (please note again that guys can be the butt of getting kicked in the jimmy, which is horribly painful, but only guys.) Sometime during the 1990s, we all got our underwear in a bunch and came up with sitcoms that were drab (Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens, etc.) -- only recently has The Big Bang Theory sort of bucked that trend, as it's probably the closest thing you have to old style sitcoms there are.

     

     

    It's not self-censorship. It's not about giving up your freedom to say what you want. It's about having values that don't demean or belittle other human beings.

     

    I pointed out that Beatrice is not nice to Roger and Stellar is nicer, at least she's willing to put up with him. I'm not putting all women back in the kitchen in the 1950s, FFS. But this brings up an interesting point. Take a few of the series that were successful in the past, including but not limited to Space Quest and Leisure Suit Larry. Part of the "humor" of the game comes from demeaning the protagonist of the game. Why do we tolerate that more? It's clearly obvious that the announcer openly detests both Roger and Larry.

     

    To some extent, your agenda of not demeaning or belittling other people would pretty much erase some of the humor of the game, would it not? Or does it not apply because we're dealing with Caucasian males? either it's okay for everyone or it's okay for no one.

     

              Wow, is this about to tie into what I'm about to say. Part of the humor of why people put up with women being psychotic like Beatrice is because they're demeaning what you call "other human beings". Most guys cannot even come close to that kind of petty vindictiveness because they would be labeled with the afore-mentioned seven letter word starting with A and ending with E. To be fair, yes, I believe Roger should be abused to some extent, but do keep in mind you're drawing some of that humor from, as you like to say "demeaning or belittling other human beings".

     

    Also, some one of these days, I'm going to learn how to properly break up a quote without putting my entire damn post in a quote. (well, this one technically worked but I inadvertently erased Troels's time stamp. Well, it's a start. 100 apologies for not quoting the date and time you said these things.)

  5. That is quite a sexist thing to say. But since I assume you mean no malice, perhaps you should think about why that could be construed as offensive.

     

    Who gives a damn how Judge Judy or Bertha behave? Is there a specific way women are supposed to be? Meek, polite, not "a bitch"? Why are men not held up to the same standard? Is Barney from How I Met Your Mother "rewarded" for his behaviour? What is the standard by which women should be judged?

     

     

    Oh look out. Here comes the PC police with the big four of BS. (that being "racist", "sexist", "bigot" or "homophobe"), basically if any protected group acts in a way another person doesn't like, why that person should be treated like Hester Prynne and completely excommunicated from the human race. Why? Who cares. We are the PC Police and we have the right to bully and mistreat anyone we want.

     

    Alright, let's put it this way. Judge Judy and Berta from Two and a Half Turds act in such a way that they act like they have a complete vendetta against all of humanity. Barney from HIMYM may be manipulative, however, he at least is likable not because he's a sleazebag, but because under it all, he's just the average person trying to succeed more with women. If he went in and said even 10% of the stuff that Judge Judy or Berta said, he wouldn't have a girlfriend or a hook-up, they'd call him a name I can't repeat here (it begins with "A" and ends with "E" and has seven letters) and no one would want to be within fifty miles of him. This has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with overall disposition. Friendliness goes a long way, even in manipulation. You do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, except apparently with Judge Judy and Berta they're hoping to catch flies with a Durian.

     

    Again, especially in 'Murica, we tend to reward behavior when female characters are borderline psychotic. A perfect example of that is in the Leisure Suit Larry series of games, which I contend only have gotten famous because they play on the very real fear that men have regarding women. If a woman had even one of the tortures that happened to Larry happen to her, people would say "HEY! HOW CAN YOU BE SO MISOGYNISTIC?". Some of the death scenes in the series are flat out reprehensible and physically disgusting and people go "ha ha ha. What a loser".

     

     

     

    If a woman wants to say "outrageous" things, why the hell shouldn't she? Why shouldn't a woman in a position of power be condescending and patronising? If a man did any of those things, I doubt you'd be so quick to judge.

     

    See my last post.

     

     

     

    If you don't like Bertha or Judy, fine (I'm probably with you on that score). But to suggest that this is bad behaviour for women, or that it is somehow "rewarded" pretty much ignores the way that women are disciplined in general through their lives.

     

    Take 3: If any man said even 10% of the stuff that "independent" women ever since Roseanne have said, they would not be rewarded for it. They'd be heavily ostracized and the average person would say "What an" (Here's that word again. I'm sorry but no other word seems to fit). trust me, no man could get away with having anywhere near as foul of a disposition as they are, and this is my problem with Beatrice.

     

    Beatrice is never nice to Roger. Not once. How can he even put up with that? Is he so desperate for any degree of attention that he'd take someone that quite honestly, would want him dead almost as much as the Arnoid Annihilator from SQ3.

     

    Stellar is at least understanding that Roger is trying to better his life. She's only really nasty to him when she has to be or he doesn't get the point. Why exactly he doesn't try to hook up with Stellar and have a child that could, theoretically, be a Time Ripper is anyone's guess.

  6. We've tended to reward bad behavior though in too many ways. I hate to pick on Judge Judy but I bet she was the one who drove Socrates to eat that hemlock. If you want another example, take Berta from Two and a Half Men. Basically, because she's heavier than most forklifts she thinks she can just say anything and people will laugh at it.

     

    The way I look at it, Roger has enough strikes against him. He's part of a Sierra game so one wrong step and he's toast. Second, the announcer clearly hates his guts. Ignoring the fact that he's voiced by Gary Owens (a man who might be a God in human form), we have to say that it's fairly obvious that the announcer is giving him a serious inferiority complex. this is only exacerbated by the fact that apparently he screws up so badly that even his co-workers wonder how the hell he's still on the payroll.

     

    I'm looking at this objectively from Roger's perspective. He goes to work, his boss reminds him of how much he's a failure. he has very few buckazoids to last him until Starcon sees clear to give him another paycheck, a huge race of green and red-skinned aliens invade and he manages to defeat them using a drain snake, only to find out that he was in a restricted airspace to save the universe from being blown to bits so even the robots won't talk to him, and he's cleaning toilets for a month. He just wants to sit down at home with some Keronian Ale and heeeeeeeeere comes Ms. Complaint Department herself, Beatrice, reminding him that he left his toilet seat up and he smells bad because he's got alien goo on him.

     

    Is that the life of a hero? You would think his girlfriend would at least give him some support.

  7. I don't have a problem with anyone having their own opinions, but there's hopefully a world of difference between a meek, doormat passing as a human female and a psychotic bitch that looks like what happens when you cross-breed the Cryptkeeper with a rabid pit bull (that's Judge Judy, not Bea, although Bea has a lot of her personality quirks).

     

    women are supposed to be kind, sensitive, caring. I know loan sharks that are more affable than Bea. Somewhere in between a Disney movie heroine and a Disney movie villain has to be the right balance.

  8. There was an article that had a great commentary about the fact that just because Paul Trowe was a pervert (I guess the word "sicko" just didn't have the same ring), does that mean that only the depraved, sick, twisted people want to play adult-themed games...

     

    http://dispatches.cheatcc.com/620

     

    This brings up an interesting point. Even if Paul Trowe is a sicko, why is it that we as a society are okay with games with horrible amounts of violence but throw in some sex and uh oh -- this guy must need CPS called on him.

     

    Anyways, this article pretty much puts it to rest.

     

    Oh yeah, also act now and you will get:

    http://lists.cheatcc.com/72 (10 hottest chicks in gaming)

     

    and

     

    http://lists.cheatcc.com/100 (10 reasons why sex sells and we're all buying it).

     

    Now how much would you pay for the Paul Trowe repellant? :)

  9. The more I see from this guy, the more I realise he's not just some caricature of a bad business man; he's just an evil little shit.

     

    Evil little shit. You know, that pretty much sums him up to a T. There's something wrong with a guy who would intentionally sabotage other Kickstarters out of spite. So yeah, those three words seem to fit him perfectly.

     

    You may never know how truly evil he is (mostly because of events that won't be discussed here) but let's just say that not only does he look like Leisure Suit Larry, he's much lower in the primordial gene pool.

  10. Most of the technology was based on science fiction stuff like Star Trek. That's actually what made it so cool.

     

    If you think about it though, a lot of the people who made this stuff were nerds and nerds liked Star Trek as a kid, so they'd love this stuff. Plus, making it look like the stuff from Star Trek just made it that much more awesome.

  11. Sometimes there are things that are running jokes, like that you're never supposed to know what state the Simpsons live in (It's Oregon, by the way) or that you never see Wilson's face, but this one has me scratching my head.

     

    Why in the hell does the game only use 1-buckazoid coins?

     

    This is most noticeable in Space Quest IV when you buy the adapter for your laptop. There's a comment in there about putting in every single one of the 1999 buckazoids you need.

     

    Doesn't it seem just ever so slightly inconvenient to have everything in currency of single buckazoids? Shouldn't there be higher value coins, like a 50-buckazoid note or a 100-buckazoid note? It would certainly cut down on that clanging sound in your pocket.

  12. You know, one of my friends did that too. We were playing SQ2 and I had a friend named Steve Jones. He might have been gay, I dunno. He loved perverted humor and actually typed in fuck body in that scene. The game responded with a hysterical line that actually had him rolling in the aisles. This is something I would never think of but I remember telling people they were "one twisted mofo" for a couple of months after that, not even getting the connection of what the word mofo meant.

     

    also worthy of note, one of my friends, Eddie was playing the first Leisure Suit Larry and found a very special Easter Egg because he tried to do something naughty to the dealer (if you know the game, you know what he tried -- not traditional sex but something else), to which the parser told him "That comes later". To date, I have never been able to replicate it.

×
×
  • Create New...