Dision

Re: #17, much of what is posted on Joystiq is of little interest to me. I don't complain about it, because I fully realize that my lack of interest in a news item does not mean that it's irrelevant.

This is different. Joystiq's coverage of the trivialities of PAX like this nerd/rapper/assclown has the effect of drowning news out in noise. Hint: That's bad.

And the fact that it's the weekend doesn't mean that it's a good idea to post filler. Filler pushes more relevant, albeit older, news into the archives. Hint: That's also bad.

Re: #9, the problem is not that this PAX shit is uninteresting to some of us or that it's nerdy. The problem is that it's so tangentially related to gaming culture as to be unnewsworthy. I submit that a play-by-play of a forum for Penny Arcade fans to gather and circle-jerk is a waste of space on the Joystiq front page.

And you'll forgive me if I question whether you're qualified to speak for "most of" Joystiq's readership.

"If you can't answer that question, how could you possible feel like you're capable of determining if 2-3 year olds aren't acting out passive agression when playing Pac-Man and gobbling up ghosts?"

That's a dangerous attitude. One ought not to be so dazzled by an expert's credentials as to feel unqualified to question that expert's judgment. Skepticism is healthy, particularly when listening to people who hold themselves out as experts.

27: "There are no easy answers here, Only conversations that may yield that not everyone will be satisfied with the ultimate resolutions. That is what we call compromise and that is what The Big People known as adults do. It ain't easy, but it's mature."

It's ironic that you're being glib in the same breath that you use to say that there are no easy answers. The problem is that reasonableness -- which is necessary for any meaningful compromise -- and maturity are not Congress's defining characteristics, so dialogue is futile.

"we had to decide whether the ghost chasing Pac Man (or Ms. Pac Man) had the intent to harm or kill"

And this context is supposed to make the Pac-Man violence ratio seem less absurd?

"10. #5: Is it really that necessary for every single game on the planet to be gameplay-first?"

I don't recall saying that gameplay should always be first. I happen to agree with you that it's sometimes appropriate for other priorities to trump gameplay. But not every quality can sustain a game in lieu of great gameplay. Comedy, in particular, is a fickle thing, and it should always be subordinate to gameplay. If the gameplay is lacking, I'm not going to be amused.

Call me close-minded, but I'm not convinced that comedy should ever take precedence over gameplay.

Those of you who defend this proposal by pointing out that paying for items would be optional are missing the point. The problem is that this system will create unlimited opportunities for abuse by making payment increasingly less optional. I hate to play the slippery slope card, but here it's appropriate.

Certainly the industry has a reason to care about public perception of gaming, but why should we? Don't you have better things to do than to care about what John Q. Public thinks of your hobbies? I, for one, am not so insecure that I need public validation of the things that I enjoy.

If you're still seeking the approbation of the cool kids, then perhaps you ought to outgrow the high school mentality.

According to Reuters, Shatner's providing the voice of Kirk in Legacy because he "couldn't imagine someone else playing Captain Kirk, even in a video game."

Someone should tell him about the next Star Trek movie.