Support NeoGAF

[Saint Gregory]

I'm still struggling to understand what the strategy is here. There are many games (that I won't mention here) that were less than stellar but still did really well due to the support they got from fans of the developers or sometimes even just the genre.

Given how many members of the GAF community could be future patrons of your game why would you go so far out of the way to alienate them like this... Unless your goal is to do just that and then blame the failure of your game on a massive conspiracy by the GAF collective.

Hmm...

 

[Exempted]

The forces of Microsoft need to rescue Denis from GAF.


...actually, requesting a GIF of Denis as Baldur, a mod as the robo-dog, and Dragona as Hel.


Shane Kim needs to be the one carrying Denis.

 

[Kai Ozu]

I'm still struggling to understand what the strategy is here. There are many games (that I won't mention here) that were less than stellar but still did really well due to the support they got from fans of the developers or sometimes even just the genre.

Given how many members of the GAF community could be future patrons of your game why would you go so far out of the way to alienate them like this... Unless your goal is to do just that and then blame the failure of your game on a massive conspiracy by the GAF collective.

Hmm...

This.

 

[agrajag]

...Dyack to make a Wii game?

No thanks.

 

[grenadeguru]

Dyack's ideas about NeoGAF and other forums are based on a lengthy thought process inspired by various sources of philosophy, science fiction, and social theory that Dyack has been reading and exploring of late.

Fucking Scientologists.

 

[EternalGamer]

This whole thread, podcast, interview and forum is beautiful. How one man can get so worked up over people scrutinizing his work.

It's just people saying things openly and he gets hurt. All the time.

I have to smile when he talks about us being shut down, as if there's some Internet police to do that. God damn. What a great thread to read on July 4th!

Perhaps he doesn't have enough distance from the criticism of his game by some random posters to realize how meaningless it is in the grand scale of things. However, that doesn't mean that the majority of what he is saying in this podcast about communication on internet gaming forms, or GAF in particular has no relevance.

Just look at the negative response in this thread or any other about Dyack. It seems impossible for people to simply disagree with him while remaining civil and humane. Just because someone makes an argument you think is bad or does something you view to be in bad judgement, doesn't mean you have to be a giant douche bag and start ridiculing them to no end.

Most people can't even be bothered to respond to specific arguments he makes or even make qualified analysis of what he says. Frankly, I'm not even sure they know what a qualified argument is. They don't seem reflective enough. It is like they live in a world where someone is either completely right or completely wrong. Where everything is either awesome or it sucks. They can't be bothered to actually reflect upon the specifics of what Dyack says. Either he is completely right or completely wrong, and there is no room for nuance. If he says one thing they think is off from the way they perceive the world, then they dismiss everything else he has to say as absurd without even considering it. And they then proceed to the gradeschool name and exaggerated strawman portrayals as a pitiful substituit for a response to what he actually said.

Again, like Shane, I think his fault is in failing to realize that what he is saying will fall on deaf ears to the group of people he is responding to. I think it is fair to say he is being more than a little idealistic and that he is being overly defensive of his game. But the dude is obviously under a lot of stress right now. His company and his game have gone through a lot of trials and they have sunk a lot of money into this project and its success or failure could make or break them at this point. It makes sense that he would get caught up in it because he is only human.

I think a great irony lies in the fact that most of the people ridiculing him probably wouldn't last a day in a job in the public eye where they were being ridiculed in the same way. Dealing with that requires a strong emotional restraint. And the way they post overly emotional and ridiculing remarks without stopping to think about the person at the receiving end of their comments shows that they are completely lacking in type of emotional restraint those positions demand. If they can't even respond to someone's argument with civility when they have no real personal investment in the argument, there is no way they would be able to do so when it was their work others were ridiculing.

 

[Madman]

Neogaf doesn't hurt America.

It certainly might be a frighteningly current reflection of America however.

A huge portion of GAF isn't American though.

 

[Rated-Rsuperstar]

No thanks.

Are you sure? Because with the Wii being a more last gen tech system is should only take Dyack half the time to make Too Human 2.

 

[glimmerman]

Perhaps he doesn't have enough distance from the criticism of his game by some random posters to realize how meaningless it is in the grand scale of things. However, that doesn't mean that the majority of what he is saying in this podcast about communication on internet gaming forms, or GAF in particular has no relevance.

Just look at the negative response in this thread or any other about Dyack. It seems impossible for people to simply disagree with him while remaining civil and humane. Just because someone makes an argument you think is bad or does something you view to be in bad judgement, doesn't mean you have to be a giant douche bag and start ridiculing them to no end.

Most people can't even be bothered to respond to specific arguments he makes or even make qualified analysis of what he says. Frankly, I'm not even sure they know what a qualified argument is. They don't seem reflective enough. It is like they live in a world where someone is either completely right or completely wrong. Where everything is either awesome or it sucks. They can't be bothered to actually reflect upon the specifics of what Dyack says. Either he is completely right or completely wrong, and there is no room for nuance. If he says one thing they think is off from the way they perceive the world, then they dismiss everything else he has to say as absurd without even considering it. And they then proceed to the gradeschool name and exaggerated strawman portrayals as a pitiful substituit for a response to what he actually said.

Again, like Shane, I think his fault is in failing to realize that what he is saying will fall on deaf ears to the group of people he is responding to. I think it is fair to say he is being more than a little idealistic and that he is being overly defensive of his game. But the dude is obviously under a lot of stress right now. His company and his game have gone through a lot of trials and they have sunk a lot of money into this project and its success or failure could make or break them at this point. It makes sense that he would get caught up in it because he is only human.

I think a great irony lies in the fact that most of the people ridiculing him probably wouldn't last a day in a job in the public eye where they were being ridiculed in the same way. Dealing with that requires a strong emotional restraint. And the way they post overly emotional and ridiculing remarks without stopping to think about the person at the receiving end of their comments shows that they are completely lacking in type of emotional restraint those positions demand.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. "

Oh look, I quoted Nietzsche.

 

[agrajag]

Are you sure? Because with the Wii being a more last gen tech system is should only take Dyack half the time to make Too Human 2.

I bet I could make a flipbook animation better than Too Human Wii

 

[kuYuri]

I wish I didn't miss Dyack's Too Human thread. I didn't realize who created it and what it was about until after it was locked.

Oh yeah, for the record, I want to play Too Human. Shane Bettenhausen's impressions when he visited Silicon Knight months back got me very interested in it.

 

[EternalGamer]

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. "

Oh look, I quoted Nietzsche.

That's great. Could you now explain how it relates to my post? Are you implying that posters crusade for their right to act immature only because they hate the people who argue for civility? If so, I would say that is a really dumb thing to do and the most infantile form of emotional rebellion possible. Not one of Nietzsche's best aphorisms. Anti-intellectualism is never a very flattering cause to promote, even less so when the person promoting it is, himself, an intellectual.

 

[glimmerman]

That's great. Could you now explain how it relates to my post? Are you implying that posters crusade for their right to act immature only because they hate the people who argue for civility? If so, I would say that is a really dumb thing to do and the most infantile form of rebellion possible. Not one of Nietzsche's best aphorisms.

That quote applies to both sides of the argument. Dyack continues bleating because forum posters continue bleating... because Dyack continues bleating.. and so on.

And since forum posters will never shut up due to there being thousands of them, perhaps its best for Dyack to break the cycle and stop complaining.

But I doubt either side will for some time yet.

 

[Mash]

That's great. Could you now explain how it relates to my post? Are you implying that posters crusade for their right to act immature only because they hate the people who argue for civility? If so, I would say that is a really dumb thing to do and the most infantile form of rebellion possible. Not one of Nietzsche's best aphorisms.

Or that the philosophies of others are more often abused and used inappropriately, than not.

"If it looks shakey, push it down."

 

[EternalGamer]

Well, as I said, I agree in that I think Dyack's criticism is futile. But that doesn't make him wrong.

 

[dominuece]

Dyack= A lone man driven by his humanistic urges vows to create a game that unites man(gamers) in an ultimate display of gameplay, graphics, sound, and replay value. But before the game is even released, Dyack attempts to destroy the infinitely growing Internet. After being defeated by NeoGAF countless times, he realizes that he cannot create such a game nor destroy the internet because he is just TOO HUMAN.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Perhaps he doesn't have enough distance from the criticism of his game by some random posters to realize how meaningless it is in the grand scale of things. However, that doesn't mean that the majority of what he is saying in this podcast about communication on internet gaming forms, or GAF in particular has no relevance.

Just look at the negative response in this thread or any other about Dyack. It seems impossible for people to simply disagree with him while remaining civil and humane. Just because someone makes an argument you think is bad or does something you view to be in bad judgement, doesn't mean you have to be a giant douche bag and start ridiculing them to no end.

Most people can't even be bothered to respond to specific arguments he makes or even make qualified analysis of what he says. Frankly, I'm not even sure they know what a qualified argument is. They don't seem reflective enough. It is like they live in a world where someone is either completely right or completely wrong. Where everything is either awesome or it sucks. They can't be bothered to actually reflect upon the specifics of what Dyack says. Either he is completely right or completely wrong, and there is no room for nuance. If he says one thing they think is off from the way they perceive the world, then they dismiss everything else he has to say as absurd without even considering it. And they then proceed to the gradeschool name and exaggerated strawman portrayals as a pitiful substituit for a response to what he actually said.

Again, like Shane, I think his fault is in failing to realize that what he is saying will fall on deaf ears to the group of people he is responding to. I think it is fair to say he is being more than a little idealistic and that he is being overly defensive of his game. But the dude is obviously under a lot of stress right now. His company and his game have gone through a lot of trials and they have sunk a lot of money into this project and its success or failure could make or break them at this point. It makes sense that he would get caught up in it because he is only human.

I think a great irony lies in the fact that most of the people ridiculing him probably wouldn't last a day in a job in the public eye where they were being ridiculed in the same way. Dealing with that requires a strong emotional restraint. And the way they post overly emotional and ridiculing remarks without stopping to think about the person at the receiving end of their comments shows that they are completely lacking in type of emotional restraint those positions demand. If they can't even respond to someone's argument with civility when they have no real personal investment in the argument, there is no way they would be able to do so when it was their work others were ridiculing.

Um, I could almost agree with you if say DD was dragged out of his office, forced in front of a microphone and beaten insessently until he spouted hyperbolic praise for his game. That's not what's happened however. DD has taken every opportunity, as shown by this podcast, to hype his game and then cries if anyone doesn't feel the same way about it that he does. Criticism can be really helpfull if you heed it and use it to make whatever it was being criticized better. But why do that when it's easier to bitch that everyone's against you.

I feel the same pity for him that I feel for celebrities who show up at nightclubs with their skirts hiked up above their shoulders and then complain about the paparazzi snapping pictures of their hoo-hoos.

 

[Woo-Fu]

45 minutes of Denis at the end of 1upyours wasn't a good idea for anybody involved, as far as I can tell.

I don't understand what his point is. Just make a great game and the world will laugh at your detractors. If the game isn't great, no amount of 1-man band damage control is going to help.

Was nice to hear somebody mention Ian M. Banks and his Culture series.

 

[Doc Evils]

Dyack= A lone man driven by his humanistic urges vows to create a game that unites man(gamers) in an ultimate display of gameplay, graphics, sound, and replay value. But before the game is even released, Dyack attempts to destroy the infinitely growing Internet. After being defeated by NeoGAF countless times, he realizes that he cannot create such a game nor destroy the internet because he is just TOO HUMAN.

A-

 

[agrajag]

Dyack= A lone man driven by his humanistic urges vows to create a game that unites man(gamers) in an ultimate display of gameplay, graphics, sound, and replay value. But before the game is even released, Dyack attempts to destroy the infinitely growing Internet. After being defeated by NeoGAF countless times, he realizes that he cannot create such a game nor destroy the internet because he is just TOO HUMAN.

FOR

 

[sikkinixx]

I stopped listening to 1up Yours when D Dawg started to listen to Giant Bombcast instead. I can't tell if it's worth listening to because the man is really getting on my nerves but this thread makes me want to....arghh the choices!

 

[sennin]

Perhaps he doesn't have enough distance from the criticism of his game by some random posters to realize how meaningless it is in the grand scale of things. However, that doesn't mean that the majority of what he is saying in this podcast about communication on internet gaming forms, or GAF in particular has no relevance.

This has been addressed by Ca1amity:

However, opening this discussion on the back of his “put up or shut up” thread, which in turn rides the reactionary back of NeoGAF in general and poor handling of the E3 Too Human preview, Denis shoots himself in the foot.
First, he removes credibility in the idea that this is part of some grand social experiment born out of his recent literary exploration – keeping this to himself and writing about it post-release would have made a much stronger point.
Second, he invalidates the very idea of objective discourse about the role of the internet on the games industry and, more specifically, games journalism by focusing repeatedly on NeoGAF. This forums infamy and (supposed) importance are not enough to warrant citing evidence solely from here. 1UP boards, Destructoid forums and blogs, Evil Avatar, 4chan… all of these are sources of equal parts insight and vitriol. Coming back to GAF again and again simply reinforces the point that this was a targeted message to a community at odds (deservedly so or not) with him as a developer, with his game and his company – the three pillars of his professional (and most likely some of his personal) persona.

So again, there was no reason for Denis to simply appear on a podcast in order to address his latest development in continuing a controversy.
That he attempted to wrap his personal dispute with NeoGAF, and one assumes vitriolic critics of Too Human everywhere, in a sheen of legitimacy – claiming a need for discourse and investigation – is unacceptable. That Denis is only asking for reasoned discourse now at the end is unfortunate (and not entirely his fault). That he is attempting to use the scientific pursuit of social understanding to, presumably, promote change only because he himself has been wounded is pathetic.

I'd keep it short: Dyack is simply pretending to be interested in launching investigative discourses on the social impact of forums, but his timing to do so indicates he is more interested in damage control over the negative press his game, Too Human has received. Once bitten, read some books, make boisterous comments that are suggesting censorship as the answer.

Just look at the negative response in this thread or any other about Dyack. It seems impossible for people to simply disagree with him while remaining civil and humane. Just because someone makes an argument you think is bad or does something you view to be in bad judgement, doesn't mean you have to be a giant douche bag and start ridiculing them to no end.

I'm only civil to people who moderate themselves. I have no qualms about being ruthless in dealing with despots who dare infringe upon the fundamental civil rights of humanity, as enshrined not just in 1st Amendment, which was your shallow understanding of "free speech", but in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Most people can't even be bothered to respond to specific arguments he makes or even make qualified analysis of what he says. Frankly, I'm not even sure they know what a qualified argument is. They don't seem reflective enough. It is like they live in a world where someone is either completely right or completely wrong. Where everything is either awesome or it sucks. They can't be bothered to actually reflect upon the specifics of what Dyack says. Either he is completely right or completely wrong, and there is no room for nuance. If he says one thing they think is off from the way they perceive the world, then they dismiss everything else he has to say as absurd without even considering it. And they then proceed to the gradeschool name and exaggerated strawman portrayals as a pitiful substituit for a response to what he actually said.

I point you to Calamity again, who has posted a balanced view of the debacle. I think he is being benevolent to Dyack, who has expressed his desire to shut down the forums. Kindness to the enemy is cruelty to the self.

Again, like Shane, I think his fault is in failing to realize that what he is saying will fall on deaf ears to the group of people he is responding to.

That's a flawed observation. We've heard his condescending voice, and we've responded in kind. Simply because we are aggressive in protecting our own rights to criticize his preliminary work does not translate into ignoring his statements.

But the dude is obviously under a lot of stress right now. His company and his game have gone through a lot of trials and they have sunk a lot of money into this project and its success or failure could make or break them at this point. It makes sense that he would get caught up in it because he is only human.

Your attempt to soak him up with ad misericordiam fallacies is amusing. So on the basis that he is under duress, he has suddenly empowered himself to be free from scrutiny, free from criticism, and worse, to dictate what internet message boards can or cannot do?

think a great irony lies in the fact that most of the people ridiculing him probably wouldn't last a day in a job in the public eye where they were being ridiculed in the same way. Dealing with that requires a strong emotional restraint. And the way they post overly emotional and ridiculing remarks without stopping to think about the person at the receiving end of their comments shows that they are completely lacking in type of emotional restraint those positions demand. If they can't even respond to someone's argument with civility when they have no real personal investment in the argument, there is no way they would be able to do so when it was their work others were ridiculing.

Now you're just attacking the very same group that has responded to such high handed oppression with assumptions on their emotional quotient. It is a stark contrast to your cry for leniency towards Dyack's plight, setting double standards while dealing with children that have yet to attain the proper education and etiquette in intellectual circles.

 

[Salazar]

I started that Iain.M. Banks book, but got distracted by some Updike.


Does anybody have a link to an explanation / account of the entire Too Human development story - something that someone normally or mostly uninterested in videogames could read and understand ? I've been trying to explain it to someone, but an article would really, really help.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I'm only civil to people who moderate themselves. I have no qualms about being ruthless in dealing with despots who dare infringe upon the fundamental civil rights of humanity, as enshrined not just in 1st Amendment, which was your shallow understanding of "free speech", but in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I said wow.

If you're serious about the above... wow. Just... wow.

Switch to decaf.

 

[Iaido Sword]

I said wow.

If you're serious about the above... wow. Just... wow.

Switch to decaf.

Or stop the anonymity, Denis Dyack. :lol

 

[bdouble]

people are too blind to see that most games are crap. you only realize it when you play a better game

ehh k. So what crap games have they made recently? According to you.

* Cyber Empires (1992)
* Fantasy Empires (1993)
* Dark Legions (1994)
* Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain (1996) (Sony PlayStation, Windows)
* Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem (2002) (Nintendo GameCube)
* Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes (2004) (Nintendo GameCube)

Take your pick. I don't see any. Don't know about the early ones but just read and they didn't sound like they were "crap" and far from "hurting society".

Anyways the footage I saw on the 1up show looked quite good. I just wish recently they wouldn't have released all those shitastic skill tree trailers where they showed me absolutely nothing. Doesn't really send the best impressions to the fans of the games.

 

[Iaido Sword]

ehh k. So what crap games have they made recently? According to you.

* Cyber Empires (1992)
* Fantasy Empires (1993)
* Dark Legions (1994)
* Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain (1996) (Sony PlayStation, Windows)
* Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem (2002) (Nintendo GameCube)
* Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes (2004) (Nintendo GameCube)

Take your pick. I don't see any. Don't know about the early ones but just read and they didn't sound like they were "crap" and far from "hurting society".

Anyways the footage I saw on the 1up show looked quite good. I just wish recently they wouldn't have released all those shitastic skill tree trailers where they showed me absolutely nothing. Doesn't really send the best impressions to the fans of the games.

The last two.

 

[Saint Gregory]

The last two.

Not true. One (ED) was very good and the other was several extra months of dev time away from being excellent.

 

[Monocle]

Oh my wow.

 

[rollingstart]

Not true. One (ED) was very good and the other was several extra months of dev time away from being excellent.

It is true since it is his opinion.

 

[EternalGamer]

This has been addressed by Ca1amity:



I'd keep it short: Dyack is simply pretending to be interested in launching investigative discourses on the social impact of forums, but his timing to do so indicates he is more interested in damage control over the negative press his game, Too Human has received. Once bitten, read some books, make boisterous comments that are suggesting censorship as the answer.

Actually, I agree with Ca1amity. The way Dyack carried out his supposed "experiment" should, at the very least raise suspicion. And his constant focus on NeoGaf alone does seem to indicate that this is more of a personal response buried in the guise of some more sophisticated rhetoric. Again, however, I don't think even these possible underlying intentions completely dismiss the points he was making or necessarily invalidate them. It just means his motivation for making the argument isn't exactly intellectually pure. But I wonder if any of us ever make arguments that really are completely lacking in personal affilaition in some way. Most just aren't this transparent...

I'm only civil to people who moderate themselves. I have no qualms about being ruthless in dealing with despots who dare infringe upon the fundamental civil rights of humanity, as enshrined not just in 1st Amendment, which was your shallow understanding of "free speech", but in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Whoa, since when does moderators demanding civility infringe upon basic human rights? Look, if you come to my house and insult my family or make disparaging racial, sexists, or homophobic remarks, I might (after several warnings), show you the door. That does not in any way mean I am infringing upon your civil rights or your free speech in particular. As was discussed earlier, freedom of speech means freedom from government intervention. The social consequences (such as being excluded from a group, asked to leave a private residence, or being banned from a forum) does not have anything to do with free speech or any other basic human rights.

Your attempt to soak him up with ad misericordiam fallacies is amusing. So on the basis that he is under duress, he has suddenly empowered himself to be free from scrutiny, free from criticism, and worse, to dictate what internet message boards can or cannot do?

I never said he was free from criticism. I myself criticized him for that charade in the the "for or against" thread. But you can criticize someone (even more effectively) if you abstain from ridicule and turning them in to strawmen. Moreover, you end up with a better chance of having your criticism actually considered, which, unless you are only interested in exhibiting your ability to exchange "clever" insults, seems more desirable. And yes, I'm aware that a lot of this can apply to Dyack himself. But I really don't think anything he said comes close to the amount of odium others have expressed towards him. For one thing, he didn't even direct his comments at any one individual, so there were no personal attacks.

Now you're just attacking the very same group that has responded to such high handed oppression with assumptions on their emotional quotient. It is a stark contrast to your cry for leniency towards Dyack's plight, setting double standards while dealing with children that have yet to attain the proper education and etiquette in intellectual circles.

Again, I'm not saying Dyack is free from critique on this front. But I do think he has shown a great deal more emotional restraint than most of the people who responded to his posts. He made a few bad judgement calls, but that is no justification for the absurd sense of indignation which many displayed or the perverse amount of ridicule they heaped upon him thereafter.

 

[Iaido Sword]

Not true. One (ED) was very good and the other was several extra months of dev time away from being excellent.

I didn't like it. I understand other people like it.

I never really talked trash about ED, but I seriously will talk trash about Twin Snakes though. :lol

The whole sanity effect wore off quickly. The gameplay wasn't on par with SH or RE, but it was decent.

 

[Brannon]

Okay.

The interview hurt, this thread hurts, everything about this entire situation hurts. Oh my god.

The NeoGAF

 

[besada]

As a forum grows larger the quality and depth of discussion declines (signal to noise ratio etc), I think that's pretty much a given.

You're half right. The signal to ratio noise gets worse, but the quality and depth actually increases with increased users, because you have an increased pool of ideas. The problem is in finding those conversations in the midst of the noise, which becomes more difficult.

 

[Saint Gregory]

I didn't like it. I understand other people like it.

I never really talked trash about ED, but I seriously will talk trash about Twin Snakes though. :lol

The whole sanity effect wore off quickly. The gameplay wasn't on par with SH or RE, but it was decent.

Aside from the art (which I hated) I really can't say anything bad about ED. It did a lot of things differently and had some moments that I still remember 5 years later. I can say that about few games.

MGS:TS is kind of tragic. Applying MGS2's graphics and gameplay to MGS1 sounded like a good idea but they really needed time to rework some of the gameplay to incorporate Snake's MGS2 moves into MGS1 design. The end result made the game way too easy but I really liked the new cutscenes and it really addressed my biggest gripes about MGS2 (namely setting and story). If SK had been given more time I'm sure the TS would have been classic.

 

[Azih]

But I do think he has shown a great deal more emotional restraint than most of the people who responded to his posts.

1. Random message board posters are not held to the same standard as professional video game developers for rather obvious reasons

2. It's not even true. If Dyack was a normal poster and made arguments such as he has his thread would be mocked/ridiculed and his thread creation privilidges would have been revoked. If he persisted in making the same kinds of posts he would have eventually been perma banned and forgotten. It's only his celebrity status that keeps his hypersensitive self contradictory threads from being locked.

And insisting that message board posters trawl through the reams of contradictory self aggrandizing bullshit of his posts and podcasts to focus on the few slight glimmers of insight is ridiculous. If he makes stupid comments he'll get called on those stupid comments, and lord he's made some extremely stupid comments.

Edit: That he is the only developer who has interacted with GAF who has faced this level of disdain should indicate to you that there is something wrong with DENIS not with GAF.

 

[AndersTheSwede]

Here's what I want to know.

What possible line could GAF cross that would get it shut down as Dyack prophesies?

I mean we are a picture posting board so the pedos can't get us shut down, so what other fucking circumstance could there be?

 

[Salazar]

This is actually eerily similar to Anne Rice's Amazon meltdown over Blood Canticle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/books/11rice.html

 

["God's Beard!"]

<-This is my real face. Anyone who reads my posts knows what I look like. I can't change my name to Angelo Infanto, but if I could I'd keep a tag that said God's Beard just so more people would recognise and judge what I say. Or just tag myself Angelo Infanto.

Would that make me more accountable? When I put something down anywhere on the internet, I take full responsibility for it. Does that make me any nicer of a person? No. Will I still call people bitches and taunt people when their pets die? Yeah. Am I representative of anything? I don't give a shit.

Reciprocity and scientisms can suck my balls.

 

[besada]

Dude, have you read the replies in this very topic? Most of the people here couldn't even be bothered to try to follow his argument before responding. I guess I can give people the benefit of doubt that they are actually more intelligent than the way they are presenting themselves, but then I simply need to ammend my statement to the community acting like an iliterate 14 year old rather than it actually being one. If you think the majority of people on this forum act like mature, intelligent adults then your concept of what constituites "mature" and "intelligent" is completely skewered.

You're doing the same thing Denis did, which is engage in fundamental dishonesty by describing GAF by its worst posts. Sure, there are plenty of posts in here complaining without having bothered to listen to Denis or parse his argument, but there are also plenty of well thought-out posts by users who listened to the argument, thought about it, and replied.

Cherry-picking only the worst replies, and then saying they are the sum of all replies is just disingenuous. Again, there's no doubt the signal to ratio noise is high, but that's no excuse for pretending the noise is the signal.

Keep in mind that you are part of the thing you are disparaging. It's sloppy speech and sloppy thinking to make commentary about aggregates and expect it to have any relevance. It's as dumb as saying "Americans are stupid" or "White people can't dance". It assumes what is true about the aggregate is true about the specifc as well.

 

[Stuneseht]

<-This is my real face. Anyone who reads my posts knows what I look like. I can't change my name to Angelo Infanto, but if I could I'd keep a tag that said God's Beard just so more people would recognise and judge what I say. Or just tag myself Angelo Infanto.

Would that make me more accountable? When I put something down anywhere on the internet, I take full responsibility for it. Does that make me any nicer of a person? No. Will I still call people bitches and taunt people when their pets die? Yeah. Am I representative of anything? I don't give a shit.

Reciprocity and scientisms can suck my balls.

True statement, But the funny thing is- even with all that information, it's up to me to decide whether that information is true.

Edit: Does NeoGaf have some kind of complaint Box or something, so that we could get a collective idea of how everybody is feeling in terms of their treatment on the boards?

 

[drohne]

an aversion to dyack's lecturing style is not 'anti-intellectual' -- his parody of scholarship poses more of a threat to the intellect than stupid gaf one-liners. he gleans a shallow idea or two from each of several books he's recently read -- this drucker seems to yield the idea that organizations must do good -- and applies them in some questionable way to his ongoing apology for himself. and he does this with indecent volubility. this method doesn't inspire thought or assent or dissent; it inspires stupefaction. i haven't read the books he's got his hands on now, so i can't evaluate his grasp of them, but in the past he's revealed a poor acquaintance with the names he drops.

after listening to that podcast, though, i'm unsure whether he behaves this way out of a desire to impress or just an eccentric kind of enthusiasm -- reading his interviews, i was sure it was entirely the former

 

[madmook]

Can we haz demo plz, Mr. Dyack?

 

[besada]

After finally getting some sleep, I had another interesting thought about why Denis has gotten such a strong reaction from GAF for so long. He broke the unwritten rule of GAF developers, which is: Thou shalt minimize thy marketing.

GAF doesn't like to be sold to (well, at least no in such an open manner). It's why we frown on guys hyping their websites, and why we frown on viral marketers.

Compare Denis's behavior to other devs on GAF:

Denis only posts about Denis. He virtually never shows up in any topic that isn't about SK or TH.

Denis is always selling TH. He's been hyping the game since he's been here, and it's his primary reason for posting.

Compare that with folks like bishoptl. He was quiet enough about his connection with Turok that some users didn't even know he was connected. I don't recall him making multiple threads wherein he told us all how great and magnificent the game was going to be. In short, he didn't come here to market to us.

Or Gazunta, who, sure, puts in a joking little "Buy Party Animals" pretty frequently, but doesn't feel the need to start his own threads praising his game. More importantly, both Gazunta and bishoptl and a dozen other devs are part of the community, here as gamers, not salesmen.

Denis came to us as a salesman, and he got treated like a salesman. There's a good lesson there for other devs. We're here for our reasons, not yours. If we can help you, that's nice, but it's not our primary function. Our function is to critique, review, rip-apart, laud, abuse, and praise the games we play. Try to market through us, and the results are always going to be unpredictable.

 

[seanoff]

Seems you missed his point totally.

First of all think how you act towards someone face to face, if you met up with Denis to discuss his game, would you say the likes of "Dude you game is shit, it sucks balls so bad" I very much doubt it.

Yet people feel they can say that on the Internet because one there is little repercussions and they are anonymous so they aren't accountable.

I used to work in an area that had me in direct contact with the developers of the software i was installing.

I have done exactly what you describe, in almost that language at their conference in a session i was delivering. I wasn't very popular with the some of the developers staff, but the other users treated me as a god. Why? because it was honest feedback on 15 months of attempting to get a version i could actually install.

Personally i will call it as i see it. If i had enough interest, and i didn't like it, you could put me in SK with the entire staff in the room, i'd still hold my ground.

so speak for yourself

 

[Iaido Sword]

Compare that with folks like bishoptl. He was quiet enough about his connection with Turok that some users didn't even know he was connected.

I sure didn't. I have a buddy who worked on Turok as well...

 

[Fallout-NL]

after listening to that podcast, though, i'm unsure whether he behaves this way out of a desire to impress or just an eccentric kind of enthusiasm -- reading his interviews, i was sure it was entirely the former

He's as enthusiastic as an 8 year old in the 1up show though. The way he talks about some of the features in his game, it's almost adorable. Devs/PR people should really tone that shit down, it's either paper thin or just plain stupid.

 

[Snowden]

Denis is always selling TH. He's been hyping the game since he's been here, and it's his primary reason for posting.

If I didn't enter threads pertaining to Too Human, I wouldn't know that he was a member.

 

[-COOLIO-]

he has a point about the attacks but i really doubt this forum is significantly damaging dyack's rep or too human

 

[impirius]

Okay.

The interview hurt, this thread hurts, everything about this entire situation hurts. Oh my god.

The NeoGAF

Do you get there from the google?