@skywake: not to steal your thunder or anything, but they've accused both myself and someone else (i believe it was Jaz007, i can't remember exactly) of resorting to personal attacks as well over the course of this discussion, though that portion was part of the now-deleted original thread, so that's why you may have thought it was just you. :3 I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to the latter pages of this new thread so i haven't seen where you may or may not have 'personally attacked' the OP, but i remember the only thing i could see with either of the posts from the other thread that had been accused of 'personal attacks' was the use of the word 'you' to directly describe something the OP had said or done in their posts, and they apparently didn't like what we were pointing out.

none of what you're saying has anything to do with what I just said.

What you've been saying is that people [gaming companies] should be free to express themselves however they please. No one has argued against that from what I've seen. What I'm saying is that they're free to do so and no one is stopping them, but conversely the reviewer and the consumer may choose to or not to recommend or to buy their product if they do include things that they do or do not personally enjoy interacting with under the label of 'entertainment', and for good or ill, they should not be forced to remain silent just because they may be the only person standing up to say something negatively influenced their perception of the product or game at hand.

You can't have one set of freedoms without the other. Either the gaming company and the reviewer are both free to express themselves, or neither are free to do so.

@garywood: they can say and do what they like as long as it's done in a legal manner, but part of that freedom is others being able to speak out against such things and make personal purchasing decisions based on them. express yourself however, but don't cry foul when you're called out on racist, bigoted, ridiculous, unethical or scammy things publicly and/or people make the choice not to buy your stuff due to personally disagreeing with what you've included, said, or done. the rest of us are exercising our own rights and freedoms.

@banacheck: 'society' has changed since the days of racial bigotry being a-ok in the media. 'society' is still changing now, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place. A reviewer bringing up the idea that GTA:V is inherently sexist and/or misogynistic isn't something that should be silenced — we shouldn't demand it of them or say that they should be obligated to report on such things if they didn't bother them, but should they be barred from having mentioned it within the context of the review if it did impact the game that much for them? Absolutely not. A reviewer feeling comfortable enough in their own skin and their place in society to say that these sort of things bothered them enough to mention should not be as surprising to anyone as it apparently was in this case.

hey, i was wondering when you were gonna show up. i got bored a while back trying to explain how this works, maybe you'll have better luck :3

@petitprofesorNL: assuming you're not actually the original petitprofessor trying to rile people up over what may seem to be an arbitrary or unjust ban from the outside (and i assume nothing, i'm just throwing this out there since you don't seem to get how this works), user petitprofessor (and subsequently his alt account petitprofesor) were banned by user request. if he wants his original account back all he needs to do is get in touch with us via Contact Form, same as anyone else who self-bans.

aaaaahhhhh don't even go there with the sci-fi, @garywood, haha! i'm probably the hugest Trekkie here, plus I love me some Stargate and BSG. DefHalan is right about that regarding human emotion, all of these series seem to pride the human element, our sense of intuition, our emotions over all else (not so surprising since we're all human here IRL, but y'know )

@mickeymac: It's the continued focus on DLC and mobile gaming that gets me personally, as well as that adorable statement at the end, lol.

Society has already changed quite a bit over the past ten years, twenty years, thirty years. Social tastes change, new realizations have us constantly evolving into the people we are today. As I said in the last thread, you're digging in your feet and not wanting things to change, but it's inevitable, it's inexorable. It's going to happen whether you like it or not, my friend, and nothing you can say or do will stop it from happening.

That said, I'd say then what I'm saying now — if someone wants to mention something in a review, more power to them. If someone doesn't want to mention something, i'll still probably have read the other review that does mention it, so I'll still be as informed a consumer as possible. In no way do I expect all reviewers to mention the same thing, but I do not expect one reviewer to be silenced because they're bringing something up.

Gaming today is already different from what it was ten years ago. I choose to look forward to how it will be ten years in the future as opposed to trying to hold on to what it is today, and I don't say that because I hate games today or anything, nor did I hate games that came before now. I am enjoying the ones I'm playing now and genuinely looking forward to what is to come, what opportunities the future will hold for me personally as a gamer. .

As for your example, how's this (it's not socio-political or anything, but it may as well be for all intents and purposes of this discussion) I once reviewed a game that had a serious bug that I was able to successfully reproduce on another console. It completely wiped out all my save data, forcing me to start new, thus I was never able to complete the game. Had that bug not have been there I may have rated the game higher, but as I had experienced it twice over I could in no good conscience give the game anything but our lowest score possible, a 1, based on my own experience with it. Should I have been silenced just because no other review (save one that I know of) brought it up as a problem? Should I have been forced to rate the game positively despite knowing that someone else out there could experience the same glitch I had? I'm glad I was not silenced, but by your logic I should have rated it based on my experience with the game itself and not based on the glitch that I knew was there and could affect other players.

pretty much this. in no way do i let my purchasing decisions hinge on one single review, i'm usually reading everything i possibly can from people who have played the game. heck, half the time i'm asking my friends how they felt about something instead of consulting a proper write-up about a game to see if i'll like it, because i know my friends' tastes and who to trust the most about this genre or that genre. it's very helpful to understand where a person is coming from in terms of a game review, and if she as a woman had a problem with the way women are depicted or treated in-game, i'd almost expect for it to come out through her review of said game. doesn't bother me a bit since she's one voice among many.

if game reviews and reviewers weren't a dime a dozen on these great wide interwebs, maybe you'd have more of a point with all this ruckus-raising, @garywood, but I just don't see the problem.

you'd have one opinion among many. it's all six of one/half a dozen of the other anyway — you'd have the people rabidly agreeing with you and those disagreeing with you to the death no matter what you wrote. the important thing is that you'd be able to say what you said unhindered, just like all the 'nutters' you think are crazy for having said this or that about games you've played, so what does it matter as long as you were absolutely, brutally honest? no one could fault you for that.

When you write to please others, that's where you go wrong, because people are still going to disagree no matter what you write. you have to be honest with yourself and with everyone around you — 'as a long-time Mass Effect fan, this game was crap', y'know?

@MrWalkieTalkie: Just so you know, if a member of the moderation team is actively participating in a discussion, let us make the call whether or not to delete it. There was nothing wrong with that discussion, garywood (and everyone else) were abiding by our Rules so far as I could see. If it had gone too far, I would've nipped it in the bud, I promise you.

as to the topic in question, if it negatively impacted their playthrough of the game and how they felt about the game overall, I absolutely expect a reviewer to bring it up and for it to color the review overall. Why bring something up and then at the end be all 'oh but don't let that stop you it's a great game' when it clearly wasn't a great game from the standpoint of the reviewer?

@FishieFish: I understand that, but I mean while playing the Future Past pack, would Cynthia still recognize Sumia as her mother (and have a suitably awkward conversation with her) is what I'm asking. I haven't used Sumia since i got her in the game, so i don't want to go through the trouble of keeping her alive and whatnot if her daughter won't talk to her, y'know? :3

aargh that Future Past pack is crazy~ but i had a question: if one of the children is a child it's impossible for you to get in your file (e.g. i can't get Cynthia because Sumia can't marry any of the available bachelors I have left in my group, aargh), will they still talk to their mother at least? or will that conversation just have to wait for a different playthrough?

yeah i think that sums it up at this point

@DefHalan: The difference is that one is covered by the EULA, so in the event it ever happens, you are SOL. The other is not, however, and legally you will be made whole again afterward, else they could face a class-action. :3

@Mickeymac: Indeed. This instance here is a non-issue, but I like putting that out there because people can get quite angry when users like me put our feet down about buying digital vs. holding out for retail. :3

that said, for those few who may still be afraid Nintendo will delete games removed from the Shops or whatever — there was one instance of a glitchy game that had been released via the Wii Shop (Last Ninja 3 iirc) that was removed and users were offered refunds. If the refund was accepted, the game was deleted from the user's console, but if the refund offer went ignored the glitchy game remained. No action was taken by Nintendo before the user made the decision to accept the offered refund. For all other instances of games being removed from the VC, users who purchased and downloaded them were/are still able to play them absolutely unhindered, and i believe we may also have the option to redownload them still — i haven't checked my Wii in a while so ymmv, but last i knew the option was still there.

@DefHaian: if I did nothing wrong, played only games I purchased legally and did nothing to circumvent either hardware or software security measures, them having the option to brick my system is not covered by the EULA and they will either replace the system or refund me my money. If I purchase a digital version of a game, though, it's in the EULA that the license i've purchased may be revoked at any time, and you have to agree with the EULA in order to purchase the license in the first place. Try again. :3

No matter what or how it happened, scams or no, this is why buying digital is always at your own risk. They can't take away a physical cartridge, but they can absolutely revoke a digital license. Keep that in mind, guys, when you're about to ridicule someone else for not choosing to purchase a digital version of a game for whatever reason. :3

there's the option of dlc and the optional chapters to be considered, that's why they did it. what's being saved is probably your levels and information regarding things you bought or did before tackling grima's chapter again, not that of the enemies you just defeated. it's not the first game to leave you at your last spot just before the boss, won't be the last. sorry the game's been ruined for you, but it's not a glitch, it keeps the game open for the player to continue with things released later on. :3

@apowes: if you're buying on eBay, just keep your eyes open; if the fonts look off or something seems weird (a DS game for NA in a clear EU case for example), don't bite. Try to avoid sellers from Hong Kong or other east asian countries, buy from sellers within your own country. i tend to avoid sellers who don't show images of the actual cartridge and/or case/booklet in question, stock images do nothing to help you discern whether or not a game is legit or counterfeit. If something seems funny about the game as shown or the auction in general, i'd move on to the next seller no matter how good that deal was.

pretty sure i already locked this thread once.

okay, now i'm waiting for someone to realize I don't find this funny... my inbox is cluttered enough without this sort of thing :/

hey guys, please knock it off with the overquoting (it's against our Community Rules), and please don't attempt to imitate me or any other member of staff. That's a can of worms best left unopened. Thanks in advance, I'd hate to have to lay down some temp-bans today :3

i'm waiting to find out why i've been summoned >:/

come on, guys, he's just trying to warn you in case you've already got a copy of Word Up lying around. no sense buying it twice unless you really, really love it :3