Photoset
Photo
teal-deer:

loltaku:

Almost no outlets covered the obvious scam that was Areal beyond the initial “Look at this Stalker-like game”.
They did not cover the studio’s insane response to questions.
They did not cover the studio claiming Erik Kain’s articles about them were a plot by the chinese to destroy their project.
They did not cover comments on the kickstarter going up by 3000% overnight despite the backers not increasing in any significant amount.
They did not cover the fact that in last few days, when it became obvious the project would not be funded, that several very generous individuals suddenly backed in amounts from 5-10 thousand dollars.
Now that Kickstarter has deemed the project suspicious enough to suspend, they are covering it, and would like you to kindly forget all those other things they didn’t think were important enough to talk about, instead deciding to post about.. I don’t know, memes, or articles intended to make them feel morally superior to their own audience.
Polygon, Kotaku, were not interested in these, even with the very real possibility some of their audience could be backing this scam and unaware of these things.
Polygon and Kotaku aren’t actually interested in journalism.

Ok hold the fuck up
/puts on former tech and game journalist hat
This shit doesn’t get covered because kickstarter scams like this one are literally a dime a dozen. When I worked at Wired we’d get at least ten pitches A DAY about this kind of crap, and that was JUST VIDEOGAMES. Don’t even get me started on tech scams (like the solar panel streets. Maybe not a scam but 100% unworkable, just ask my buddy RUIM++. )
There’s two things here. One, as journalists, we don’t want to give chucklefucks like this any free exposure. There’s no such thing as bad publicity, and every story about some scam has to be carefully thought out. Does the benefit from informing the public outweigh the risk of giving a scam artist what they want, which is attention? No.
Two, speaking strictly from an editorial standpoint, there’s no hook here, nothing unique, no goddamn story. They’re hardly the most well-funded scam or well funded failed videogame kickstarter. Their evil here seems just like the same banal stupid kickstarter scam evil as anywhere else. Even their game wasn’t fucking unique. Tell me why this shitty Kickstarter scam is more worth talking about than any of the half dozen other shitty Kickstarter scams du jour and then we’ll talk.
Finally, Kickstarter is investigating so it’s not like they’ve gone unpunished.
Tl;dr Polygon has better things to do than cover crap like this, and I’m more surprised Kotaku isn’t covering it because all they write is clickbaity non-news anyway.

Reblogging for commentary

teal-deer:

loltaku:

Almost no outlets covered the obvious scam that was Areal beyond the initial “Look at this Stalker-like game”.

They did not cover the studio’s insane response to questions.

They did not cover the studio claiming Erik Kain’s articles about them were a plot by the chinese to destroy their project.

They did not cover comments on the kickstarter going up by 3000% overnight despite the backers not increasing in any significant amount.

They did not cover the fact that in last few days, when it became obvious the project would not be funded, that several very generous individuals suddenly backed in amounts from 5-10 thousand dollars.

Now that Kickstarter has deemed the project suspicious enough to suspend, they are covering it, and would like you to kindly forget all those other things they didn’t think were important enough to talk about, instead deciding to post about.. I don’t know, memes, or articles intended to make them feel morally superior to their own audience.

Polygon, Kotaku, were not interested in these, even with the very real possibility some of their audience could be backing this scam and unaware of these things.

Polygon and Kotaku aren’t actually interested in journalism.

Ok hold the fuck up

/puts on former tech and game journalist hat

This shit doesn’t get covered because kickstarter scams like this one are literally a dime a dozen. When I worked at Wired we’d get at least ten pitches A DAY about this kind of crap, and that was JUST VIDEOGAMES. Don’t even get me started on tech scams (like the solar panel streets. Maybe not a scam but 100% unworkable, just ask my buddy RUIM++. )

There’s two things here. One, as journalists, we don’t want to give chucklefucks like this any free exposure. There’s no such thing as bad publicity, and every story about some scam has to be carefully thought out. Does the benefit from informing the public outweigh the risk of giving a scam artist what they want, which is attention? No.

Two, speaking strictly from an editorial standpoint, there’s no hook here, nothing unique, no goddamn story. They’re hardly the most well-funded scam or well funded failed videogame kickstarter. Their evil here seems just like the same banal stupid kickstarter scam evil as anywhere else. Even their game wasn’t fucking unique. Tell me why this shitty Kickstarter scam is more worth talking about than any of the half dozen other shitty Kickstarter scams du jour and then we’ll talk.

Finally, Kickstarter is investigating so it’s not like they’ve gone unpunished.

Tl;dr Polygon has better things to do than cover crap like this, and I’m more surprised Kotaku isn’t covering it because all they write is clickbaity non-news anyway.

Reblogging for commentary

Text

teal-deer:

fleshprince:

this is a cool test that gives you an rpg class and there are 100 possible results check it out

A Sound Weaver, apparently. Tricky with illusion magic and arrows.

"Blood Hunter", which I guess makes sense if you consider that my adolescence was in the 90s. So grimdark, you guys. Why are you looking at my bandoliers of spell component pouches like that? Can’t a guy have lots of pouches? I’m well prepared.

Photo
neuromaencer:

cooled conservatories by wilkinson eyre architects
Photo
jtotheizzoe:

nevver:

Snake facts

The fact that some snakes still have pelvises will never not be weird and amazing.

Or that they are sometimes born with limbs as an atavistic mutation.

jtotheizzoe:

nevver:

Snake facts

The fact that some snakes still have pelvises will never not be weird and amazing.

Or that they are sometimes born with limbs as an atavistic mutation.

Photo
johnskylar:

teal-deer:

vaultedthewall:

dragonageconfessions:

Confession: I confess I worry I am a bigot. I know making love interests “playersexual” is intended to be inclusive and maximize options, that RPGs are largely about fantasy wish-fulfillment, and that my playthrough is not affected by anyone else’s. But knowing every potential love interest could go either way decreases my immersion because I know this is statistically uncommon. I preferred my party having a mix of orientations: it felt more real.
 

Repeat after me, OP: Four bisexual people in the same city is not less realistic than:
Dragons 
Magic that you can use to cause flame or ice or lightning fly from your fingertips 
Literal Demons
Literal Spirits that take possession of people
Elves that run around barefooted literally everywhere.
A culture that worships dogs using “bitch” as an insult
(seriously did NO ONE in the writer’s room raise their hand and go “Wait a second here maybe we should rethink this…”?)
An ancient order that uses the blood of corrupted monsters of an unknown sinister origin to allow them to fight said monsters better.
USING LAVA AS A LIGHT SOURCE WHERE YOU ARE IN AN ENCLOSED CAVE STANDING FIVE FEET AWAY FROM IT AND DOING JUST FINE.
GIANT FUCKING SPIDERS SERIOUSLY I AM TALKING HUMMER SIZED
Cutting people apart and stitching them back together frankenstein style and having that actually work.
Giant gray-skinned horned people.
So, yes, OP. If you’re going “The fact that four bisexuals are in the same city and also hang out together, THAT’S what breaks my immersion” you might want to rethink your priorities. Sorry, but them’s the breaks. 

Also bisexuals huddle together for warmth and travel in packs. So. Yeah.

You know, I get everything being said here, but I also think it’d be cool if there was a game where an NPC you made a pass at was all, “Sorry, no.  I’m only into ____”
Where “____” could be [different gender], dragons, trains, whatever.
Remember the holodeck episode of Star Trek TNG where Geordi makes out with the woman who designed the Enterprise?  And then later realizes it was all fake because the Holodeck is designed to provide fantasies?
If we want games to be “realistic” like the OP does, then the NPCs should largely be unattracted to the PCs, whereas everyone seems like a relative armored thong-dropper in most things I’ve played, and that’s just. not. realistic.
So if you want realism, start expecting to get rejected by that Hot Elf.

I was at the GaymerX panel that Bioware hosted about romance in games, and the lead writer fielded some questions about this. I thought that the interesting takeaway was that the “playersexual” thing does kind of erase or cheapen an element of their characterization, and that it’s ok if a given character is bi/pan/whatever, but they should be written that way from the start instead of just not putting gender gates on those conversation trees. Also, that having increasingly large casts has felt freeing for them, because it does allow them to make more characters with very definite sexual preferences, without feeling like they are limiting the players’ options too much.(Also, as you might suspect, polyamory is a fucking nightmare to implement from a scripting perspective, and it has completely collapsed in on itself every time they’ve tried, but they might have you date a pre-existing couple someday.)

johnskylar:

teal-deer:

vaultedthewall:

dragonageconfessions:

Confession: I confess I worry I am a bigot. I know making love interests “playersexual” is intended to be inclusive and maximize options, that RPGs are largely about fantasy wish-fulfillment, and that my playthrough is not affected by anyone else’s. But knowing every potential love interest could go either way decreases my immersion because I know this is statistically uncommon. I preferred my party having a mix of orientations: it felt more real.

 

Repeat after me, OP: Four bisexual people in the same city is not less realistic than:

  1. Dragons 
  2. Magic that you can use to cause flame or ice or lightning fly from your fingertips 
  3. Literal Demons
  4. Literal Spirits that take possession of people
  5. Elves that run around barefooted literally everywhere.
  6. A culture that worships dogs using “bitch” as an insult
  7. (seriously did NO ONE in the writer’s room raise their hand and go “Wait a second here maybe we should rethink this…”?)
  8. An ancient order that uses the blood of corrupted monsters of an unknown sinister origin to allow them to fight said monsters better.
  9. USING LAVA AS A LIGHT SOURCE WHERE YOU ARE IN AN ENCLOSED CAVE STANDING FIVE FEET AWAY FROM IT AND DOING JUST FINE.
  10. GIANT FUCKING SPIDERS SERIOUSLY I AM TALKING HUMMER SIZED
  11. Cutting people apart and stitching them back together frankenstein style and having that actually work.
  12. Giant gray-skinned horned people.

So, yes, OP. If you’re going “The fact that four bisexuals are in the same city and also hang out together, THAT’S what breaks my immersion” you might want to rethink your priorities. Sorry, but them’s the breaks. 

Also bisexuals huddle together for warmth and travel in packs. So. Yeah.

You know, I get everything being said here, but I also think it’d be cool if there was a game where an NPC you made a pass at was all, “Sorry, no.  I’m only into ____”

Where “____” could be [different gender], dragons, trains, whatever.

Remember the holodeck episode of Star Trek TNG where Geordi makes out with the woman who designed the Enterprise?  And then later realizes it was all fake because the Holodeck is designed to provide fantasies?

If we want games to be “realistic” like the OP does, then the NPCs should largely be unattracted to the PCs, whereas everyone seems like a relative armored thong-dropper in most things I’ve played, and that’s just. not. realistic.

So if you want realism, start expecting to get rejected by that Hot Elf.

I was at the GaymerX panel that Bioware hosted about romance in games, and the lead writer fielded some questions about this.

I thought that the interesting takeaway was that the “playersexual” thing does kind of erase or cheapen an element of their characterization, and that it’s ok if a given character is bi/pan/whatever, but they should be written that way from the start instead of just not putting gender gates on those conversation trees. Also, that having increasingly large casts has felt freeing for them, because it does allow them to make more characters with very definite sexual preferences, without feeling like they are limiting the players’ options too much.

(Also, as you might suspect, polyamory is a fucking nightmare to implement from a scripting perspective, and it has completely collapsed in on itself every time they’ve tried, but they might have you date a pre-existing couple someday.)

Photo
mirkokosmos:

New York City VIII - by H.R. Giger, 1981

mirkokosmos:

New York City VIII - by H.R. Giger, 1981

(via teal-deer)

Text

I figure that if I keep children, animals, and superfluous attachments out of my life, it’ll just make it more likely that a metaphysical director will pick me to be a protagonist.

I should, like, move to a new place every few months, just to kick up the chances. And that place should be a spooky old manor house.

Quote
"Ancient moon priestesses were called virgins. ‘Virgin’ meant not married, not belonging to a man - a woman who was ‘one-in-herself’. The very word derives from a Latin root meaning strength, force, skill; and was later applied to men: virle. Ishtar, Diana, Astarte, Isis were all all called virgin, which did not refer to sexual chastity, but sexual independence. And all great culture heroes of the past, mythic or historic, were said to be born of virgin mothers: Marduk, Gilgamesh, Buddha, Osiris, Dionysus, Genghis Khan, Jesus - they were all affirmed as sons of the Great Mother, of the Original One, their worldly power deriving from her. When the Hebrews used the word, and in the original Aramaic, it meant ‘maiden’ or ‘young woman’, with no connotations to sexual chastity. But later Christian translators could not conceive of the ‘Virgin Mary’ as a woman of independent sexuality, needless to say; they distorted the meaning into sexually pure, chaste, never touched."

Monica Sjoo, The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth  (via thewaking)

Literally the most important thing you will read today.

(via aesrettibeht)

#staywoke

(via diokpara)

(Source: ynannarising, via teal-deer)

Photo
scavengedluxury:

"Hollow" by Håkon Vestli. Orkney Island concrete breakwater.

scavengedluxury:

"Hollow" by Håkon Vestli. Orkney Island concrete breakwater.

(via architectureofdoom)

Photo
cosmicwolfstorm:

〇 by S - Lpis
Text

johnskylar:

lalitrus:

johnskylar:

moxiearien:

cresentmoon2000:

katiaobinger:

the true american experience is wondering if you just heard firecrackers or gunshots

PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS A JOKE

bonus points: both are illegal in your state and you still cannot tell

…they’re almost impossible to confuse with one another if you’ve heard both before.  I’ve been in shootings and I’ve been at fireworks displays.  Guns let you know they’re guns.

What if you’ve mostly only ever heard them together? Like say, in the rural south around the Fourth of July, every night. Becuase I still can’t tell which is which.

Heh, I see your point.  Well, firstly, congratulations on never having been in a crossfire!  Secondly, since bullets break the sound barrier, they shouldn’t echo the same way that fireworks do (the residual echo effects from a bullet are more due to the doppler effect if I recall correctly), and it’s in the echo that you can tell the difference.

SCIENCE.

The majority of pistol rounds are subsonic, so in that case you’re mainly hearing the semi-contained gunpowder explosion. Since fireworks are also semi-contained gunpowder explosions, they should be relatively difficult to distinguish, right? I mean, in theory, depending on the gun, and depending on the firework.