Random Gaming Thoughts

[MrPopo]

@Damm64 - Well it's only affected me personally with the Vita.

I think that's because most console games that get rereleased with a bunch of extra content are either "game plus DLC" or are a rerelease on a new platform, with the latter being the more common example.

[marurun]

I feel like we're just talking about a variant of the Game of the Year thing.

[Exhuminator]

No the expansions I'm talking about go beyond GOTY additions. The four games I cited earlier on Vita received upgrades that increase the content by a factor of one and a half. It's a lot more than just some quick 'n' dirty DLC or a new multiplayer mode.

I agree with MrPopo that it would be less annoying if this occurred because the game was ported to a different platform. But when the game comes out a year later (or less) on the same platform with all this new content added, it just feels like a slap in the face. Maybe that doesn't make logical sense, but it's how it feels.

[GSZX1337]

.....what?

...I'm not a Nintendo fanboy.......honest!

Shhh it's okay, your secret it's safe with us.

What?! A Nintendo fanboy?!
*equips Light Phaser*

[Erik_Twice]

The problem with your point 1 is that it's overly broad.

If not being able to speak freely under threats of violence, harrasment, firings or public humilliations is "overly broad", then what isn't?

If I went into Harlem and started dropping the n-word I'd have a reasonable expectation that everyone in a two block radius would try and beat my ass. But that doesn't mean my freedom of speech is coerced away, as they are in the wrong for assaulting me (and engaging in battery).

First, that's a very poor example as "dropping the n-word" could be understood as harrasment and hence outside of the bounds of free speech.

Second, the fact that they are assaulting you doesn't prevent you from being coerced. In fact, you are being coerced because they are assaulting you.

You can easily see this with a better example: If you went to the Basque County in the 1990s and gave speeches condemning ETA, you would have the "reasonable expectation" you would be murdered by them, just like hundreds of others were. But according to that logic, there was no coercion nor was freedom of speech and of press stifled, because they were "in the wrong" which is beyond absurd.

Similarly, and to go back to the main topic, Anita Sarkeesian is being coerced into not speaking when people harrass or threaten her. That's inarguable.

I'm pretty sure you made this one up, cause aside from a cultural presence I'm fairly certain there is no legal precedence for this in modern western law (vague hand-waving about basic human dignity aside).

Dude, it's a reprashing (The reprashing of the Spanish Constitution, actually) of the 12 article of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

Article 12: Right to privacy

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

You don't have to be so mean-spirited and nitpicking that, marurun :/

[RCBH928]

I am on Erik_Twice's side

Otherwise you could walk up in a biker bar and yell Harley Davidson bikes are for wimps and walk out without broke legs. Freedom of speech requires proper situational awareness no?

Actually, this is exactly what freedom of speech should be. They can call back and say "No! You are a wimp!" . But if they will egg my house, block my car in the parking lot, try to fire me from my job, then no I am not "free" to say what I want. Next thing the gov. will put you in jail for your political opinions and tell you "You are free to express it, but now you have to deal with the consequences"

[marurun]

Article 12: Right to privacy

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

OK, what you said earlier (the wording you chose), in the context of what else you typed, had a different meaning (to me) than this.

Attacks upon one's honor and reputation are issues of defamation, which are exceptions to free speech (though they are censored after the fact, not before). Though I think the wording in the UN document (and possibly the Spanish constitution) are over-broad in this. My preference is for the US model in this case. Basically, in the US, if you write or say something materially untrue about someone which harms their reputation, you can sue. In order to win, however, you must PROVE that the statement is 1) materially false, and 2) intended to harm the victim's reputation*.

*Not applicable to private individuals (as opposed to businesses or public entities).
See http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-per ... asics.html for more information on US law concerning defamation.

There are 4 exceptions in US law (according to the all-knowing Wikipedia) that do not require the defendant to prove false.

The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct.

Also, opinions may be stated largely with impunity. If I say that I think someone is a jerk and an offensive human being, I can't be sued for that, even if the person I'm saying that about is Mother Theresa.

I do not like the UK model where if you sue someone for defamation, THEY have to prove that their defamation is true. The US model does shift the burden more to the victim, but that also prevents overly harsh censorship of speech, where in the UK it is much easier to silence undesirable speech.

You don't have to be so mean-spirited and nitpicking that, marurun :/[/quote]

I do have to be nit-picky. I did not think I was being mean-spirited. I am merely an aggressive arguer at times.

[marurun]

So, there's a crap ton of dialogue in KOTOR 2. While the plot can, at times, feel very contrived, a lot of the character writing is really good.

[MrPopo]

I am on Erik_Twice's side

Otherwise you could walk up in a biker bar and yell Harley Davidson bikes are for wimps and walk out without broke legs. Freedom of speech requires proper situational awareness no?

Actually, this is exactly what freedom of speech should be. They can call back and say "No! You are a wimp!" . But if they will egg my house, block my car in the parking lot, try to fire me from my job, then no I am not "free" to say what I want. Next thing the gov. will put you in jail for your political opinions and tell you "You are free to express it, but now you have to deal with the consequences"

See, that's the difference. The government is constrained in what it can do by the system of laws. You can't arbitrarily lock someone up, you can't send marines to someone's house to rough them up, etc. Now, just like a private citizen, an individual in the government can violate the laws and do any of those things, and just like a private citizen they would suffer the consequences.

But if you guys are asserting that freedom of speech requires that there are no consequences to your actions then freedom of speech never has existed and never will exist. Because there is no way to control the actions of a person who decides to react to what you say. All you can do is punish after the fact.

[Exhuminator]

Sometimes I wonder how different the internet would be, if every time we made a post anywhere on it no matter the situation, we were allowed zero anonymity. Rather, every time we posted, a photo of our actual face appeared, along with our real name, our age, our actual location, our sexual orientation, our religious affiliation (or lack of), and our political leanings. If we are allowed zero anonymity, how free would our speech continue to flow online? Would we get as worked up if we knew exactly who was saying what? Would we put as much credence into the words of someone if we knew more about them? Would we put more? A non-anonymous internet would be an interesting experience.

I realize that's not much of a random gaming thought though.

I want to play a local co-op same-screen roguelike in the vein of say Shiren the Wanderer.