Quite the opposite! Wind96 is a new/modern electronic producer probably very influenced by Wise! Plume Valley was released in 2017 :)
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
David Wise is still one of the best composers to ever exist in gaming ( DK series )
- Thread starter Cloud-Strife
- Start date
Quite the opposite! Wind96 is a new/modern electronic producer probably very influenced by Wise! Plume Valley was released in 2017 :)
I discovered this album on YouTube a couple years ago, and it's an absolute gem. Wind96's other albums are really good, too! They're more on the vaporwave side of electronica, but very nostalgic sounding as well.
Soichi Terada and Sonic Team's Music Dept are up there with the greats. These tracks give me similar vibes to what you posted:
User Banned (1 day): Modwhining
I cant believe this forum. I was given a warning for saying a specific member is on my ignore list š¤£ Like WTF. He kept asking for a reply, i told him he was on ignore, and moved on. ( i put him on ignore months back )
Last edited:
why are you guys ignoring a poster who rightfully wants to spotlight Cyberpunk and CDPR's transphobia issues?
Because some people would rather see the trans community discriminated against, and see people and their families destroyed because of poor work conditions just to play a video game.
I just wanted to show some support for this post. Couldn't agree more.
You're basically saying they should continue to remain in power and be afforded the opportunities to do harm to those they hate, because hey, the products they create are good?
Are we really equating evil to merely "backwards ass thinking", with all of the damage it does on a daily basis? I have to ask, have you lost your mind? "Fuck black people", for example, is not an inalienable right. They believe it is, but you're broken if you've accepted that as reality. Thinking turns into action, you have to be completely naĆÆve to believe that it is confined to Twitter posts and thought exercises.
How is what you've typed not saying that evil should be let loose, to run free, so you can enjoy whatever you want with zero guilt?
I'm saying as long as the products of their labor aren't themselves hateful and remain competent and of a high quality then they very much earned their keep legitimately and I find the notion that we should attempt to sabotage them because they can subsequently choose to spend those earnings in ways that we disapprove (and believe me, I very much disapprove) hateful. They did good work and that's all they should be judged on as far as their professional output is concerned, what they choose to do with their earnings outside of that context is very much their business, as hateful as it may be.
Not merely, but also. We're very much in disagreement that "fuck black people" is inalienable right as far as one's opinion goes. You get to have whatever opinion or sordid take on any subject you want. Silencing that achieves nothing. Of course, nobody's saying you should be free of reprisals when you choose to express such an opinion and in fact I very much think confronting these individuals is absolutely essential to attaining lasting and meaningful progress as I very much agree with you that thinking does indeed turn into action and only by illustrating how flawed their logic is do we actually stand a chance of permanently getting rid of these issues. My point is merely that attacking their livelihood when that itself contains no bigoted or hateful stances merely for the purpose of deplatforming them in other regards is extremely vile and precisely the kind of hateful tactic that's been known to be associated with right wing dictatorships or the red scare period and which I'd very much like to see us abandon as I fear it will ultimately be detrimental to achieving our goals in the long run.
Please feel free to illustrate just how exactly it is that you feel I am broken for thinking the way I do.
Don't be reductive, what I said has nothing to do with enjoying things with zero guilt. Hell, you won't ever see me defending the works of Robert Heinlein or Graveland as their works are very much the embodiement of their heinous beliefs, no matter how much I happen to have enjoyed them on a personal level in the past these are completely irredeemable works that should rightly be purged from any conversation. I'm saying that as long as your work isn't politically charged with bigoted propaganda then going after your livelihood in order to deplatform the exploits you go about on in your personal life is abhorrent. You should very much be persecuting these individuals on any public forums you deem fit and attempting to discredit them on a personal level, but I find attacking their livelihood is a downright evil tactic... and doing something evil merely because it is effective and ultimately done with good intentions does not absolve the act itself in any way. A bunch of my vegan friends have begun to see how effective this approach is and are adamant that we should be adopting the very same stance and "hitting meat eaters where it hurts" and I believe that is the perfect illustration of just how insidious such a tactic really is (assuming you're not vegan yourself, that is... otherwise you're likely to side with them, I'd imagine)... to most of them there is absolutely no difference in importance or weight when it comes to the pursuit of social rights and animal rights (I count myself in that same bracket but I'm fully aware most people do not consider these issues to be of equivalent importance) so in a future or parallel reality you could very well find yourself having your engineering career (using myself as an example here) permanently and ireedeemably ruined just because you eat meat in your private time. Sloppy analogy, I'm aware... but you do get my point, I imagine? I'm very much against it but I'm not set in my ways to the point where I'm unwilling to change so feel free to show me how my logic is flawed and you may very well convince me I've been wrong all this time.
What, JK Rowling is actively pushing against trans rights in the UK with even some pos politicians using her as a example of why they should push back against trans rights? Ok but Harry Potter is cool though so who gives a shit.
This fucking thread man, jesus.
This fucking thread man, jesus.
No. You fight intolerance with intolerance. Tolerating the intolerant is what led to trump's presidency.
There are more than two types of people because not everyone supports the same good or bad things. You can be pro-Biden, a BLM supporter, believe scientific evidence regarding COVID and climate change, and still be, for example, a Brexit supporter. Or you could believe science, support Biden, are anti-Brexit, but you're against BLM and are a racist piece of shit.
That's just the way humans work.
Damn Grant Kirkhope still fucks with that white supremacist?
Anyways, I never was into David Wise, except for that one song everyone loves. Can go to hell tho.
Anyways, I never was into David Wise, except for that one song everyone loves. Can go to hell tho.
...Wait, what? What do you mean by "attacking their livelihood" exactly? Like, boycotting, and such? Because that's ridiculous. I don't hold it against anyone who chooses to buy content from problematic creators, but going so far as to say that refusing to support someone financially is... evil? This makes no sense. No one is entitled to our money.
I follow Grant on Twitter and he's super vocal about social causes, anti-Trump, etc. I'm not sure being this reductive and going into some future thread with contextless "too bad Kirkhope is a POS" will help anyone.
Not a good look to see this exchange but I hadn't actually seen him interact with Jon Tron in ages, this might be all there is. Either way it's incredibly unlikely he's in on whatever stances Jon had.
This is an utterly bizarre take. Everyone is free to spout whatever hateful bullshit they want to - and everyone else is free to choice to not support a piece of shit person.
I'm sorry man - JonTron is a fucking neonazi - as racist as they come. There's no engaging with him at all. Kirkhope knows exactly what he stands for - he was and is very vocal about it.
I don't get it either, I'm just saying I doubt Kirkhope is a neo nazi.
I don't think he is either - but he obviously lacks the moral character to distance himself. Who you associate with says a lot about yourself these days.
How is not attacking their livelihood but rather confront them publicly "tolerating" them, exactly? By not attacking their livelihood I'm merely stating their work isn't problematic, not tolerating their intolerance.
What led to Trump's presidency was, much like Brexit, the fact their campaign heavily targetted non-voters who tend to be mostly misinformed. It's why the results heavily contradicted poll expectations in both cases. They won by gaming the system. How does tolerating intolerance factor in?
Refusing to support someone financially on basis of principal despite their work being completely unrelated and unaffected by those principals is, at the very least, highly unethical. We're discussing individuals who are already wealthy so this won't resonate in these cases in particular but by depriving someone of their livelihood for holding different beliefs than yours you could very well be affecting the well being of their family and dependents without justifiable cause which is precisely what happened when these same tactics were applied to suspected communists during the red scare. That we just so happen to mostly focus our boycotting on the wealthy is inconsequential to whether or not it is a dirty tactic by definition, I believe the process itself is inherently unethical and wrong regardless of who it targets.
I'm not saying you're not free to do so, I'm saying I think the fact this tactic is not only prolific within progressive circles but actually actively encouraged and viewed as something noble is problematic and I personally object to it as someone who dwells within such circles.
It's disappointing that we have to have this conversation. I'd like to just pop in and talk about how good the Battletoads arcade stage 3 is. But it's not the fault of the people in this thread as much that it's gone as it has so much as it's the fault of David Wise. It would be nice if he could reflect on the issues and show that he actually does want to show respect for others and not support attitudes that cause harm.
These things always go into a big debate of "why do I have to feel bad for supporting this". But that's not a bug either. The whole idea of having a conscience is that we're discouraged from doing bad things because they feel bad. I don't think everyone can be expected to make the ethical decisions all the time, but when these topics are unpleasant, what we should be thinking about is how to make more positive moves so that we don't end up in this position again.
These things always go into a big debate of "why do I have to feel bad for supporting this". But that's not a bug either. The whole idea of having a conscience is that we're discouraged from doing bad things because they feel bad. I don't think everyone can be expected to make the ethical decisions all the time, but when these topics are unpleasant, what we should be thinking about is how to make more positive moves so that we don't end up in this position again.
You still are not making sense. No one is obligated to financially support strangers, wealthy or not. There's nothing unethical about not wanting to buy a Burzum album because Varg is a racist piece of shit and you don't want your own money contribute to his royalties or whatever. There's nothing unethical about not wanting to buy a Burzum album because you don't like the cover art, or because you think his name is stupid, or because you'd rather buy yourself a new hat instead. There's nothing unethical about not buying something, period! Lecturing others on what they choose to spend their own hard-earned money on is patently absurd, let alone if they choose to not spend it for whatever reason. If it makes me unhappy to know that part of my money goes to a bigot, and I choose to not buy something because of it, that's my business and mine alone. Calling this "vile" is so absurd and hyperbolic, I do wonder if you are trolling right now. Especially with your comparisons to communist scares, like, what does this have to do with anything...
You asked me to point out where your thinking appears to be broken. I have to say it starts right here.
I don't judge anyone for liking what they like, no matter what sins of the creator are uncovered. But you're tying it into some strange responsibility of consumerism. You've lost the plot sis. You espouse the most perverted version of "separate the art from the artist" across which I've ever come.
I'm not trying to change your mind, because I don't know how.
I simply do not agree. I saw enough great halal businesses (I'm still missing out on the best vegetable samosas I've ever had) collapsing in my area after 9/11 to understand how destructive boycotting someone on grounds of principle can be... I'm a firm believer in the power of boycotting and think it should be encouraged but I completely disagree with the notion that such an act is justifiable when the work being boycotted isn't problematic. And of course there's nothing wrong with not purchasing something you don't like, my issue is when people do not buy something they otherwise would because someone behind it's creation has other problematic aspects to their life which are completely unrelated to the product itself.
You are in essence saying "I refuse to consume or sponsor this excellent product I would otherwise be interested in because one of the creators is a racist in his personal life" when the ethical thing would be to either not sponsor the work because it is of poor quality or to sponsor it if you're interested in it and voice your disapproval of the creator's problematic assets in a forum where that is relevant rather than attack him in an area of his life which is entirely unrelated to the problem and not problematic at all.
Imagine you're getting evaluated at work and do excellently in all categories but you just so happen to be a socialist and your evaluator, being a staunch capitalist, decides to penalize your score on grounds of principle. That's exactly what you're doing by boycotting something you'd otherwise be interested in because a creator is problematic... sales are the ultimate evaluation of any video game and by boycotting them on such grounds you're affecting the game's performance and the studio's fate based on grounds that have nothing to do with the quality of the work. I find that unethical by definition.
There's clear parallels of the tactic being used during the red scare of discrediting and not sponsoring suspected communists so they would be prevented from flourishing professionally despite their work not being problematic or communist propaganda and the current brand of political boycotting, it shouldn't be hard to see what they have to do with anything, c'mon.
See above since I address that very same part.
Voting with your wallet is a thing, there's a definite responsibility to consumption as far as I see it. Considering that what we consume is essentially what ends up defining the way others see and interact with us in the modenr world I don't think that's such a bizarre stance. I make it a point to sponsor things that I enjoy and would like to see more of and not sponsor that which I do not want to see more of.
As for the whole separating art from the artist, I've long since come to the conclusion it's essentially pointless as people on both sides are completely dug in and mostly unwilling to change and since there's no objective truth to the matter regardless of which side you're on it ultimately boils down to a matter of perspective. Your use of me being a proponent of separating the art from the artist as a supposedly negative characteristic tells me everything I need to know regarding that particular aspect of the discussion: it's not worth having it.
This is probably the single most insane thing I have ever read on this site
I generally agree with Another, and it's interesting to hear her perspective as a racial and sexual minority, and as a vegan -- that's a good point about animal rights, something many people here seem to ignore while continuing to support the meat industry.
At the same time, I think it's fine for people to individually cancel Wise -- as long as they don't vilify others who continue to enjoy his works.
It all comes down to one's personal comfort level, which in turn all comes down to how one compartmentalizes things in their mind.
When I think of content creators I have canceled, there are two individuals that come to mind: JonTron, and another guy I won't even dignify with a name, but he was a particularly vile piece of shit who used to appear as a guest on GameXplain years ago until they severed ties with him.
I think for me, I stopped consuming the works of those creators because their personalities were inseparable from their creative work.
While their content didn't espouse hateful views, I could no long watch a Jontron video because the man himself is front and center, looking at the viewer, and it's hard for me to look him in the eye without thinking "This man sees entire groups of people as subhuman."
It hurt to cancel Jontron, since I considered him one of the funniest people on earth. Until his horrifying comments, he also seemed like one of the kindest people. But I could no longer comfortably enjoy his new work even if I tried.
But something like David Wise, who makes instrumental music without lyrics, I am still able to comfortably enjoy that work and support that work. For me, there's enough separation to insulate society against any influence he may wield, particularly as he hasn't commented explicitly on any issues -- this isn't like Sugiyama ranting in denial of Japan's war crimes on the radio. (I really like the orchestral DQXI soundtrack, btw -- I just try to forget who composed it.)
Still, if someone wants to cancel Wise and his music, that's fine. I just hope they don't hold everyone else to do the same. Like Another said, enjoying Michael Jackson's "Thriller" doesn't make you a pedophile, and not all meat eaters are OK with animal abuse (even if supporting the meat industry allows animals to be abused). How we consume entertainment, and compartmentalize it in our minds, is a deeply personal thing.
At the same time, I think it's fine for people to individually cancel Wise -- as long as they don't vilify others who continue to enjoy his works.
It all comes down to one's personal comfort level, which in turn all comes down to how one compartmentalizes things in their mind.
When I think of content creators I have canceled, there are two individuals that come to mind: JonTron, and another guy I won't even dignify with a name, but he was a particularly vile piece of shit who used to appear as a guest on GameXplain years ago until they severed ties with him.
I think for me, I stopped consuming the works of those creators because their personalities were inseparable from their creative work.
While their content didn't espouse hateful views, I could no long watch a Jontron video because the man himself is front and center, looking at the viewer, and it's hard for me to look him in the eye without thinking "This man sees entire groups of people as subhuman."
It hurt to cancel Jontron, since I considered him one of the funniest people on earth. Until his horrifying comments, he also seemed like one of the kindest people. But I could no longer comfortably enjoy his new work even if I tried.
But something like David Wise, who makes instrumental music without lyrics, I am still able to comfortably enjoy that work and support that work. For me, there's enough separation to insulate society against any influence he may wield, particularly as he hasn't commented explicitly on any issues -- this isn't like Sugiyama ranting in denial of Japan's war crimes on the radio. (I really like the orchestral DQXI soundtrack, btw -- I just try to forget who composed it.)
Still, if someone wants to cancel Wise and his music, that's fine. I just hope they don't hold everyone else to do the same. Like Another said, enjoying Michael Jackson's "Thriller" doesn't make you a pedophile, and not all meat eaters are OK with animal abuse (even if supporting the meat industry allows animals to be abused). How we consume entertainment, and compartmentalize it in our minds, is a deeply personal thing.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Late response, but David just tweeted this:
Really looks like he agrees (I think?) that Brexit is bad. Plus at least he's not a climate change denier, so that's something for him.
Like you said Zeo, his twitter account is strange and not exactly clear on what his stances are.