Fucking Kotaku

[Pirandello]

I don't believe it's very difficult in a forum like this one to treat people with some measure of respect, even in disagreement.

The last part I assume is something that some of us have problems with. Most of the time, if the discussion is reasonable and respectful, I genuinely try to listen to the other side. Most times, if being the jerkiness stays on a casual level, I try to shrug it off with humor. Bring out the high horse, though, and you'll find me eagerly awaiting the chance to see how much you react when I pull your chains.

 

I do find myself reveling in fights with people with holier-than-thou attitudes. They rage on and on, and at the end they're all like "Well, I don't care anyways lol." Well, your 15 rage-filled comments beforehand sure proved you right! I like to see how long I can draw them out for before they realize that I'm just screwing with them on purpose.

 

Longer explanation another time, though.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

People sure do get their feelings hurt quite easily. Get over yourselves, it's the internet.

 

You're calling people idiots, it's the kind of thing that is designed to offend people. Where do you draw the line? If I say that the dumbest thing that bitch you call a mother ever did was get knocked up and shoot you out of her filthy twat, does it not matter because it's on the internet? Even if you don't care, should everyone grow thicker skin to meet your standards, or does it seem more reasonable for you to just speak to people without insulting them?

 

Just an alternative point of view to ponder.

 

I'm not calling anyone specific an idiot though.

[Johnny]

People sure do get their feelings hurt quite easily. Get over yourselves, it's the internet.

 

I'd love to see you take your own advice.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I'd love to know how I'm "under" myself in the first place. Quite the cop out reply.

[FredEffinChopin]

I don't believe it's very difficult in a forum like this one to treat people with some measure of respect, even in disagreement.

The last part I assume is something that some of us have problems with. Most of the time, if the discussion is reasonable and respectful, I genuinely try to listen to the other side. Most times, if being the jerkiness stays on a casual level, I try to shrug it off with humor. Bring out the high horse, though, and you'll find me eagerly awaiting the chance to see how much you react when I pull your chains.

 

I do find myself reveling in fights with people with holier-than-thou attitudes. They rage on and on, and at the end they're all like "Well, I don't care anyways lol." Well, your 15 rage-filled comments beforehand sure proved you right! I like to see how long I can draw them out for before they realize that I'm just screwing with them on purpose.

 

That was a poor choice of words on my part, I didn't so much mean when in an active disagreement, as much as managing to disagree with someone without insulting them. Like someone typing in response an opposing point of view without being a condescending prick about it. Frustration is only human, and it's easy to react as harshly as you feel on the internet, as there is nothing to stop or (in any meaningful way) punish you for it, so yeah, it's definitely hard to participate in a passionate debate without getting a at least a little bit snippy haha.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love my roll in the virtual hay now and then as much as the next guy (and can't say it hasn't been thoroughly satisfying at times), and have participated in some of the most embarrassingly juvenile internet slapfights. Even when trying to be civil, it's easy to get roped into someone's nasty attitude, and there have been more than a few occasions where I was the first one to maybe speak more frankly than I needed to to convey my point. I don't know, I suppose I just have some imagined some kind of higher standard for this forum, and I the downvotes on the needlessly hostile posts seemed to indicate I wasn't alone in finding it inappropriate.

 

For what it's worth Sens, while I disagree with your point of view in this particular case, I'm not going to badger you about it, and perhaps I could have made my point with less... passion, even if it was clear that the words were intended only as point makers. I just noticed gloves were coming off, and figured I'd throw my 2 cents in there, as the attitude was something that bugged me when I saw it in those quoted posts, other days, and once when I was a mild target of it. It seemed like people were getting insulted for being offended by being insulted, and it got to me.

[Baconrath]

this thread has been

[AgamemnonV2]

Not LotRO, War in the North, which isn't an MMO.

They covered War in the North fairly extensively in the past.

Also, they covered Rift pretty well leading up to its release.

I haven't seen a single Star Trek MMO news piece in... months.

I know I'm defending Kotaku, but I'm just trying to be fair.

War in the North is garbage. I suspect the only reason they covered that is because Snowblind Studios kept sending them crap.

 

And generally they only cover "popular" MMOs up to their release as well.

 

I made this point in the last "How can we improve Kotaku?" bit and Crecente flat-out told me that "we cover MMOs pretty well." Yeah. Must be why I still go to Massively to read the actual NEWS on MMOs.

[BrainHurtBoy...2]

War in the North is garbage. I suspect the only reason they covered that is because Snowblind Studios kept sending them crap.

How do you know it's garbage? It seems kind of cool, and you haven't played it. No need to just say random stuff to try and prove your point.

[AgamemnonV2]

I've seen Elves slinging fireballs in their promos, ergo it is crap. If they wanted the Dungeons & Dragons license then they should've just dealt with Wizards of the Coast instead.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I've seen Elves slinging fireballs in their promos, ergo it is crap. If they wanted the Dungeons & Dragons license then they should've just dealt with Wizards of the Coast instead.

 

So it's not garbage because of its gameplay or anything important but rather because of loose license usage? Yeah... Bit extreme bro

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

http://kotaku.com/5812088/has-sony-been-hacked-this-week

What a great way to grab pageviews!

[AgamemnonV2]

I've seen Elves slinging fireballs in their promos, ergo it is crap. If they wanted the Dungeons & Dragons license then they should've just dealt with Wizards of the Coast instead.

 

So it's not garbage because of its gameplay or anything important but rather because of loose license usage? Yeah... Bit extreme bro

Yeah, "loose." Because "magic" is such a common occurrence in the original mythos.

 

You'd care if it was a series you really enjoyed, like Escalades with spinners or black ghetto robots in Star Wars or something.

Edited June 15, 2011 by AgamemnonV2

[TheRevanchist]

I've seen Elves slinging fireballs in their promos, ergo it is crap. If they wanted the Dungeons & Dragons license then they should've just dealt with Wizards of the Coast instead.

 

So it's not garbage because of its gameplay or anything important but rather because of loose license usage? Yeah... Bit extreme bro

Yeah, "loose." Because "magic" is such a common occurrence in the original mythos.

 

You'd care if it was a series you really enjoyed, like Escalades with spinners or black ghetto robots in Star Wars or something.

 

 

Black ghetto robots? Ever seen Ice Pirates?

Edited June 15, 2011 by TheRevanchist

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

http://kotaku.com/5812088/has-sony-been-hacked-this-week

What a great way to grab pageviews!

 

I thought it was funny. I didn't know there was one of those sites for Sony

[deanb]

So Toshis status prompted me to pop on to Kotaku where I see current article proudly proclaiming the headline "We're number 3!"

 

It's this list:

http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2011/06/17/the-five-most-hated-brands-in-gaming/

[FredEffinChopin]

Of course they make a joke about it. God forbid they write something in acknowledgement, then they'd have to address the fact that some near-unanimously hated changes were accompanied with a hearty "fuck you if you don't like it" to the long-time readers & commenters. I scrolled through the comments a bit, mostly kotaku ass-kissing, mingled with some minor acknowledgement of the site's trolling, sensationalism, and horrible downgrade in design. I didn't have the heart to view any earlier discussions. I'd like to lose some weight, but inducing vomit isn't the way to go.

[Thursday Next]

Got another one of their retarded emailed articles today: "I've seen an Xbox and a PS3 playing together you won't."

 

Seriously? Was he that surprised that the games play together? Does he even know how servers and clients work? Every Battlefield title has a few lines of code that tells it whether to report to PS3, PC or Xbox servers. That's the only thing that fragments a community, we could turn it off tomorrow if the first parties let us.

 

It's even been done in the past, Shadowrun had cross platform play between PC and Xbox and Portal 2 has cross platform play between PS3 and PC. Now anyone with half a brain could work out that if the PS3 can work with the PC and the Xbox can work with the PC then guess what! The PS3 can work with the Xbox.

 

The only reason that it's not done is because either Sony, MS or both don't allow it.

 

I can understand the reasons why. If one console consistently beat the other it would be a PR disaster. MS stands to lose more if the experience is the same. If they can play against someone without a LIVE subscription and have the same experience then it becomes much harder for MS to justify that ~£40 per year.

[Mr. GOH!]

Got another one of their retarded emailed articles today: "I've seen an Xbox and a PS3 playing together you won't."

 

Seriously? Was he that surprised that the games play together? Does he even know how servers and clients work? Every Battlefield title has a few lines of code that tells it whether to report to PS3, PC or Xbox servers. That's the only thing that fragments a community, we could turn it off tomorrow if the first parties let us.

 

It's even been done in the past, Shadowrun had cross platform play between PC and Xbox and Portal 2 has cross platform play between PS3 and PC. Now anyone with half a brain could work out that if the PS3 can work with the PC and the Xbox can work with the PC then guess what! The PS3 can work with the Xbox.

 

The only reason that it's not done is because either Sony, MS or both don't allow it.

 

I can understand the reasons why. If one console consistently beat the other it would be a PR disaster. MS stands to lose more if the experience is the same. If they can play against someone without a LIVE subscription and have the same experience then it becomes much harder for MS to justify that ~£40 per year.

 

Oh, the credulousness of Kotaku always astounds me.

 

On a related note, I wonder if both Sony requires its online MP to be segragated from MS. I *know* MS does for the reason you outline (to make Live Gold worth something). I wonder if Sony believes that groups of friends buying copies for the same console is a big enough revenue boost to make the segregation worthwhile.

[deanb]

Given that Sony has a bit of a record now with cross-platform play n online experimentation, I'd wager they'd be totally cool with the idea. And since I imagine that MP titles tend to get bought on 360 for the perceived quality of the service so I think it would work out better for Sony if people could buy their games on PS3 to play with friends on 360.

[Thursday Next]

When a certain publisher talked to both first parties about sharing stats across platforms so that you could have a persistent soldier across PC, Xbox and PS3 Microsoft were very quick to say that they are ok with importing PC data but not exporting any data and would have absolutely no sharing with PS3 data.

 

This obviously doesn't work because if you were playing a game called... umm Field of Battle 3... and ranked up to Master Sergeant on PC with all the upgrades that come with that rank, then imported your data to the Xbox so that you could pick up where you left off then got some more unlocks, you could not push those back out to your PC soldier.

 

Sony were much more open to the idea, however the publisher didn't get the chance to pursue this with Sony as MS had already shut the concept down.

 

Note that this is only sharing stats / a persistent soldier between platforms, not even playing with others.

 

We'll get there in the end, but it's MS that is really choking innovation in interconnectivity at the moment.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Yet another reason this whole closed console business needs to die a slow quick, painful death.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Got another one of their retarded emailed articles today: "I've seen an Xbox and a PS3 playing together you won't."

 

Seriously? Was he that surprised that the games play together? Does he even know how servers and clients work? Every Battlefield title has a few lines of code that tells it whether to report to PS3, PC or Xbox servers. That's the only thing that fragments a community, we could turn it off tomorrow if the first parties let us.

 

It's even been done in the past, Shadowrun had cross platform play between PC and Xbox and Portal 2 has cross platform play between PS3 and PC. Now anyone with half a brain could work out that if the PS3 can work with the PC and the Xbox can work with the PC then guess what! The PS3 can work with the Xbox.

 

The only reason that it's not done is because either Sony, MS or both don't allow it.

 

I can understand the reasons why. If one console consistently beat the other it would be a PR disaster. MS stands to lose more if the experience is the same. If they can play against someone without a LIVE subscription and have the same experience then it becomes much harder for MS to justify that ~£40 per year.

 

Jesus fucking christ. Why are you people so harsh towards Kotaku? The article came from the angle that "he's never seen it though it is possible." It was more so wondering that why after all of these years this is the first time it's been shown in a development version. Also, why do you write multiple paragraphs every single post?

[excel_excel]

 

 

Jesus fucking christ. Why are you people so harsh towards Kotaku? The article came from the angle that "he's never seen it though it is possible." It was more so wondering that why after all of these years this is the first time it's been shown in a development version. Also, why do you write multiple paragraphs every single post?

WHY DO YOU WRITE ONE PARAGRAPH EVERY SINGLE POST!..... :grin:

[Hot Heart]

YOU PEOPLE!

[FredEffinChopin]