Gamers are straight up pathetic, if a games broken or buggy don't buy it/get a refund. Instead people rather sit in their gamerchairs harassing and threatening hard working developers. Straight up losers.
Compulsion Games on We Happy Few Bugs, Drugs, Gearbox
- Thread starter Pikachu
- Start date
Did I say anything about Jim?
Let me be clear - I agree with this thread in that Jim Sterling is a shock jock trying to make constant scandals to appease a shitty fanbase.
The statements don't really refute any of the criticisms leveled at the anti-prescription messaging the game carries though. People "misinterpreted" your message, but whose fault is that?
I do not condone the attacking of the creators online though, two wrongs do not make a right.
I do not condone the attacking of the creators online though, two wrongs do not make a right.
Nah, I feel like there was a definite swing in 2014/15 where his content started singing into, as they put it, hyperbole. It always felt more measured before that
I genuinely feel really bad about the treatment the developers are getting.
The majority of which will probably be coming from those who haven't bought, or played the game.
A sad state of affairs.
The majority of which will probably be coming from those who haven't bought, or played the game.
A sad state of affairs.
That says more about the blind hate and ignorance of "most people" than anything else. Gearbox are a highly respected FPS developer who made an incredible FPS series -- Brothers in Arms -- as well as very well regarded Half-Life expansions. I've always found it telling that most of the people with vicious hate boner for Gearbox can't name any videogame they developed before Borderlands. They seem to think Gearbox basically "got lucky with Borderlands" and their true colours were revealed with Colonial Marines or some such nonsense. Randy is a bit of a dick. But that doesn't mean Gearbox are a bad developer, or a bad publisher.
It's gotten really bad, and it's going to keep getting worse.
Like fuck, the first post is textbook victim blaming.
Edit: He was even warned for it, missed that.
OP
OP
To be fair I read BNW sophomore year and at this point don't remember many details except for that I thought it was capital B Basic :P
Unironically using social justice warrior and doing a both sides bit in the same rant is honestly not a very good look.
Many studies have shown the higher the framerate, the better people enjoy it.
I'm looking forward to upcoming patches. I've been digging the games story, but the technical faults are making it difficult to play. But I think they'll get it sorted.
Yeah, there's never once in history been an advocate for social justice who went too far with their words or actions, after all.
There's a good chance that people who identify as a social justice warrior are also participating in the harassment, this type of shit isn't just limited to the right. Being on the left doesn't mean you can't be an absolute cunt of a person.
Misinterpretation is a weird thing. Once something is out in the wild I think it's totally fair game to have different interpretations that wasn't the author's intent. It happens literally all the time. Could be because that was also intended. But sometimes it could be because people just take things in differently. Or it could be because the writers didn't guide people in the direction they wanted as good as they should have.
I think it's better if an intended message is explained or clarified than just saying someone took in the information wrong. The statement is weird for a few other reasons too.
I didn't say someone on the left couldn't be a terrible person though.
But the word usage is telling, especially when you pit it against the alt-right in an equivalent fashion.
They're probably refering to the subset of people out there who think that because they're standing up for something good that it gives them the green light to harass people to no end because they're doing it for the right reasons.
The phrase that was actually used was "social justice advocate", which is positively innocuous. I'd argue that there's a clear difference between using the phrases "social justice advocate" and "social justice warrior" to describe somebody with. Seems like the former was chosen to avoid forwarding the negative connotations that the latter would naturally suggest. There's nothing wrong with claiming you've been targeted by people you'd consider to be advocates of social justice over a misunderstanding if that's actually the case. Demeaning them as 'social justice warriors' with a negative tone would be a different story entirely.
I didnt see a problem with Jim's video aside from the build up at the start of the video.
Took 3 years for this game to come out, had an early access build and was published by Gearbox. Microsoft also bought the studio because of their confidence in them.
They failed to deliver a working product, especially at the price.
Took 3 years for this game to come out, had an early access build and was published by Gearbox. Microsoft also bought the studio because of their confidence in them.
They failed to deliver a working product, especially at the price.
OP
OP
Do you have a link? I haven't seen the comment. I could add it to OP too.
Read on:
It's entirely intentional.
The weird thing is that I thought this would offer an explanation about what they meant with the "prescription drug culture", yet they offered everything but that. I mean:
OK, so what is the answer? So odd to imply "you misinterpreted us" and then offer zero explanation.
Of course, the harassment is shitty and inexcusable. At this point I expect gamers to harass developers for any and every minor slight, real or imagined.
Ah, I missed that bit. Well, they used the phrase 'social justice advocate' first, and in a world where plenty of us are willing to self-apply the SJW label, I'm just not seeing the same level of ill-intent behind the usage of that phrase here as you might, given the context.
Jim Sterling is terrible. I don't know how a toxic person like that has a voice. No, forget it, I know exactly why.. it's because gamers are like that too. Ugh.
No he didn't, at least quote the correct line: "As a culture, we no longer value sadness." He says culture in general, it's never directed solely at people on prescription medication.
Jim sterling is completely terrible and literally embodies everything that's wrong with gamers
Jim knows his videos will illicit these types of reactions. It's how he makes a living and it's why I stopped watching his videos. His rant was misguided and irresponsible. He should have at least spoken with them before making the claims he did. And while other reviewers noted the technical issues, none of them were so negative or hatefull about it. Toxic behavior breeds more toxic behavior.
OP
OP
This is the quote I believe:
"Sure! We Happy Few is inspired by, among other things, prescription drug culture — the idea that no one should have to be sad if they can pop a pill and fix it. It's also about Happy Facebook culture: no one shares their bad news because it would bring everyone down. As a culture, we no longer value sadness."
https://web.archive.org/web/2016081...s-making-a-comeback-with-an-eerie-1960s-twist
Are we assuming the Montreal-based developer whose husband/wife narrative team created a complex and interesting narrative from multiple perspectives is seriously attempting to cater to Gamergaters by saying "social justice?" I think the issue is that their game has been attacked by gamers of all types--some upset at the buggy release, some upset at a narrative that was misrepresented by Jim.
Honestly it's worth reading all their responses. They seem like a pretty level headed team, and the fact that they're actually out here responding to criticism instead of digging their heads in the sand says a lot.
Honestly it's worth reading all their responses. They seem like a pretty level headed team, and the fact that they're actually out here responding to criticism instead of digging their heads in the sand says a lot.
Last edited:
Considering the SJW term has negative connotations attached only by an extremist group, and the developer's clear value statement on that group as "instigators" I don't think there's really anything to read in to here. To any decent person, fighting for equality and fair treatment for all is a positive.
I like how they state that "Retail Games Are $60" as if this is some forced rule or something. Honestly, a lot of their answers here aren't really doing them any favors, and this is from someone who hasn't really followed news about the game or anything but it just seems like a bad look from where I'm at.
I agree with his first point...
The whole "angry" Youtuber shtick is fucking terrible.
There's ways to be critical without sounding like an asshole in all your videos...
That kind of gimmick can be funny from time to time but basing your whole public persona around this is really dumb and makes the whole industry look bad and juvenile.
The whole "angry" Youtuber shtick is fucking terrible.
There's ways to be critical without sounding like an asshole in all your videos...
That kind of gimmick can be funny from time to time but basing your whole public persona around this is really dumb and makes the whole industry look bad and juvenile.
No it wasn't. He interpreted a statement they made in a different way then it was intended and responded to that statement from a place of personal experience with depression and mental health issues. The reaction by his fanbase is obviously unacceptable but he did nothing wrong in this instance.
Yeah, thats kind of raising a red flag for me.
I take anti-depressants, I haven't played the game myself so I wouldn't know but it would make me disappointed if the game had a sort of "its unnatural" message to it since I'm holding off on buying it but do think it looks interesting.
It often feels like that sentiment comes from people who have never really had to deal with it. Like we're not as strong as them.
It could be seen that way, but it's fiction. I don't have a problem with people exploring weird potential outcomes of things we know aren't a problem.
Terminator, Bioshock, We Happy Few, and basically most cyberpunk media take relatively mundane or everyday ideas and expand upon them to show how, if over used, unchecked, and abused, can lead to a messed up future.
Western society has a problem where you aren't allowed to be sad. How no one saw that as the "value sadness" quote is perplexing to me. The OT on this forum has discussed it more than a few times. We hide our sadness to not be a burden and that's unhealthy.
People who are getting pissy over the "social justice" choice of words are pathetic fuckwits.
People just catching up to Jim being a shitty loud person that brings nothing of value to the table.
Three things:
- I will never understand why people think harassing others is acceptable behavior
- He actually used "social justice advocates" unironically, which, what the hell man
- I'm very interested in learning more about the relationship between Gearbox and Compulsion
I haven't watched Jim's video yet. What did he say that caused people to freak out about anti depressants?
OP
OP
I posted the quote (from Compulsion) in OP. Can also scroll up on page 2 for it.
I'm not sure what Jim said about it.
Not understanding the hate for Jim here about this topic. *shrug*
He has legitimate concerns over the publicly shared statement from the writer stating how the game seeks to question the value of prescription drugs. Anti depressants save lives. Statement like these are dangerous and misunderstand what clinical depression is.
"We Happy Few is inspired by, among other things, prescription drug culture — the idea that no one should have to be sad if they can pop a pill and fix it… As a culture, we no longer value sadness."
Also, the game objectively does have a lot of issues, both from a gameplay and a technical perspective and a lot of reviewers agree.
Is the issue that he's being over the top / exaggerating? It's hard to stand out if everything you do is exactly like every other YouTuber and that's become his brand.
Jim has repeatedly rejected hate and harassment online. Is he not allowed to dislike things out of fear of what stupid Internet trolls will do if he does?
He has legitimate concerns over the publicly shared statement from the writer stating how the game seeks to question the value of prescription drugs. Anti depressants save lives. Statement like these are dangerous and misunderstand what clinical depression is.
"We Happy Few is inspired by, among other things, prescription drug culture — the idea that no one should have to be sad if they can pop a pill and fix it… As a culture, we no longer value sadness."
Also, the game objectively does have a lot of issues, both from a gameplay and a technical perspective and a lot of reviewers agree.
Is the issue that he's being over the top / exaggerating? It's hard to stand out if everything you do is exactly like every other YouTuber and that's become his brand.
Jim has repeatedly rejected hate and harassment online. Is he not allowed to dislike things out of fear of what stupid Internet trolls will do if he does?
This quote from the narrative director: "Sure! We Happy Few is inspired by, among other things, prescription drug culture — the idea that no one should have to be sad if they can pop a pill and fix it. It's also about Happy Facebook culture: no one shares their bad news because it would bring everyone down. As a culture, we no longer value sadness."
Jim's rant is a bit too long and all over the place to summarise: timestamped at 13:17
Was there another part of the quote where they make an analogy about social media? I vaguely remember something like that but I don't know if it was the same piece. Something about masks I think.
Yeah, fuck the people who are harrassing devs over this but I don't see how thats Jim's fault.
Every time anyone has a criticism these days, theres always that one nutty supporter in the back thats like "Yeah, lets kill em!". Not going to give Sterling grief over that since he more than likely believes those people are just as annoying as everybody else does.
Except that leaves out the middle of the quote: "It's also about Happy Facebook culture: no one shares their bad news because it would bring everyone down. As a culture, we no longer value sadness."