Why would it matter if it was “wrong” to want that? Would you feel embarrassed/bad/weird if it was? Is being “right” (as opposed to a binary “wrong”) about subjective things important to you? If so, why?

It’s an absolutely asinine thing to ask for in a game like this, sure, but there’s no moral quandaries or similar…

Nope! What you’re talking about was acknowledged within that post.

This doesn’t contradict anything I wrote. It’s a different experience, as you say.

Hell yeah. Pun probably intended.

BTW, despite what some in this thread will tell you, Doom64EX is NOT the same experience and definitely isn’t quite the same game. Doom 64 wasn’t just the Doom engine plopped on the 64 with a new WAD. I don’t *not* recommend Doom64EX, it’s the next best thing and certainly better than…

Stance stance revolution.

It would, if people would just f-ing right click and “search Google for image”.

Had the additional fervor not been incited re: Mass Effect, an actual deserving company would have won whatever year that was, though I’m aware they (stupidly) won twice. In other words, it’s what tipped things that particular year, the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak. It came up consistently as “the…

Remember when EA won “worst company” because of the timing of that polling versus the release of Mass Effect 3? Truly embarrassing to anyone with a rational view of who all they were up against.

Bitter butthurt babymen being boorish, at best.

a bonfire to the future in exchange for marginally improved sales in the present, at best. it’s not about today, or even next month- under no circumstances is a stance like this long-term viable.

Not sure what you’re actually asking here, if anything at all. Is this an attempt at a gotcha? I’m referring to threats that don’t seem credible and thus get dismissed, only to be in fact carried out by the person who was previously dismissed as uncredible. It happens, just statistically less often.

All it takes is one threat, credible or not, to be carried out.

Where do I see “power”? “Superior”.

There’s no definition changing. Literally, the definition of racism is a part of this, it is not contrary to. I’m not sure what you’re not getting here.

Humans will always find ways to divide each other, and will create power structures based on that. Ways of determining, at a glance, who the commonly agreed haves are…

In 1994? Inflation is real, but since wages have stayed stagnant, the real value of $300 isn’t really all that much greater in practice than today. Factor in that it was a lot harder to skirt MSRP for the goods one buys (other than what B&M retailers took off of it) than today with online shopping, that we had to…

Okay, but it still ultimately comes back to who has the seat of power. In Western society, that is almost universally white and male, so we have the position of power. From this position of power, it is far easier to cast FUD to discredit “others” (such as non-whites, women, gay people) and have it gain traction and…

If you choose to take up and internalize that blame, that’s on you. Literally no one is forcing you to, nor is it particularly common except among people who honestly probably know in their hearts that they have good reason to feel bad about their personal history of assholish behavior. Even if they choose to react to…

Okay, this is basic but: racism and sexism aren’t actually about race/color or gender. They’re about power structures born out of race and gender, with the dominant ones (white & men) being the ones with the most (not all! but the hypervast majority) of it, and there is no serious debate about whether this is an…

I realize you’re a troll and an idiot, but for the last fucking time: racism and sexism aren’t actually about race/color or gender. They’re about power structures born out of race and gender, with the dominant ones (white & men) being the ones with the most (not all! but the hypervast majority) of it, and there is no…

Then maybe enjoy one of ~32,005,521,702 media works that have already explored that particular relationship in great depth.

Google “ufc reebok controversy”.