TarickStonefire Comments

Page 1 of 35

  • Minecraft: Story Mode is an episodic series from Telltale

  • TarickStonefire 19/12/2014

    @DeSoto
    "The awful consumers of telltale crap are a blight on us all.

    I wish I could flush the entire company down the toilet. They'd have never survived in PS2 era. Stop promoting them."
    Crikey. Who's holding a gun to your head and making you buy games you don't want or like? That must be awful for you.

    Also, love the entirely irrelevant comment about how a contemporary company wouldn't have survived in an era that had it's hey-day about a decade ago. What you trying to say there, exactly? That you're stuck in the past and damn everyone who dares to live in the now?
    Reply 0
  • Controversial mass murdering game Hatred appears on Steam Greenlight

  • TarickStonefire 18/12/2014

    Ah what a classic sketch! Brilliant :D

    Come on you THOUSAND COMMENTS.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 18/12/2014

    Come on, let's get this to 1000 comments. I'll get the ball rolling:

    SJWs are losers!
    Gamergate sucks!
    This is censorship!
    No it's not!

    And so on.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 18/12/2014

    @joelwelden-smith Heh, I bet you like to think you're an alpha male on the internet, but in reality you're exactly the sort of person that REAL alpha males say things like "Put your panties back on and go back to watching disney movies then" to.

    Hence the internet persona.

    Am I right? Bet I am. Either way, you're funny.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 17/12/2014

    @johnboyadvance "But well done to all concerned."

    For what?

    You don't think the mob have campaigned hard for this and won, or something, do you?

    Sounds to me like Gabe would have reversed this furore or not.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 17/12/2014

    @KaizokuTomSan
    Hmmm. Grow a backbone valve. Seems like they've just given in to customer backlash rather than having the balls to stick with their original decision. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. But that's what it seems like to me."
    I'm not so sure. Gabe's account to the devs does sound perfectly plausible to me. It sounded like a hasty reaction at the time even though I backed it, and this sounds like they've thought it through now.

    I still would vote NO for it, myself. Have done.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 17/12/2014

    @FireMonkey Yes. I would not find myself wincing when watching the character shove a gun in a zombie's mouth and pull the trigger.

    When he does it to an unarmed innocent woman he's already stabbed multiple times it's very different.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 17/12/2014

    @georgetm1
    "How much of a fuckwit do you have to be to think that this game helps you blow off steam? Is grabbing a woman, sticking a gun to her head while she is begging for mercy before blowing a hole in her head anyones idea of "blowing off steam"? Sounds more like some fucked up power fantasy to me."
    Eeeeeexactly.

    I cannot understand who would *want* to play this.

    Well, I can actually, and they're right at the very bottom of the evolutionary ladder in my opinion. Human pond scum with brains the size of peas and a chip on their shoulder that's inversely proportional to said brain.

    Still, it was Valve's right to not want to sell it, and their right to decide they'll give it a chance and see what the public wants. No censorship has occurred, but it's been most enlightening seeing how many people have no idea what censorship really is.

    Ah well. Game looks utter shite. Have voted NO.
    Reply +7
  • TarickStonefire 17/12/2014

    If you don't like it, vote it down on Greenlight. Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 17/12/2014

    Well, we'll have to wait and see why Valve decided they didn't want to publish it, and then decided they did want to publish it. But as I said before: it's their shop, their decision.

    Personally I think the game looks hideous and horrible. But that's why "vote with your wallet" is a thing.
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @kraigmorgasm Nope. They want to tell people what shit they don't feel like publishing in their shop. That's all. Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @thegroveman
    If I ran a children's bookstore and refused to stock pornography, does that constitute censorship? It's up to each business to classify obscenity in a way that seems fit.

    Comparing to Postal 2 may be accurate content-wise, but the media hysteria around that game played out years ago. Hatred is the new thing, and I'm sure that Valve made a business decision to avoid the crosshairs of a backlash in the media (and the backlash if the rumors about the game's developers are true). The game looks awful - like a Law and Order episode's example of what type of video games lead to violence.
    Another great post standing out amongst the noise. Much sense here.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    Such an awesome comments thread. So much stupid :D Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @PlugMonkey
    "It's not a ridiculous question at all because highly pornographic games do exist, it's just that Steam chooses not to sell them - just like it chooses not to sell this. Ridiculous? It's identical!

    I think they should have every right to choose not to sell them. We have a right to choose what games we play, and Steam has a right to choose what games it sells.

    Those rights exist independently and don't infringe each other one iota. Your ability to play this game remains 100% intact."
    I wholly agree with everything above. Good post.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @xefe "Now the appeal is to support the censored dev and free speech."

    Nobody has been censored, and nobody's speech has been impinged upon.

    The game is still being developed (that's the free speech bit) and the game can still be sold wherever they like that feels like selling it, including their own website if they choose (that's the censorship bit AND the free speech bit).
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Leben
    "HOWEVER, in the article, Eurogamer said that "We've requested comment from Valve about its decision to allow Hatred on Steam Greenlight and will update should we hear back". EG were requesting censorship and that is what I disagree with."
    The way I read that, EG were requesting comment about Valves decision to allow Hatred *in light of thousands upon thousand of customers complaining about it* so they could add some context to their article.

    That's journalism. Not censorship.
    Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @lexielsangre
    What the hell? Valve sells everything from Postal, Manhunt to other games, why is this game different? It looks like a twin stick shooter? And finally with someone with a coat? I don't really see what's wrong here... I can go on the same murdering spree in every game starting with TES: Morrowind, Skyrim, Saints Row, well, pretty much anywhere. Don't see those being taken down, ie for being a vampire and having to kill people to feed on their blood. Lol.
    The point is those games aren't built around very, *very* specifically providing for that urge. Nor are most of them designed to allow you to graphically butcher perfectly innocent civilians in a very real-world setting.

    Come on. Deep down you know full well why Valve don't want to publish this on Steam.

    LOL, indeed.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @billbongo "That's so cowardly of Valve to bend to the whim of political correctness. Yet, they allow truly crap games on greenlight, like Air Control out there, and not do a damn thing about it when people get scammed"

    You've assumed the decision was purely to cow tow to complainers, but consider this: they're running a store and they choose what to sell. If enough of their staff and customers find it objectionable of COURSE they'll look at it closely. Makes sense to me.

    Secondly, you're perfectly capable of looking up customer and media reviews of a game before you buy it. If you go ahead and buy a terrible game without doing your due diligence, that's on you.

    Valve clearly have a 'mostly everyone can play even if you can't code for toffee - the market will decide' for most things, stepping in only when lines are crossed. This time, a line was crossed.

    Comparing Hatred and Air Control is daft.
    Reply +6
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @KathyJShealy Me too. SHOCKED I tell you. I told Chad too but he ignored me, probably because not a single person below is called Chad.

    Oh you're not listening? You're a bot? You think people fall for this?

    Oh.
    Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @I_D_D_Q_D Errrrrrr, no, the game was submitted to Greenlight, and Valve took the decision they didn't want to publish it and took it off Greenlight.

    They've not stopped anyone playing the game. If theirs was literally the only place anyone could buy games in the entire world, or even one country, maybe. But it's not.

    It's not censorship. It's called curation. It's what you do when you own a library of media you loan out or sell, and choose which bits of media to put in it.

    If a country or government stops something, that is indeed censorship. I don't know why you assumed I would disagree on that - it's you playing loose with facts and definitions as they suit you, not me.
    Reply +5
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @I_D_D_Q_D IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP.

    It's ONE game emporium saying "We've taken a look, it's not for us, we won't sell it here." You can claim they've been pressured all you like, but is't part of the decision making process for a shop considering selling something to look at the opinions of their customers as well as their staff and base the decision on that?

    (answer, yes it is)

    Other avenues are available to the devs and customers who wish to purchase it. I'm sure they'll do a roaring trade on their own website.

    I think you just saw an excuse to air your views on people who have opinions you don't agree with, and took it. The best bit is where you call these people names, then accuse them of calling other people names. Just genius irony. Thank you!
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Zomeguy *sigh*

    I read the link. I understand that Steam is a collection of services.

    One of them is that they sell games. That element could also be described as a shop. An online shop.

    Would you prefer 'store'?

    What part of Valve selling games from Steam and therefore that part of Steam being a store don't YOU understand?

    And more to the point, what relevance has it got to Valve's right to not sell anything they don't feel like selling?
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Zomeguy "No, steam is not just a shop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_%28software%29"

    The part that distributes games for sale is.

    Y'know, the part we're all talking about.

    Pedantry doesn't win the fight, it just prolongs it, but that was probably the aim, right?
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @the_rydster "What complete BS. So now Valve is in the business of only selling games it is a fan of?"

    No, you've added the bit about being a fan, because it helps make the person you're replying to seem like an idiot, which makes it easier for you to discredit their comment.

    All they said was "Based on what we've seen on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam."

    It's quite evident they've made a human decision to not be associated with something that at this stage looks to have few redeeming qualities.

    But even if you disagree - so what? Buy it somewhere else.
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @aros "If it were up to you, it would be banned altogether I'm sure."

    And it's easy for you to make statements like that and just walk away from them like you've deemed it a fact.

    When actually it's bollocks. I wouldn't be in favour of banning it outright based on what I've seen of it so far. I'm not really in favour of bans on many things at all, actually, I just think it's Steam's right to decide not to publish and sell it. Other avenues are available.

    Which you'd know if you'd asked me before casting an aspersion because it sounded like a snappy sign-off on an internet comment ;)
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @aros "People should be educated and self-aware enough to make their own choices. Not controlled by fools."

    Right. Who's controlling them so as to stop them buying the game from other outlets when it's complete, including the dev's own website?
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Dajji77 You're just a one-man sniping machine. Have you got ANY points to make or is it all about the misdirection with you? Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Dajji77 "Edit: wow, you edited your entire post? Good job, slightly less idiotic now.
    Edit: edited again!? Make your mind up buddy. It's back to being idiotic now."

    Haven't edited any posts since you posted this original one. The page is getting hammered, don't blame me.

    Which edit you even referring to?
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Great-Googly-Moogly I agree with what you say.

    But this is odd:

    "Valve have a brand to protect. When this game launches there is going to be a lot of bad press. Apple do this as well (no one complains) ."

    People complain about Apple policing their store with a way too heavy hand ALL THE TIME.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Dajji77
    "If you didn't reply to so many people maybe you'd be able to keep track of who said what, and thereby not look like a dunce. HTH"
    "If you didn't try to have a discussion with people who were all making interesting points, maybe you could remember all the things *I* said, because it's all about ME."

    LOL

    I remember you mentioning it. I don't remember any reason why. It can't have been that memorable, if you did! All you have to do is quickly summarise why I should read it and what relevance it has, while you have my attention.

    Or, you could waste that attention sniping pointlessly.

    Take your pick! But be quick, other people are making more interesting points than you all the time... ;)
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Dajji77 I'm not reading that screed you linked to trying to work out the relevance. Can you just tell me what relevance does it have to whether Steam are within their rights to assess a game and decide it's not something they want to publish? Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @el-pollo-diablo Fair enough.

    We disagree on whether the article was biased to begin with, however.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Dajji77 Wow, dogmanstar wrote a serbian Film? Awesome! Wonder what he's following it up with? Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @arcam
    "Funny how everyone was calling censorship when Target removed GTA from the shelves, but when it's a game you don't like it's just a shop exercising their right to choose..."
    Presumably you can back this up with hundreds of examples of EG users that are saying it's just a store's right to choose under this article, that said the opposite under the GTA article? Would love to see them so that I can join you in asking them what the difference is.

    Maybe even just ten? Find me ten examples, and we'll humiliate them together.

    No make it five.

    Hell, find me one, and I'll cock my hat to you.

    I for one have said the exact same thing about both: it's the store's right to choose.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @el-pollo-diablo "Also, it has since been removed from the article, but the original article had a sentence "We've requested comment from Valve about its decision to allow Hatred on Steam Greenlight and will update should we hear back" so yeah, Eurogamer did complain that the game was allowed. Take it as you will."

    I see that as *exactly* the same as the comment I wrote about.

    It's a journalist asking a company that run a store about their decision to allow something in that store, to accompany a news report about thousands upon thousands of customer comments about whether that something should or should not be allowed in their store.

    I can see how it could be construed as judgmental. But tbh I don't really see why it's a problem if it was judgmental. EG aren't held to a code of being unbiased in their reporting of news, same as no other comparable news source is.
    Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Zomeguy "Even though I acknowledge Steam's right to refuse a game, calling Steam just "a shop" is a bit dishonest, isn't it?"

    Not even remotely. Steam is a shop. Calling it a shop is not dishonest.

    What do you actually mean? Say that.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @mecha-B "I just think by removing it they're tacitly accepting the pro-censorship arguments of gaming industry critics."

    That's a choice you're making. And frankly, it's not a very fair one.

    I see a shop looking at the content of a game, and making a decision about whether it crosses a line for them personally.

    It seems like you think it's every dev's right to be stocked by every game shop on the planet. Is that what you think?
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @mecha-B "This game may or may not be morally indefensible, people will form their own opinion on that. But why is that Valve's responsibility?"

    Valve is a company, that runs a shop, that chose not to stock a product.

    Where are people getting this "protecting us" and "responsibility" angle from? It's not in the statement they gave.

    Devs can sell the game from their website. They likely knew full well all this would happen, and now they'll need to spend WAY less on publicity when they start making the game available for sale themselves.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @el-pollo-diablo

    Firslty, it's not censorship.

    Secondly, EG asked them about their decision, they didn't ask them "why is it allowed" as a means of complaining that it has been allowed. It's a standard journalist question: "can you tell us about your decision? Why did you make it, how did you make it, do you have any comment to those complaining about it?"

    Thirdly, those Postal games are not quite in the same class as Hatred, they have at least a modicum of a sense of humour to tide them through it, but yes they are still very troubling.

    But, they're also ANCIENT and who plays them now? But this game is new, and here now, and Steam have every right to nip this one in the bud because it's their shop.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    There's lots of games about killing.

    So this isn't about the killing per se. It's about how it's been constructed and presented, and the world it's set in, and the context of how and why you're asked to kill. These things combined leave the game looking much worse than GTA.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @the_rydster "I think we're debating the merits of Valve's decision and what it is predicated upon."

    We are indeed. But you stated that it was not being sold because we needed to be protected from it. That's a conclusion you've drawn for yourself. Everyone else sees a statement in which Valve says based on what they've seen they wouldn't sell it. Nothing about protecting us.

    I think they chose not to sell it because it leaves them feeling very unpleasant and they just think it crosses a line. And also, some of the strongest user feedback ever. So they made a decision based on that.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @the_rydster
    @TarickStonefire And yes, businesses are free to do what they want insofar as it doesn't infringe on other's basic rights. I don't see any basic rights being infringed here.

    Buying something from a shop is not a basic right anyway.

    Exactly. No rights are being infringed: not ours as the customer, nor the developer's who is free to sell the game from their website or other outlets that choose to stock it.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @the_rydster "The point is that businesses are not free to 'do what they want' anyway; who they choose to serve or not to serve, whose products to sell and who's to not sell, have social consequences and they are not exempt from criticism."

    Yeah but you used a completely unrelated act of racial discrimination to try and make the point. Weird.

    And yes, businesses are free to do what they want insofar as it doesn't infringe on other's basic rights. I don't see any basic rights being infringed here.

    And no, they're not exempt from criticism. But just because you're criticising something/someone, doesn't mean you're correct to do so. I don't see why people criticise Steam for choosing not to stock something you'll be able to buy from the dev's website no problem at all.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @Dajji77 Context is more than what's in the cutscenes.

    Sure, make this game art if you like., Frankly, all games are, insofar as 'art' is 'something you create'.

    I'm serious, call it art if you like!

    But it's art that comes from a really horrible place. And that's the context. It's really horrible, dark, unpleasant, nasty art that celebrates the most horrible of human acts: cold, callous, motiveless death sprees around the streets. That's the ONLY thing you can do, and that sets it apart from other games about killing.

    So far it hasn't even bothered to add a story to give the game some through line. It's just asking players to come murder innocents for no reason. It's dark. Way darker than GTA.

    And Steam decided it's too dark for them. What's wrong with that? The dev can sell it on their own website, it's not like they'll need a lot of publicity now, is it? :)
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @the_rydster "
    They've not been censored. Censorship is what states and governments do. This is a shop saying "yeah we had a think and it's not for us, sorry"."
    I don't think that excuse worked the last time a business decided not to serve black people.
    Yes, that would be racial discrimination.

    How you get to that from 'censorship' and choosing not to stock a product, I do not know.

    (well I do: it's coz you're desperate and this is the internet, and reason apparently doesn't exist here)
    Reply +4
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @the_rydster Can you stop making extreme comments to try and unbalance the discussion and stick to the facts?

    Hatred is a game that is 100% about you being an extremely angry young man who does nothing but stab, shoot, and shotgun in the face innocent people outside his home and in the street. Later on you can disembowel them with your knife, or gut them first then shoot them in the face for no real reason! Watch that bitch/bastard SCREAM! YEAAAAHHH!

    In GTA, you can go round being a criminal murdering people, then you get caught.

    So yes, sure, you can make up a scenario where some troubled individual gets some ideas from GTA as much as from Hatred.

    But this isn't about trying to stop someone getting ideas. They'll get ideas whether these games exist or not.

    Steam don't want to sell it because as they said, based on what they've seen so far Hatred is out and out fucking unpleasant, a truly horrible scenario, sold as pleasure. It's their call to decide if they like that, they decided they don't.

    I can see why. I don't see Hatred as the same as GTA. If you do... well, you sound delightful.
    Reply +5
  • Satellite Reign promises a return to the mean streets of Syndicate

  • TarickStonefire 18/12/2014

    I got this game way back on the KS, have just tried the Early Access version. Played it 5 minutes. Got my agents into a car. Car was facing the wrong way. Tried to turn the car around.

    Can't.

    WTF. Have they seriously copied this 'feature' over from the original Syndicate??!

    Quit. Will wait until it has a tutorial. And ideally cars that can do a U-turn instead of having to traipse around the map looking for somewhere to turn around and not finding anywhere.
    Reply 0
  • iOS space combat and trading game Rogue Star out early 2015

  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    @superfurry And now you know how us Apple users felt for the last 20 years. About time too ;) Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    Meh, that just looks like an annoying space dogfighter, needs way more trading and non-combat gameplay. Nothing turns me off games claiming to be the new Elite than what looks like a heavy and forced focus on annoying space dogfighting, especially on a touchscreen. I've played a bunch of these games (many waaaay better looking than this one) and they all suffer from poor controls. Reply +2
  • Kerbal Space Program finally in beta

  • TarickStonefire 16/12/2014

    Great game. Early Access doesn't have to be the end of days no matter how much you focus on just the games that screw it up and hold them up to demonstrate how it all means the end of days... ;) Reply +3