|
Jippa posted:Yeah that was pretty much the only time where I thought IT made a swing a huge miss about a certain issue. That is pretty impressive if you actually think about though so credit where due. Pretty much every other gaming podcast has huge amounts of these misses so that is why it probably stuck out. There was a point in time when I'd be just as mad as you guys about this stuff, but I think the Thumbs are kinda correct when they say that the interview wouldn't have been conducted in that manner by people with experience on the game dev side of things, and I'd generalize that to anyone on the business end of running companies. The last few years I grew up, played less games, started my own tech business, and had to interact with guys like Molyneux on a regular basis. They're no more malicious con men than they are misunderstood visionaries; they're just... normal dudes for the most part. The only reason it's blown up like this is because games, like most forms of entertainment, connect with people emotionally and I think it's understandable people are finding catharsis with their Molyneux frustrations in that interview. But I think if you've become more detached from these sorts of things over the years, like the Thumbs guys seemed to have, and like I have, then everything on the podcast seemed reasonable. Molyneux is not a third world dictator, and he didn't run over the interviewer's dog with a car, he's a videogames man who lied about videogame promises. Outside of that insularity, the tone of the interview did seem a little gross and self-aggrandizing.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
My biggest issue with Molyneux is that he keeps landing opportunities while so many other people are much more deserving and talented. (I feel the same way about David Cage.) All of his work at Bullfrog is still sublime, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
If the interview didn't hit the ground running with the equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?" people would focus more on the context of it. What I want to know is: who are these people that have seen Molyneux's resume of the past 10 years (Black and White, multiple Fable's, Milo, etc) and still giving him loads of money?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Lone Goat posted:If the interview didn't hit the ground running with the equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?" people would focus more on the context of it. Um, because they were successful projects that made money?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
There's a reason I mentioned the Jimquisition video and not the Rock Paper Shotgun article. I haven't even read the RPS article, the only thing it's done is put Molyneux in the spotlight, and the good thing about that is it resulted in the Jimquisition video which laid out exactly what's wrong with Peter Molyneux. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGo63oAEN20 If he's an example of the norm according to you, then I'd say that's a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Tae posted:Um, because they were successful projects that made money? I'm talking about the kickstarter backers, not people getting a cut of the revenues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Scorchy posted:There was a point in time when I'd be just as mad as you guys about this stuff, but I think the Thumbs are kinda correct when they say that the interview wouldn't have been conducted in that manner by people with experience on the game dev side of things, and I'd generalize that to anyone on the business end of running companies. Why the gently caress does that matter? The tone of the interview should not take priority over the actual content, namely that he admitted to lying and scamming and then tries to play himself off as the victim, constantly being battered by the evil press. Like, yeah, the interview is not super professional, but that should not be the takeaway from this whole sordid affair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:There's a reason I mentioned the Jimquisition video and not the Rock Paper Shotgun article. I haven't even read the RPS article, The specific thing we discuss is the RPS article. Hakkesshu posted:Why the gently caress does that matter? The tone of the interview should not take priority over the actual content, namely that he admitted to lying and scamming and then tries to play himself off as the victim, constantly being battered by the evil press. Like, yeah, the interview is not super professional, but that should not be the takeaway from this whole sordid affair. Whatever you think about Molyneux (I think a lot of things and basically none of them are positive), an interview whose approach is to push at someone over and over until you catch them in a lie is, in my opinion, kind of trash, because I think it's predisposed towards RESULTS and MAKING MY POINT more than it is being sure you're getting the truth. Interviews with this tone feel like they're built to get a conviction, whether its a false positive or real positive, and then to wave that above your head like a championship belt. It's the approach taken by villain lawyers and journalists in all media for a reason: It's poo poo. This clip from Brass Eye is the thing that jumped to mind immediately when I opened that RPS interview and saw that first question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU (Jump to 11 minutes 30 seconds... thanks SA embed for stripping that timecode out) That said: I don't have a single positive feeling towards Molyneux at this point, other than "man he got shat on in that interview." My feelings about "The Molyneux Thing" were way more about how the story is covered, than a value judgement or excuse-making for Molyneux himself. The things that bum me out about Walkers interview (and others of its kind, from any angle) was said really well on the Idle Thumbs forum by Argobot, so I will quote that instead of trying to re-state it: argobot posted:The problem with Jon Stewart, the way this RPS interview was conducted, is exactly that it plays to a certain crowd. Stewart gives horrible interviews (unless they're with fiction or neutral non-fiction authors) because it's clear that he's not really there to ask questions. He's there to posture for his audience and make everyone feel good that he's going to yell at the Bush exec who wrote the torture memo for 20 minutes. It can be incredibly cathartic when, as you say, you are predisposed to agree with Stewart's viewpoint, but in terms of adding information and clarity to a complex situation -- the whole point of an interview -- it does nothing. It's just hot air, the same as having Bill O'Reilly interview any left-leaning person on his show. ja2ke fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Feb 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
ja2ke posted:The specific thing we discuss is the RPS article.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:If he's an example of the norm according to you, then I'd say that's a bad thing. Well, lying and scamming is fairly routine for running a business, usually done with the best of intentions from what I've seen. I wouldn't have realized this a couple of years ago before starting my own thing, and I understand it now, though it's not an excuse. It's a bad thing, yes. And yeah I was commenting on the the podcast and the RPS interview's tone. Haven't played Molyneux's stuff since probably the Magic Carpet demo, so I don't care either way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
I feel like the Thumbs guys didn't really register just what it was that Molyneux had done with both Curiosity and Godus before that interview even came out. The other articles were barely mentioned, and none of the specifics about either game got an airing. I know Molyneux has been a long running joke for the guys but that humour has given him this armour against genuine criticism. The defence for Molyneux seems to fall broadly along the lines of: * developers who see it as an unfair criticism of the realities of games development (which grossly misses the point - we're all aware and there's a huge difference between the stunts he's pulled on those games + his history of literally making things up on the spot and passing them off as fact, vs features being cut and deadlines being missed as part of normal games development) * people who just objected to the tone of the interview (I genuinely don't care - this is a guy who's done bad by a lot of people and a harsh interview isn't exactly infringing his human rights; these people are the easiest to understand, though) * people who hate John Walker (not me, but it was funny to see him accused of being some sort of populist riding the Gamergate wave of consumer backlash given his role as a prominent target of Gamergate and how many people he's pissed off by 'preaching') * people who think that his history as being a bit of a joke should mean the onus is purely on those who gave him money to not give him money (a stance I have some time for, but on the other hand the media have consistently given him oxygen and built him up as a still-relevant part of the industry) Molyneux's been interviewed for decades. I'm sorry people didn't like the tone of the interview, but this is the first time I can remember reading an interview with him where he wasn't given free reign to just bullshit his way through the whole thing. I think the point was long passed where people in a position to do so should've stopped giving him publicity and stopped giving him a free ride on his bullshit, because ultimately he was profiting off of making promises he had no intention of keeping (which is different to most devs and their good faith efforts, IMO). I care about Idle Thumbs' approach to this because they've consistently knocked it out of the park on pretty much every topic that goes beyond IS GAME GOOD YES/NO? and this was the first time I felt they basically glossed over some pretty important stuff just to complain about the tone. I didn't get the feeling that had that interview not happened, that they would have instead talked about what the other interviews and articles had exposed about Curiosity and Godus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
We actually spent a lot of time talking amongst our selves about the articles about the collapse of Godus, about the Curiosity contest winner, and about the general insane state of Molyneux (it is easy to have these conversations when the animator on your game was an animator on Milo and has all sorts of insane, shocking-but-unsurprising stories) but that lovely interview crushed all of it for me. The problem with that interview is that it jumps out in front of the actual complicated story and ruins it all. When are we going to ever get another interview with Molyneux? I feel pissed off for taking the bait, because I loving did. That GET-RILED-UP-BE-SCANDALIZED interview RPS posted turned me into yet another rear end in a top hat, self-righteously grumbling at my tabloid paper on the subway, instead of looking at the whole story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Apparently one of the Jimquisition's podcast co-host wrote an interview with Molyneux in this euro written thing called the Guardian or something. Dunno what that is, but he did at least do another interview.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
I guess the thing that really annoyed me about the latest Thumbs was the hyperbole connecting this to GamerGate. Maybe was not your intention, but I felt like you were saying that people like me who are mad at Molyneaux and not disgusted by RPS' interview are Gamergaters. I think the association drawn was unearned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
The best thing Peter Molyneux has been involved with in 15 years is a parody twitter account.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:I guess the thing that really annoyed me about the latest Thumbs was the hyperbole connecting this to GamerGate. Maybe was not your intention, but I felt like you were saying that people like me who are mad at Molyneaux and not disgusted by RPS' interview are Gamergaters. I think the association drawn was unearned. I was more annoyed by the immediate association of actual video game ethics with gamergate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Mods please change my name to "Actual video game ethics".
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
ja2ke posted:We actually spent a lot of time talking amongst our selves about the articles about the collapse of Godus, about the Curiosity contest winner, and about the general insane state of Molyneux (it is easy to have these conversations when the animator on your game was an animator on Milo and has all sorts of insane, shocking-but-unsurprising stories) but that lovely interview crushed all of it for me. The problem with that interview is that it jumps out in front of the actual complicated story and ruins it all. When are we going to ever get another interview with Molyneux? I feel pissed off for taking the bait, because I loving did. That GET-RILED-UP-BE-SCANDALIZED interview RPS posted turned me into yet another rear end in a top hat, self-righteously grumbling at my tabloid paper on the subway, instead of looking at the whole story. The interview can barely be called that, but saying that it ruins the nuance of how/why Molyneux is A Bad Game Developer is pushing it. The facts are well known that Molyneux over promises and under delivers; it's well established. If anything, by RPS being super aggressive, every one got to see how slimy Molyneux can be and the way that he just never shuts up. It's one thing to be synergizing the collaborative paradigm shift, but we got to see it real time with Molyneux going into panic "oh poo poo" mode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
I'm pretty glad they posted the transcript and not the actual interview because reading PM's repeated, failed attempts at building rapport seems much more skeezy and damning than I'm sure the charming, affable dude comes off as. I don't know one thing or the other about game development or Molyneux's contributions to either his failures or success, but that interview shows that he is sure as gently caress used to hustling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Jake, besiege is literally medieval banjo Kazooie nuts and bolts. just got to where you try to describe it, it's not really kerbal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
It would be better if it were Kerbal Siege Program, though. Imagine if all your controls corresponded to kerbals driving your machinery and you have to keep them alive otherwise your keybindings stop working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
ja2ke posted:We actually spent a lot of time talking amongst our selves about the articles about the collapse of Godus, about the Curiosity contest winner, and about the general insane state of Molyneux (it is easy to have these conversations when the animator on your game was an animator on Milo and has all sorts of insane, shocking-but-unsurprising stories) but that lovely interview crushed all of it for me. The problem with that interview is that it jumps out in front of the actual complicated story and ruins it all. When are we going to ever get another interview with Molyneux? I feel pissed off for taking the bait, because I loving did. That GET-RILED-UP-BE-SCANDALIZED interview RPS posted turned me into yet another rear end in a top hat, self-righteously grumbling at my tabloid paper on the subway, instead of looking at the whole story. you're going to get a million more interviews with molyneux because the whole point of the rock paper scissors 'pathological liar' thing was that molyneux is literally incapable of not spewing ridiculous bullshit at any and all occaison. that walker was an unprofessional and incredibly hostile interviewer and molyneux still saw it as an opportunity to sell himself, his studio and his next game was 100% the point that everyone calling out lack of journalistic ethics missed
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Tae posted:Apparently one of the Jimquisition's podcast co-host wrote an interview with Molyneux in this euro written thing called the Guardian or something. Dunno what that is, but he did at least do another interview. The Guardian is a British newspaper and her interview was done the day after RPS (there were several interviews lined up) and she believed RPS rattled him enough to get a more unguarded interviews out of him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
ja2ke posted:When are we going to ever get another interview with Molyneux? The next time he wants to sell us something. I don't understand this perspective at all. One of the points that the interview so clearly demonstrated is that Peter's perfectly willing to keep on talking as long as someone's interested in his responses. He's not exactly gone on media blackout since.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:I guess the thing that really annoyed me about the latest Thumbs was the hyperbole connecting this to GamerGate. It's a really stupid connection to draw, and I said the same thing to a goon who did it in the Molyneux thread. The entire deal with GamerGate is that they're attacking the wrong people and grotesquely out of proportion to what those people have actually done wrong (when the answer is "anything at all"). PM's a successful dick and that interview, while dumb, is not a swatting or rape threat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Yeah the gamergate comparisons were cringeworthy, even as jokes. The level of disgusting poo poo that gamergate does to people is completely incomparable to what happened in that interview, and I doubt that trying to pin down a slippery fish like Molyneux had anything to do with appealing to gamergate's "ethics in games journalism" supposed argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:The entire deal with GamerGate is that they're attacking the wrong people and grotesquely out of proportion to what those people have actually done wrong (when the answer is "anything at all"). 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Isn't that exactly what the RPS interview did? Er... No?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Isn't that exactly what the RPS interview did? being kind of rude to a guy you are interviewing and making anonymous death threats and harassing people via twitter/youtube/whatever aren't even remotely similar
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Sorry for making a joke about Gamergate. I think I have too much to say about this stuff because I only end up saying a sliver of what I think but without the whole, it's pointless, and it is all coming across as combined and terrible. So maybe its best to not say much. RPS interview thoughts aside, I am forever frustrated with Molyneux being someone whose adeptness at shrugging off his past and his responsibilities again and again to the point that he's allowed infinite restarts. It kills me. People keep giving him a chance to do so, despite knowing better, also kills me. You guys are right: There will be a billion Molyneux interviews after the RPS interview, written by journalists who should know better, vociferously consumed by gamers who should know better, about a person who I hope knows down in the bottom of his heart that he is probably not being honest with anyone. It is all a terrible disaster that I hate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:Molyneux's been interviewed for decades. I'm sorry people didn't like the tone of the interview, but this is the first time I can remember reading an interview with him where he wasn't given free reign to just bullshit his way through the whole thing. I think the point was long passed where people in a position to do so should've stopped giving him publicity and stopped giving him a free ride on his bullshit, because ultimately he was profiting off of making promises he had no intention of keeping (which is different to most devs and their good faith efforts, IMO). Just listened and this is pretty much how I feel. It should've been cut. The whole thing was really halfhearted, the 'I don't like game developers being treated like this' implicit throughout, and the gamergate jokes/references really terrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
The way we feel about the interview has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW WE FEEL ABOUT MOLYNEUX. I don't think interviews of that style are enlightening or worthwhile REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT. We are not giving Molyneux a free pass. I would feel exactly the same way (AND DO) when interviews are conducted in that manner with political figures who I believe have had a significant negative impact on society, and that's a loving huge amount more important than any video game thing. It is truly maddening to me that people can't seem to separate the two concepts. Just because someone is potentially dishonest and manipulative and irresponsible doesn't mean I am going to enjoy or appreciate or be in any way reasonably informed by the most aggressive and self-righteous possible interview of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
I think what happened is that you didn't frame the argument properly. That is some thing you usually do exceptionally well. I love nick but I think his assessment of john walker's motives was so far wide of the mark it was jarring. I understand if you guys aren't familiar with him or what ever but he is the polar opposite of what nick said. Even his biggest detractors would say this. As for the interview style, if you don't care for it that is obviously fine but many of us understood why it was appropriate in this specific situation even if it wasn't executed perfectly. Any way like I said earlier, this is only time I have ever felt this way about an IT segment and I have listened since the beginning so you guys must be doing some thing right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Chris Remo posted:The way we feel about the interview has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW WE FEEL ABOUT MOLYNEUX. a minor games journalist approaching an interview in a pretty lovely manner isn't really a problem. people will stop agreeing to interviews with him. maybe he'll get fired for being bad at his job and he'll have to do something else. it's not going to ruin all of games journalism and pr for everyone else there's real problems with some of the things molyneux espoused in that interview though. he straight up defrauded patrons of his kickstarter and he seems completely unrepentant and prepared to do it again. godus is just another high profile failure of the kickstarter model and it is going to poison the well for other game developers who seek to fund projects via that route discussing whether the rock papers scissor interview is problematic for it's tone or approach or whatever isn't constructive or illuminative or even interesting. if walker had been nicer maybe molyneux would have been just as exposed or maybe not but it doesn't really matter because what people should care about is what he did say not what he potentially could have said in a different context tl;dr the tone of the interview merited maybe a couple of lines about how it was a lovely thing to do. you guys did the entire segment on it and completely skipped discussing the content of the interview (i still love your podcast and commentary and think you are all great people, i think you just got distracted on this one topic)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
I would disagree that "minor game journalist" is an appropriate characterization of one of the co-owners of Rock Paper Shotgun, but even if it were, I don't think it makes any difference if the interview in question ended up being one of the most widely discussed and widely read pieces of game journalism recently, which I suspect this was, at least in the circles that I am aware of. Is there anyone who is unaware of Molyneux's history who is now aware of it? I doubt it. If people are so sick of his bullshit, just stop supporting it. It's all been well-known for YEARS. I don't know how many more times people need to learn about 1) Peter Molyneux's nonsense, and 2) the risks of Kickstarter, before they just learn whatever lesson is necessary to learn. It's ridiculous. The notion that there is any actual gain from someone finally sticking it to Peter Molyneux (as if anything is gained, or anything new learned) is just exhausting to me. Maybe I'm overly fixated, that's totally possible. If I am, it's probably because it feels like an extension of a narrative and style of media engagement that I already find really depressing and frustrating outside the context of games, and then ALSO having it in games is just a huge bummer to me. So maybe I should have contextualized the source of my frustration better. I don't expect the endless-hype-followed-by-endless-disillusionment cycle to stop any time soon, no matter how many irate interviews are conducted. I don't think righteous catharsis helps with it, I think it makes it worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Isn't that exactly what the RPS interview did? Peter Molyneux is a person who deserves criticism and maybe even an aggressive interview in the wake of what happened with this game. He's an established industry figure who's spent decades overpromising and underdelivering when he wasn't outright being a lying pitch-man, and he really doesn't seem to feel bad about it. He's had a successful career in the videogame industry for a large chunk of his life because of it. Someone did an unprofessional, mean interview of him and it made them both look foolish. GG is a right-wing political movement in sheeps' Gameshortz which desperately seeks pretenses to attack fledgling indie developers, female game critics, and people who tell them they're stupid via illegal methods including harassment campaigns that go beyond social media into personal phone calls and poo poo, intimidation and graphic threats of violence, and gaining unauthorized access to their personal poo poo. I think the comparisons are far enough off-base that they irritate me, and serve as proof that GG is not only odious and stupid but is actively poisoning the well when it comes to actually attacking the problems with the videogame industry, game journalism, and game criticism. ja2ke posted:Sorry for making a joke about Gamergate. I think I have too much to say about this stuff because I only end up saying a sliver of what I think but without the whole, it's pointless, and it is all coming across as combined and terrible. So maybe its best to not say much. It's okay please don't take Twin Peaks Rewatch away  I mean, there is an equivalency at least as it pertains to people taking comparatively small breaches of ethics or misdeeds incredibly seriously; there were also goons comparing this interview to Frost/Nixon in the PM thread and just lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Chris Remo posted:I would disagree that "minor game journalist" is an appropriate characterization of one of the co-owners of Rock Paper Shotgun, but even if it were, I don't think it makes any difference if the interview in question ended up being one of the most widely discussed and widely read pieces of game journalism recently, which I suspect this was, at least in the circles that I am aware of. You guys gave every indication in that podcast of not knowing the first thing about John Walker. And yeah, he is pretty minor - he doesn't do many RPS articles, and RPS is still pretty niche as it is. quote:Is there anyone who is unaware of Molyneux's history who is now aware of it? I doubt it. If people are so sick of his bullshit, just stop supporting it. It's all been well-known for YEARS. I don't know how many more times people need to learn about 1) Peter Molyneux's nonsense, and 2) the risks of Kickstarter, before they just learn whatever lesson is necessary to learn. It's ridiculous. The notion that there is any actual gain from someone finally sticking it to Peter Molyneux (as if anything is gained, or anything new learned) is just exhausting to me. Unfortunately this comes across as another "well of COURSE Molyneux was bullshitting, that's what he does and that's what you get for using Kickstarter - caveat emptor!" response. Surely you're aware of how many times people - consumers and media alike - have characterised him as someone who's not cynically and willfully misleading people but instead is this over-enthusiastic guy who just can't help coming up with so many cool ideas aw shucks he's like mad-but-harmless uncle Peter really? Having that effectively blown out of the water is news. It was given a human element with the Curiosity winner and it's given a direct consumer element with the Godus kickstarter farce. These are all New Things. Everyone's had an opinion on Molyneux for ages, sure, but that doesn't mean we've not had some cold hard facts to finally talk about. It's one thing to bemoan the hostile nature of the industry in the last year. It's another to laser-focus on a hostile interview - one that had a hell of a lot more reasoning behind it than the bile vomiting forth from everyone's favourite cold-blooded arseholes - and chuck it and its author in the same bin. They exist in completely different worlds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:You guys gave every indication in that podcast of not knowing the first thing about John Walker. And yeah, he is pretty minor - he doesn't do many RPS articles, and RPS is still pretty niche as it is. Because we referred to it as a "Rock Paper Shotgun" article and not "John Walker?" If a lot of people in this thread know who John Walker is, we probably know who he is. We called it a Rock Paper Shotgun article in part because the thing that I was bothered with was the publication as a whole taking the tone that it did (for the reasons Chris has put very well), but it is true that of all the people on staff, that article could have only only come from John Walker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
ja2ke posted:Because we referred to it as a "Rock Paper Shotgun" article and not "John Walker?" No, because of how you tried to tie it in with Gamergate and suggested that it was basically a cynical attempt to ride the wave of popular opinion, which as others have already mentioned is pretty much the opposite of John Walker's MO. His history with Gamergate would surely give you pause before making that association? e: Understood on the "RPS as a whole" thing, though - that's just one where we'll have to agree to disagree because we're looking at this from vastly different viewpoints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
again, what does it really matter that rps did a lovely interview? why is it a matter of concern to anyone other than the interviewee (and i guess potential interviewees) and people who need to worry about how readers will react to the hostility? if molyneux and his problems are old news and uninteresting to you that's fine but no real context for your discussion was given and it came off as protective of molyneux or at the very least sympathetic
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:26
|
|