Bay 12 Games Forum

There's a difference between a gag gift and a game that you, personally, just don't happen to like. While everyone is fully entitled to their own opinion, it would be good if everyone could always keep in mind that when you say "X thing is terrible," you're suggesting not only that your personal taste is somehow inherently superior to that of other people, but also that anyone who likes that thing is deserving of ridicule. That's a terribly unfair thing to do and although you may think you sound cool, in actuality it makes you look like a callous jerk. Take five seconds to think about how you would feel if you read a post that said something you like is terrible and people who like it should be mocked. You'd be pretty pissed off, and rightfully so. We can all disagree but still be decent and respectful towards one another.

For example, this is fine: I don't like it / I didn't get anything out of it / It doesn't do anything for me
This is not fine: This game is terrible / If your friend likes this game, you should mock them / What kind of idiot would like this game

I know most people are just sharing their opinions, but I did see some things a few posts back that I was really surprised to see on our lovely forum.

Personally, I found the Stanley Parable to be so hilarious I actually had to stop playing at one moment because I couldn't stop laughing. I get that it's not right for everyone, but still, seriously. There are games which are universally agreed to be B-A-D and games that just don't have universal appeal. If we're trying to find a good gag gift, let's make it one that everyone can agree is terrible, without mocking people who like cult or niche games. I didn't like Dear Esther (it bored me to tears), but I know a lot of people enjoyed it, so I wouldn't recommend using it as a "gag gift."

...I, um. I love you all.

It's all arbitrary, I'm sure someone, somewhere would say bad rats is just a cult or niche game too.

I think it's somewhat hypocritical to say people are bad for making fun of certain games (that you happen to like), then in the next paragraph say we should stick to making fun of slightly less popular games.

Anyway. Lots of the good ones have been mentioned, but not "the graveyard"? It's a little more pricey at $2.50 but it's a pretty good gag gift due to being so wtf pointless. It's also older so he may not have heard about it, plus the forum has a bunch of jokes about the secret zombie mode and such (that don't actually exist) so you might get him thinking there's more to it, which is like bonus points.

Wasn't that video from months before? And not even a theft?

The video was from about 10 minutes before he was shot.

The only site I've seen that suggested he actually payed also got another key fact wrong (they said he was shot in the back, which in fact he was not). Furthermore, if you believe he did pay it's incredibly difficult to explain his threatening behavior when the shopkeeper tried to stop him from leaving.

On top of that, his friend who was with him admitted that they stole them.

Quote from: BurnedToast on November 25, 2014, 03:38:40 pm

Quote from: Levi on November 25, 2014, 03:30:52 pm

I don't see what it matters if he committed robbery or not.  The punishment for robbery is not to be shot and killed.

This is the kind of bullshit I hate. He was not shot and killed for robbing a store. He was shot and killed in self defense after charging the officer.

And you're sitting here telling us the reason it's ok he got shot and killed for a different incident is because he once committed a crime. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying shit about that store robbery. But do go on continuing to justify his shooting while acting like you're not.

I'm not pretending I'm not justifying his shooting - I'll come right out and say it, based on the evidence I've seen and heard, I believe the police officer was justified in shooting michael brown in self defense. The jury seems to have agreed with me

The robbery is not why he was shot, though. I don't, for example, think he should have been shot and killed if he had just complied with the officer. Arrested? yes. Shot? of course not.

Similarly, if he had never robbed the store at all (but had still assaulted the officer for some reason, then charged him when he realized escape was impossible) I still think the shooting would have been justified self defense.

So I'm not really completely sure what point you're trying to make. The robbery is (probably) the reason he assaulted the officer, which is the reason he was shot. Despite being separate incidents, they are very obviously related.

The officer in question knew nothing about the robbery. He stopped Brown and his friend because they were black. He was doing what all racist cops do, giving shit to people for the color of their skin.

Not particularly unusual to shoot an unarmed black person either, tbh. This story got a lot of coverage, but this is constantly happening nationwide. This is 1 story among hundreds of thousands.

Incidentally, does anyone else find it interesting that 9 out of the 12 jurors on the grand jury were... white?

it's my understanding that he knew about the robbery (it had been broadcast over the radio), but didn't realize michael brown was the suspect at first. He realized it after a few moments, and reversed which is when the assault happened.

Was the original stop for them walking in the street racist? I don't know (and I suppose nobody but the officer really knows) but I have to say that yes, there probably was a racial element to it, and it's terrible unfortunate that such things happen, and that yes we should consider that when judging the events that followed.

As for the jury, no - the makeup of the jury corresponds with the racial makup of st. louis county (which is where the jury was drawn from). Unless you're suggesting blacks should get all black juries instead of properly proportioned juries or something like that?

Quote from: BurnedToast on November 25, 2014, 02:23:36 pm

the only reason the situation existed was because he robbed a store

Repeat after me: saying a lie over and over does not make it true. This is a factual statement you can repeat again and again, I will have no issue with that. But stop saying this specific lie. The owner of the store disputes the police and other's [sarcasm]guilty verdict[/sarcasm] because he got paid by MB. Even says it was a person alone who robbed the store. So, find a different angle.

http://aattp.org/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-to-show-brown-paying-for-cigarillos-video/

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/lawyer-store-didnt-call-cops-on-ferguson-teen-michael-brown/14138121/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft

Gosh, it's almost like there's rioters going around burning down the city so that anyone involved would want to distance themselves as much as possible from the whole situation so they don't get their store burned down.

Watch here (relevent part starts about 50 seconds in). If you believe he payed for them, how do you explain the shopkeeper trying to stop him, and him obviously pushing him away and threatening him as he walked out?

Edit: in addition to the friend who was with him who admitted that they stole them.

People who don't enjoy the benefits of the social contract have no obligation to abide by it.

People who don't abide by the social contract don't deserve the benefits of it. It works both ways.

Michael brown was a thief - that's not in dispute. He also attacked a police officer with no provocation (unless you think a police officer questioning you about a crime you committed is provocation), that is also not in dispute (as far as I know).

None of this would have happened if he had not robbed the convenience store. None of this would have happened if he had not attacked the police. None of this would have happened if he had just gotten down instead of charging the officer.

Where's the condemnation of him? Oh, right, he does not have to abide the social contract because historically blacks have been treated poorly 

I liked afterlight a lot - the only real problem I had with it was you've got a *very* limited amount of soldiers and you only get a very small amount more at certain predetermined spots in the story. You can build robot vehicles to send with your troops on missions so it's not like you can literally run out of troops... but the vehicles are rather weak and take a LONG time to build so it's not practical to rely on them heavily.

So it's really hard to ironman it, I hate to reload just because a soldier dies but if you don't, halfway through the campaign you will realize you're completely screwed and have to start over and that sucks because it's a long game.

I've played through the campaign twice, and steam says that took me 105 hours - $0.70 is an absolute steal for that IMO, despite the flaws in the game.

Edit: As for the other games, aftershock is ok, have not played it in a long time but I remember it being fun. Aftermath is pretty good, though it starts to get tedious near the end. Both are worth playing IMO.

Morrowind was so broken, it was pretty hilarious at times. I used alchemy to make a potion that made me so fast just tapping a movement key would send my flying off the map into some inescapable grey void, I had to reload a save to get out.

I personally think oblivion and skyrim were, overall, better games... but sometimes I do miss the insanity of morrowind.