Forums - General Discussion - Colin Moriarty is back

Lawlight said:
coolbeans said:

That's where I'm at with this hooplah: a guy I think has a so-so opinion on games in general, disingenously crapped on consumers regarding ME3 (plus other shameful moments we could dive into), and isn't all that great a writer/reporter, is going independent.  Hooray?  

And as far as getting no support from his colleagues: maybe they found his humor tasteless too.  It's possible for his colleagues to have their own opinions which may run contrary to his and didn't feel like sticking for him on something they disagree with in principle.  This seems especially likely considering Greg Miller seems to be a feminist, or perhaps an ally to them in most cases.  

There's a difference between not supporting someone and actively throwing them under the bus. Greg Miller, who in my opinion, is just a disingenuous hype man did the latter. He could just have let it slide but no, he had to make a statement about how Moriarty was a bad person.

You're going to have provide a citation for this b/c the only thing I recall from Greg was this official response:

If that is all it takes to be considered the latter, then it just goes to show it's not just the "regressive left" who have all the triggered creampuffs.  



October 2020 Articles:

https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/6186/Kingdoms-of-Amalur-Re-Reckoning/ (Kingdoms of Amalur: Re-Reckoning Review - 5.5/10)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445807/leisure-suit-larry-wet-dreams-dont-dry-xone/ (Leisure Suit Larry: Wet Dreams Don't Dry Review - 4/10)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445831/the-console-framerate-revolution/ (Article - The Console Framerate Revolution)

Around the Network
coolbeans said:
Lawlight said:

There's a difference between not supporting someone and actively throwing them under the bus. Greg Miller, who in my opinion, is just a disingenuous hype man did the latter. He could just have let it slide but no, he had to make a statement about how Moriarty was a bad person.

You're going to have provide a citation for this b/c the only thing I recall from Greg was this official response:

If that is all it takes to be considered the latter, then it just goes to show it's not just the "regressive left" who have all the triggered creampuffs.  

The most hilarious part is that Greg went down the hall and got Colin for him to edit it before Greg posted it.



naruball said:
MasterVG71782 said:

They might try to become internet famous, until they realize that it takes a lot more effort to try and get that status, essentially demoralizing them. I am around the Twitch scene a lot and know, from people on there, how many hours they put into their streams to try and create content and support themselves. They're working upwards of 15-16 hours a day, 8-10 of those talking to their chats and being entertaining. Next you'll be saying that why work a job like a lawyer/doctor when they can just memorize lines and perform in a movie?

Not nearly the same. Really. And it doesn't always require hard work to become internet famous. Some times it's mostly luck. Others you play a game showing your boobs and thirsty guys watch you show your non existent gaming skills. Or you just shout in the mic, but are attractive enough for teenage girls to fall in love with you.

I feel the same way about youtubers as I feel about singers and actors. Simple people (especially young people) pay attention to the super successful ones and want to have a career like them. In reality, a tiny percentage of actors/singers make big bucks. Most of them struggle to the point that they need other jobs to support themselves.

So, yes, I think trying to do a youtube chanel instead of studying to earn a degree or something is a very bad idea. There are too many people doing them and it's incredibly hard to stand out. If you're lucky, you may. But how many will be?

I never said it isn't stupid to try and emulate what some of the more famous Youtube/Twitch people do, as that ship is quite volatile and could sink at any time, but I guess that can be said about a lot of jobs (a company could shut down at a moment's notice or get bought out by another company, as an example). It's completely oversaturated and very few people who start up ever get anywhere, even with a lot of hard work on their end. Anyone who doesn't have a backup plan (like having earned a degree) is just foolish, but my initial post is to say that a lot of people do put a lot of hours into getting their stuff together. On the other end of the spectrum, though, there are a few oddities in there that do get lucky and I'm not counting "boobie streamers," as they are just exploiting the system and their horny audience.



Aura7541 said:

Remember when I said that the term was coined by a Muslim and you said you didn't care? Perhaps you should read the second paragraph of the same page.

WolfpackN64 said:

That is ideal in an early stage of capitalism, but capitalism inevitably leads to monopoly and concentration of wealth, in which case your meritocracy has largely ceased to exist.

Which type of capitalism? You're only naming one type of capitalism as it is possible to run on a capitalist system with government oversight and regulation. Your post is ultimately an over-generalization.

To begin, the term is not coined by a muslim, but by an atheist to set your record straight.

What type of capitalism? All, unless regulation is there to halt it.