nesdev.org

tokumaru wrote:Fortunately, nobody here is directly involved in this drama (i.e. the drama is happening elsewhere, we're just taking about it), so this is not so bad.

I think a lot of this is just that Rolfe is well liked by this community, so we're willing to actually watch his video and see what he did and did not say.

I think most of the "drama" comes from people who are responding to some fragmentary, polarized idea of what his video said, gleaned entirely from reactionary tweets. The nature of twitter is that you rarely see original ideas; you see an opinion on the idea first, and often that's all you see.

I think I'd actually like his video if it were reframed, not as an attack on a movie he hasn't seen, but just as a lament about the Ghostbusters 3 we never got. Development hell, the death of Harold Ramis, etc. This is a topic that could be interesting if he'd put some effort into research and writing, like he often does, but that's not what this video was. This video was just a poorly written, off the cuff rant about a movie he hasn't seen. Even if he'd just waited for the film to come out so he could criticize its actual content, it wouldn't have come across as so thoughtless as it does.

Rolfe's video hardly looks like the picture being painted of it. Not even Patton Oswalt's response was twisting its meaning, he was criticizing it for what it was (i.e. drivel). It quickly becomes a game of hater-telephone from there, though.

Well I like Rolfe especially his first videos which are the best, but honestly his type of humour gets old after a while. Screaming "this is pure shit" in loop stops being funny rather quickly.

He deserves credits for being probably the first to do those kind of funny/humourus reviews of bad games (but many other youtubers copied his style - for the better or the worst):

Myask wrote:

Espozo wrote:clickbate

This is perhaps a funnier, but less correct, spelling.

Espozo wrote:import drama

What?

rainwarrior wrote:The nature of twitter is that you rarely see original ideas; you see an opinion on the idea first, and often that's all you see.

Which is why I have no interest in getting one.

rainwarrior wrote:I think I'd actually like his video if it were reframed, not as an attack on a movie he hasn't seen, but just as a lament about the Ghostbusters 3 we never got. Development hell, the death of Harold Ramis, etc.

He did that in a video released about two days later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnLzz_hxzxo

rainwarrior wrote: Not even Patton Oswalt's response was twisting its meaning, he was criticizing it for what it was (i.e. drivel).

But he did it in a sarcastic and overall non constructive way. It's just odd for someone to target someone as relatively unknown as James Rolfe.

Like I said, I really don't understand. Had James done this about any other movie, even in the same nature of this rant review, I don't anyone would have batted an eye; he certainly wouldn't have gotten the attention of someone like Patton Oswalt.

tokumaru wrote:I kinda went through this when "Sonic the Hedgehog" (2006) came out... but not quite, because back then I had already decided to ignore the "modern" Sonic games, since I didn't like the ones I actually played at all.

I actually owned Sonic Adventure 1 and 2, Sonic Heroes, and (shudders) Shadow the Hedgehog, so I know how you felt... Ironically, the Gameboy Advance had the best Sonic games of the time period.

Bregalad wrote:Well I like Rolfe especially his first videos which are the best, but honestly his type of humour gets old after a while. Screaming "this is pure shit" in loop stops being funny rather quickly.

His videos have gotten and him in general have gotten a lot more reserved and generally more mature. What cracks me up is how people complain about this. Honestly, I really wouldn't mind if he ditched the character and just played himself. The line is already really blurred at this point anyway.

I agree with James; if you know you're not going to enjoy something, it's better to not consume it. "But give it a chance!" He had valid points and seemed to know enough about the movie to know he doesn't care to see it, so that's the "chance" he gave it.

Still, it's pretty ironic that, disregarding the fact that these are two completely different situations, he plays so many "shitty games" (as he'd put it), but doesn't want to see a "shitty movie".

Yeah, that last statement is kind of funny when you think about it... I think a lot of it has to due with the fact that he doesn't want to support that movie in that they'll potentially make another one, like any other movie if it does well, like the Transformer movies. However, I feel at some point, people catch on and the madness comes to an end, it just doesn't seem like it due to how long it takes.

I never thought I'd see the day (if there were an emoji that cried tears of joy, I'd use it here): http://www.techtimes.com/articles/15914 ... -video.htm And yes, I did contribute to the "cause".

Espozo wrote:

rainwarrior wrote:I think I'd actually like his video if it were reframed, not as an attack on a movie he hasn't seen, but just as a lament about the Ghostbusters 3 we never got. Development hell, the death of Harold Ramis, etc.

He did that in a video released about two days later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnLzz_hxzxo

Good. This actually has value. The 6 minute "non-review" review was worthless.

Drag wrote:Still, it's pretty ironic that, disregarding the fact that these are two completely different situations, he plays so many "shitty games" (as he'd put it), but doesn't want to see a "shitty movie".

He's reviewed hundreds of shitty horror movies already, if you pay attention to the non-AVGN side of his stuff. I don't think he objects to seeing a shitty movie at all, he objects to the new Ghostbusters movie because he thinks Ghostbusters is a special franchise.

Actually, by not seeing a shitty movie, you save something like 2 hours of time. However by making a review video a shitty game or shitty movie (regardless whether he watched it or not) it took probably much more time, maybe 8-10 hours at least. So hironically, by watching the movie this would have barely increased the time he spent to make the video with no consequences other than he could tell more about it.

For me the only special thing about Ghostbusters is that the franchise produced 2 of the most shitty games the NES has ever seen. I wasn't even aware it was a movie originally.

Bregalad wrote:Actually, by not seeing a shitty movie, you save something like 2 hours of time. However by making a review video a shitty game or shitty movie (regardless whether he watched it or not) it took probably much more time, maybe 8-10 hours at least. So hironically, by watching the movie this would have barely increased the time he spent to make the video with no consequences other than he could tell more about it.

I was under the impression that he wanted to boycott the movie more than anything, because it "defiles" the name of Ghostbusters and he doesn't want to support it.

Espozo wrote:I think a lot of it has to due with the fact that he doesn't want to support that movie in that they'll potentially make another one

Very good point. The difference between used copies of a work on home media and a work still in theaters or arcades probably explains a lot. In AVGN, James plays used copies of games on home media. To my knowledge, he does not buy new copies of games nor play games that are still in arcades. Theatrical release is a feature film's counterpart to an arcade game not yet released on home media.

Espozo wrote:I never thought I'd see the day (if there were an emoji that cried tears of joy, I'd use it here)

There's a face with tears of joy emoji (U+1F602), but the version of MySQL on nesdev.com's server is too old to support including emoji characters or any other non-BMP Unicode character in comments.

The only reason, and I mean the only possible reason, that Ghostbusters fans don't want to see this film is because in those Ghostbusters suits they prefer seeing dicks to chicks. As the AVGN explained his priorities in his movie, "nerds before birds". He was referring to the female romantic interest, and look how that turned out. It can have nothing to do with the fact that they thought the trailer looked dreadful and unfunny, that they believe a remake/reboot is pointless and brings nothing new to the table or had been hoping for decades for Ghostbusters 3 with the original cast members reprising their roles.

The people who responded negatively to James Rolfe's video about the new Ghostbusters movie deserve to be

....nevermind

Thank you for not hurting my feelings.

DISCLAIMER: Nobody on the forum is being referenced at all by the below, this is only about the subject of this thread.

Man...the truth is, the younger generation really is getting sensitive to the point of insanity. You look at college campuses and you've got mobs of intensely shrill folks basically shutting down any dissenting opinions. It's getting so nuts that even liberals themselves are saying it is ridiculous and calling it the "regressive left," and even going so far as to say that liberalism is now a "conservative position." I shudder to think of what the world will be like when these folks are starting to run the country. I might just have to go live off the grid at that point, because I don't know if I'll be able to count on my cheeseburger actually being cooked properly. So I mean these reactions to Rolfe's videos are just part of this overall trend.

I have a theory about it though which may help explain why it is happening. I'm really becoming of the opinion that social media is inherently toxic. And now people have access to it at younger and younger ages. With families falling apart, kids have no peace with their families anymore and now, they can't even have peace by themselves because they get on the internet and its just noise, noise, noise. No wonder they want a safe space, because for most of their lives there literally was no safe space. Not even online.

An additional theory I have which I developed the other day is, maybe all humans have a "preacher" inside of them. If you can get a large group of people to listen to you, it'll "switch on" the preacher mode, and you'll become slightly more or perhaps a lot more strident than you would have been otherwise.

Fast forward to 2016, anybody can be a preacher, 24/7, to more people than ever before in history, so we're all becoming strident and opinionated and judgy. Could it be? Is it human nature that causes all this conflict?

Kinda makes me hope social media goes up in flames and ceases being used at some point...but I think I'd need a time machine for that.

GradualGames wrote:I'm really becoming of the opinion that social media is inherently toxic.

And I thought I was the only one!

I agree with what you said though. About over sensitivity and forcing people's personal agenda on others, just look at what these snobs are doing: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ ... le-writers

GradualGames wrote:Man...the truth is, the younger generation really is getting sensitive to the point of insanity.

Truth. It just gets excessive when someone says a bunch of BS and berates others and all that and says that people should "just stop being so sensitive", which you're not doing.

Seriously, I've learned from experiences outside this forum that it isn't okay to be an ass, dick, whatever body part you want to label it, but then justify it by saying that others are sensitive and just need to get over it. That's just having an ego (or as I like to put it, being an older sibling) and no one here, or anywhere actually, gets to tell me that's okay.

Great Hierophant wrote:The only reason, and I mean the only possible reason, that Ghostbusters fans don't want to see this film is because in those Ghostbusters suits they prefer seeing dicks to chicks. As the AVGN explained his priorities in his movie, "nerds before birds". He was referring to the female romantic interest, and look how that turned out. It can have nothing to do with the fact that they thought the trailer looked dreadful and unfunny, that they believe a remake/reboot is pointless and brings nothing new to the table or had been hoping for decades for Ghostbusters 3 with the original cast members reprising their roles.

Guessing this is sarcasm. Please let it be.

EDIT: In response to the Yale students, do people really think that Shakespeare being a white guy excuses his importance in history, just because of the call for diversity now? I think maybe the students should ask for more literature classes about different cultures, not call for the abolition of existing "white" classes because they don't care for the material. That's basically the same as asking "When will I use this in real life!?" in math class, except it's with history, which people undeniably need to know.