Brianna Wu / John Flynt - Original Thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

What are you opinions on GamerGate and Brianna Wu / John Flynt?

  • I am of no opinion towards either.

    Votes: 104 8.6%

  • I am neutral on GamerGate, but think that Brianna Wu is a bad person.

    Votes: 631 52.1%

  • I am neutral on GamerGate, and think that Brianna Wu is just trying to get by.

    Votes: 9 0.7%

  • I am ANTI-GamerGate, but still think that Brianna Wu is a bad person.

    Votes: 112 9.2%

  • I am ANTI-GamerGate, and think that Brianna Wu is just trying to get by.

    Votes: 37 3.1%

  • I am PRO-GamerGate, and think that Brianna Wu is a bad person.

    Votes: 309 25.5%

  • I am PRO-GamerGate, but still think that and think that Brianna Wu is just trying to get by.

    Votes: 9 0.7%
  • Total voters
    1,211
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteelPlatedHeart said:
Christ alive, the stupidity of that statement. Story games aren't as addictive because they're trying to tell a story. It doesn't mean the game is any less good because of it, just that the narrative is more of a focus.
Click to expand...

"Story games" are by and large inherently stupid because they simply aren't making full use of the medium. I'm sure all of us has a book that we really love, but imagine if somebody made a movie of someone simply sitting in a chair and reading that book out loud. It would be fucking stupid because it is an inappropriate use of the medium, no matter how good the book the guy is reading from is.

If there is no significant interactive portion to a "story game", then it is a waste of fucking time. Mario games have near nonexistent plots but they are still engaging because they are fucking fun games.

tl;dr I spreged and John is retarded
 
"Brain science."

I don't know why that specific term amuses me as much as it does. Shouldn't it be neuroscience? I just feel like calling it brain science is the same thing as calling geology "Rock science."
 
Norvic said:
BRAIN SCIENCE!

I'm almost sorry that nothing will ever come of this. I'd really like to see what sad reality is behind her talk of "breakthroughs" and "revolutions".
Click to expand...
The Mountain said:
"Brain science."

I don't know why that specific term amuses me as much as it does. Shouldn't it be neuroscience? I just feel like calling it brain science is the same thing as calling geology "Rock science."
Click to expand...

Are you guys done with your mansciencing? Thank you. John Flynt has no need for your patriarchal "quantitative data" or "research methods" - he read the introduction of a Wikipedia article once and that makes him as qualified as any MAN. His "research" (which doesn't need to be published or printed because that's oppression) is reason enough to justify spending $600 of donor's money on vidya for himself. If you disagree you are literally raping every woman on earth simultaneously.
 
ActualKiwi said:
That looks like an autistic version of Scorched Earth/Tank Wars...
Scorched Earth:
gfs_36122_2_8.jpg

Tank Wars:
56913-TankWars30.jpg
Click to expand...

Off-Topic, but I just want to say I fucking love Scorched Earth.
 
IcyShoes said:
... how does she have brain research like that?
Click to expand...
She has brain science it's new you haven't heard of it yet.
It turns out to make a story addictive you have to make the reader want to know what happens next instead of not care. You'll see this in the future.
upload_2016-1-6_15-26-40.png
 
The Colonel said:
Fucking shit, that seems a little overkill.
Click to expand...
Off topic,but vr will only be popular on the amd polaris and nvdia pascal that have built in vr support,making lower priced gpus compatible with vr.
Current gpus use software solutions.
Although dx12 will improve a lot on latency and coding for vr,finally releasing the power that gpus never used(a gtx 970 is several times more powerful than a ps4,but games barely look or run better).
 
zedkissed60 said:
I think you mean #stenography.
[MEDIA=twitter]684856191953059840[/MEDIA][MEDIA=twitter]684860187522498560[/MEDIA]https://tweetsave.com/transethics/status/684856191953059840
https://tweetsave.com/transethics/status/684860187522498560
Click to expand...

SteelPlatedHeart said:
That sounds weirdly suspicious for some reason.
Click to expand...

That's because this shit is not considered ethical amongst journalists:

A classic example of this reporter-source dynamic is when you've interviewed a source for a story you're writing. Then the source asks to see a copy of the story it before it's published. He figures he's helped you out by doing the interview, so why shouldn't you return the favor by giving him a sneak peek of the story?

What should you do?

As a rule, journalists generally don't show their stories to sources before they are published. Why? Because if there's something in the story the source doesn't like - the way they are portrayed, for instance - they may try to convince you to change the story so that it's more to their liking.

And if a reporter allows himself to be coerced into altering a story to suit a source, then he's surrendered his editorial independence, and the story starts to resemble a public relations press release, not a hard-hitting news story.

Remember, it's the reporter's job to write about people and events objectively, without fear or favor, as the saying goes. If a reporter lets a source dictate what goes into a story, then the reporter loses that objectivity and becomes little more than a mouthpiece for whatever message the source wants to convey.
Click to expand...

Source: http://journalism.about.com/od/reporting/a/showingsourcesstories.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom