Fair enough
It's still a laughably bad attempt at writing but... ...Surprise!
It is, gaming writing isn't exactly filled with competent writers.
Drugging without consent is still kinda fucked up and makes me wonder why this dude is the player Avatar when it's impossible to relate with the guy, just make him his own character already.
I would argue that would still be enjoyable to play someone you don't relate to. I assume no one relates, aside really messed up people, to most GTA protagonists and yet it's still succesful.
But I digress, for me drugging someone isn't that big of a deal considering the intended effect. He just wants a more efficient soldier, I can't exactly fault him for that. In war it's important to remember that people you command are tools, they're going to the meatgrinder most of them. I'm talking here of the nameless footman, not named characters. We often forget them even though without them no wars would of been won ever.
I guess it really depends on how you view "the end justify the means" as a person and in context of war.
My apologies for certain words in the post, what can I say, 4chan is 4chan. I'm still confused as to what is actually going on.
That whole last paragraph is some self-justifying bullshit. But by the time this was written, she was already a target of death threats, suggestions at suicide, hundreds of messages calling her everything in the book, slander, etc. so I guess you gotta justify her being bad/awful somehow. For simply pointing out something that's actually in the game and what she thought of it. Stuff like this makes me hate gamer and *chan culture, like a lot.
Well I can't speak for anything outside of /v/ but the biggest insult you can do to them is being ignorant, they're elitists. So that person who pointed this out and, sort of misinterpreted in some ways and if she did indeed admitted later on to not knowing much about the game etc commited a faux-pas. They're like that DnD player you game with that when you make a joke or attempt somethig silly and illegal looks at yiu with scorn and tells you "no fun allowed this session, this is serious".
It goes without sayig that I don't condone death threats and raiding and all bad things a group of people do to other people, even when I find myself on the opposite side. Nor does it excuse the paragraph you quoted, I merely like to describe things.
While I frequent the board, I only lurker and don't consider myself part of "the culture". I feel that way for most forums, I find them too much of a convenient tool to just ignore. I forgot though, I'm allowed to like problematic things. All is well, right?
But I don't think that paragraph is all worthless, he makes a valid observation at the end with gaming websites pushing for more censorship, this was already a touching subject with the raunchy S rank/ marriage dialogues of FE. But that's a whole can of worms. Which is why I assume the post didn't branch on that subject.
I mean seriously, you're still allowed to like the game even if there are troubling things in it. You can be a fan of problematic things, it's okay. As the article says, "As fans, sometimes we need to remember that the things we like don’t define our worth as people" so there's no need for people to get so defensive when something is pointed out in Fire Emblem or Witcher 3 or whatever it is.
I like the article and agree with it, I think you linked it in the past as it sounds vaguely familiar to me. Too bad in some circles they prefer censoring and bookburning problematic things.
I really like typing a lot of unecessary things, I'm sowwy. I have a lot of problems staying on topic and keeping my ideas short and sweet.
last edited at Jul 3, 2015 10:39AM
