MudMan

Like I said, we noticed with tomatoes and apples. And overcooked broccoli is still just as gross as it was in the 90s. One of very few foods that makes me gag instantly.

Also, we grow our own vegetables often, it’s not like all my food comes out of a bag. We’d notice big changes, and we did notice the change in cooking styles around it. It’s a generational argument in my family how to cook broccoli, not a change over time.

Yeah, no, it’s not that it isn’t enough time, it’s that I’ve been eating broccoli and beans all this time, I would have noticed.

I mean, we all noticed the tomatoes becoming water balloons, it’s not like it’d be unheard of.

Yeah, well, if I wanted to tell you who I am I’d write a bio, and I have no obligation to educate or reality check people one by one, which doesn’t work anyway.

You’re right, though, it’s dismissive and kinda rude and definitely not worth having the conversation because it won’t change any minds. Which is why people don’t have the conversation in the first place.

I don’t know, man, this was the 80s and 90s, it’s not that long ago. It still tastes like I remember if you overcook it.

I think that’s where the reputation comes from. Overcooked broccoli is inedible, and I know people who refuse to leave any bite to it at all, which seems insane.

I feel like crunchy, fresh broccoli is a relatively new trend. I found out about it on my own, at my place as a kid it always looked like green boogers and tasted the way you imagine that would.

Those pieces don’t say at all what you (or the OP, I suppose) are implying. The first one is about working conditions and harassment, the others are about management choices, not at all in-fighting or jealousy among writers. Incidentally, that last one sucks. Go find better games reporting, holy crap, I promise you it exists.

Honestly, it’s a neverending source of fascination to see what people who don’t work in the industry perceive as the internal logic of these things. I used to think it was a problem of transparency, the industry not doing enough to show things behind the scenes or explain how games are made. But man, that part has improved A LOT. There are lots more resources now to help you wrap your head around it, but the weird fantasy world people imagine is still exactly the same. It’s very frustrating.

We really don’t talk enough about how the worst rated game of the Tomb Raider reboot from the B studio for the series ended up being the default benchmark for gaming for the better part of a decade.

Good for Eidos Monteal. Guardians of the Galaxy deserved better, too.

See above. Gonna need names and sources for that one.

No, it is not. Just isn’t. Not a thing in Bioware, to my knowledge. Not a thing in the industry at large, either. This is an extreme leap you’re making.

Displeased with management decisions? Absolutely. Frustrated by working conditions? Rarer than you’d think but it can happen. Abused and harassed by a manager or a coworker, particularly for a woman, and receiving insufficient protection from HR? Unfortunately possible, but definitely not my first or second guess when somebody announces they’re leaving a studio.

“My coworkers are jealous of my talent and are mean to me” is science fiction.

Yeah, no, I got the intent, it just seems like… a random thought? Why would that be the case? You just think the other writers are jealous of someone who was there for fifteen years and just… mean girl’d them out of the company?

That’s not a plausible scenario. Or at least not the first think you’d leap to.

I should hope so. If somebody shook my hand and, while maintaining eye contact, and confessed they’ve been free-willying every pee of their life, hands behand their head, I would have to seriously reconsider our relationship.

There’s been a Dragon Age sequel in some form of development for a decade. It’s not that surprising, people are gonna churn. I mean, I don’t know about you, but I haven’t stuck around in a single job for 15 years ever.

I’m not her and I’m not there, but I’m not sure what “being pushed out by other employees” would even mean. That sounds like something that happens in a nature documentary about lions, not games studio.

I don’t know that I claimed it’d take power away from the privileged. If I had to make an educated guess, the idea that “it’s a social construct so we can change it” tends to lead to proposing easy solutions to complicated problems that only work if we all agree they work.

They normally don’t work.

And if the people proposing them are powerful enough to get convinced that all they need to do is force everybody to agree with them regardless it often ends in tears.

Hell, catch me in a good day I’ll tell you changing natural realities is easier than changing social constructs. On par at best, and nature at least won’t argue about it.

Yeah, but that’s my point. There’s a tendency, particularly on STEM people, but also on your average normies, to think that “social constructs” aren’t “real”. This is a very bad take that often causes a lot of problems.

Because it turns out sociology, anthropology and politics also exist.

If you were in space and looked at Earth you wouldn’t see any people.

EDIT: Crap, someone is going to point out that you can see lights at night, aren’t they? This thread is for pedants and now I’ve started a conversation about biomarkers you can see from orbit.

There is a lot of confused misinterpretation in this thread. “Can’t be taken down” was a thing, but it was about how you can lose big chunks of the network and have the rest of it still work. That was misinterpreted at the time, in fairness, and it’s even less true now, where centralization in both the infrastructure and the hosting have a lot of things dropping at once and being disrupted, but it’s still technically true. Ukrainian drones are out there beaming up to satellite internet and being used in active warfare in the middle of a battlefield. Which hey, in that context, robust military communication was the original intent of the network to begin with. Given the previous baseline is wired telephone, the characterization isn’t that far off.

Censorship is different, but also true. You can isolate a chunk of the Internet, and once you’ve done that if you have very centralized control you can monitor it, but that’s a high bar. And of course outside of those cases people struggle to limit communications they don’t want, from nazi chatter to piracy.

At the time I used to think that was a good thing, now… yeah, harder to justify. Turns out “free information” didn’t automatically make everyone smarter. I have lots of apologies to give to teachers and professors of theory of communication that were trying to explain this to us in the 90s and we were all “nah, man, their only crime was curiosity, hack the planet, free the information” and all that.

And the game itself was made by a Canadian, while we’re at it.

Well, no, a sketchy source should not be published in the first place. That’s the job he journalist is supposed to be doing during the verification stage.

The process we’re discussing isn’t about verifying the final article, it’s about verifying the source itself.

See, your point is exactly why the way you are thinking about this doesn’t work. You’re almost there, just coming at it from the wrong direction.

Yes, basic language choices indeed create an emotional framing to a story.

Basic language choices create a framing to a story EVERY TIME. You can’t avoid it. Any mediocre professional can alter the framing of a story under any style guide, with any requirements for information sourcing.

Editorial guidance for neutrality can be enforced. By an editor. A human person that reviews a piece of writing and assesses its skew and its style to correct it if it doesn’t fit the requirements.

But as a rule? Using citations? If the average journalist wanted to present a specific framing the guidelines you are suggesting would barely slow them down.

“A young man stole a car” “Man, 28 (link), steals car” “Man, 28 (link), of latino descent (link) commits crime in our town (link)”

Which of these is complying with your guidelines closest and which one is creating a more biased narrative?

The tool for that purpose is normally the use of quotation marks. Large news outlets rarely make up quotes out of whole cloth. That is not just bad praxis, but entirely unnecessary to skew coverage, if they are enforcing a particular perspective for whatever reason.

Look, I do think that large journalistic outlets are a bit stuck on old newpaper composition practices and hyperlinking and multimedia tools are underused. Specifically, news sites tend to be very reluctant to use external links for a number of reasons, including the fact that they want to keep you inside their publication to serve you ads, so external links are not a beneficial business practice.

That said, you are very fixated on a problem that either doesn’t exist or doesn’t make up the bulk of the issue you’re trying to fix. There are plenty of instances where a quote that sounds bad is used out of context, and in most cases the in-context quote is widely available. The outrage machine is fed in opinion pieces, live TV debate and online chatter. There is no need to misquote in an article for that, and there is no evidence of the mitigating value of having a link to a different article. Which, incidentally, may not even be available for free distribution in the first place.