Discussion History Horrible / VideoGameGenerations

What episode did this \\\'Kate promptly pulls out a box cutter knife while smiling happily\\\' business happen?

Because obviously not from manga.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to provide evidence). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic. Positive professional reviews indicate that a work doesn\\\'t belong on the page. If you can prove that the positive reviews are fake and hopefully provide some negative professional reviews, I might be in favour of adding \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' to the page.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate non-sufferers about depression. Is that a bad thing? Also, the game is supposed to be educational, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.
By the way, if you want to share your opinion on the game, I suggest that you write a review and post it somewhere.

Zoe Quinn \\\"[used] Robin Williams suicide as an excuse to garner support\\\"? The release was planned before Robin Williams\\\'s suicide. Quinn knew that she\\\'d get negative publicity if she released it that day, but did it anyway because she wanted to make it available. It wasn\\\'t an \\\"excuse to garner support\\\". Anyway, this doesn\\\'t have anything to do with the contents of the game itself.

\\\"And don\\\'t act like this site hasn\\\'t had worse flame wars over more trivial matters.\\\" That\\\'s a red herring. The fact that there have been flame wars over more trivial matters doesn\\\'t justify putting obvious FlameBait on the site.

The [=DMoS=] comment is irrelevant for the discussion of whether \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' should be added, but I\\\'d like to point out that it\\\'s not just Tropers \\\"decry[ing] cartoon writers for doing their job\\\". The Tropers who have posted there thought the writers had done their jobs \\\'\\\'badly\\\'\\\', so they wanted to complain. Anyway, [=DMoS=] has strict rules to avoid flame wars.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to provide evidence). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic. Positive professional reviews indicate that a work doesn\\\'t belong on the page. If you can prove that the positive reviews are fake and hopefully provide some negative professional reviews, I might be in favour of adding \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' to the page.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate non-sufferers about depression. Is that a bad thing? Also, the game is supposed to be educational, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.
By the way, if you want to share your opinion on the game, I suggest that you write a review and post it somewhere.

Zoe Quinn \\\"[used] Robin Williams suicide as an excuse to garner support\\\"? The release was planned before Robin Williams\\\'s suicide. Quinn knew that she\\\'d get negative publicity if she released it that day, but did it anyway because she wanted to make it available. It wasn\\\'t an \\\"excuse to garner support\\\". Anyway, this doesn\\\'t have anything to do with the contents of the game itself.

\\\"And don\\\'t act like this site hasn\\\'t had worse flame wars over more trivial matters.\\\" That\\\'s a red herring. The fact that there have been flame wars over more trivial matters doesn\\\'t justify putting obvious FlameBait on the site.

The [=DMoS=] comment is irrelevant for the discussion of whether \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' should be added, but I\\\'d like to point out that it\\\'s not just Tropers \\\"decry[ing] cartoon writers for doing their job\\\". The Tropers who have posted there thought the writers had done their jobs \\\'\\\'badly\\\'\\\', so they wanted to complain. Anyway, [=DMoS=] has strict rules to avoid flame wars.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to provide evidence). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic. Positive professional reviews indicate that a work doesn\\\'t belong on the page. If you can prove that the positive reviews are fake and hopefully provide some negative professional reviews, I might be in favour of adding \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' to the page.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate non-sufferers about depression. Is that a bad thing? Also, the game is supposed to be educational, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.
By the way, if you want to share your opinion on the game, I suggest that you write a review and post it somewhere.

Zoe Quinn \\\"[used] Robin Williams suicide as an excuse to garner support\\\"? The release was planned before Robin Williams\\\'s suicide. Quinn knew that she\\\'d get negative publicity if she released it that day, but did it anyway because she wanted to make it available. It wasn\\\'t an \\\"excuse to garner support\\\". Anyway,that doesn\\\'t have anything to do with the content of the game.

\\\"And don\\\'t act like this site hasn\\\'t had worse flame wars over more trivial matters.\\\" That\\\'s a red herring. The fact that there have been flame wars over more trivial matters doesn\\\'t justify putting obvious FlameBait on the site.

The [=DMoS=] comment is irrelevant for the discussion of whether \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' should be added, but I\\\'d like to point out that it\\\'s not just Tropers \\\"decry[ing] cartoon writers for doing their job\\\". The Tropers who have posted there thought the writers had done their jobs \\\'\\\'badly\\\'\\\', so they wanted to complain. Anyway, [=DMoS=] has strict rules to avoid flame wars.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to provide evidence). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic. Positive professional reviews indicate that a work doesn\\\'t belong on the page. If you can prove that the positive reviews are fake and hopefully provide some negative professional reviews, I might be in favour of adding \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' to the page.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate non-sufferers about depression. Is that a bad thing? Also, the game is supposed to be educational, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.
By the way, if you want to share your opinion on the game, I suggest that you write a review and post it somewhere.

Zoe Quinn \\\"[used] Robin Williams suicide as an excuse to garner support\\\"? The release was planned before Robin Williams\\\'s suicide. Quinn knew that she\\\'d get negative publicity if she released it that day, but did it anyway because she wanted to make it available. It wasn\\\'t an \\\"excuse to garner support\\\".

\\\"And don\\\'t act like this site hasn\\\'t had worse flame wars over more trivial matters.\\\" That\\\'s a red herring. The fact that there have been flame wars over more trivial matters doesn\\\'t justify putting obvious FlameBait on the site.

The [=DMoS=] comment is irrelevant for the discussion of whether \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' should be added, but I\\\'d like to point out that it\\\'s not just Tropers \\\"decry[ing] cartoon writers for doing their job\\\". The Tropers who have posted there thought the writers had done their jobs \\\'\\\'badly\\\'\\\', so they wanted to complain. Anyway, [=DMoS=] has strict rules to avoid flame wars.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to provide evidence). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic. Positive professional reviews indicate that a work doesn\\\'t belong on the page. If you can prove that the positive reviews are fake and hopefully provide some negative professional reviews, I might be in favour of adding \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' to the page.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate non-sufferers about depression. Is that a bad thing? Also, the game is supposed to be educational, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.
By the way, if you want to share your opinion on the game, I suggest that you write a review and post it somewhere.

Zoe Quinn \\\"[used] Robin Williams suicide as an excuse to garner support\\\"? The release was planned before Robin Williams\\\'s suicide. Quinn knew that she\\\'d get negative publicity if she released it that day, but did it anyway because she wanted to make it available. It wasn\\\'t an \\\"excuse to garner support\\\".

\\\"And don\\\'t act like this site hasn\\\'t had worse flame wars over more trivial matters.\\\" That\\\'s a red herring. The fact that there have been flame wars over more trivial matters doesn\\\'t justify putting obvious FlameBait on the site.

The [=DMoS=] comment is irrelevant for the discussion of whether \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' should be added on the page, but I\\\'d like to point out that it\\\'s not just Tropers \\\"decry[ing] cartoon writers for doing their job\\\". The Tropers who have posted there thought the writers had done their jobs \\\'\\\'badly\\\'\\\', so they wanted to complain. Anyway, [=DMoS=] has strict rules to avoid flame wars.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to prove it). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate non-sufferers about depression. Is that a bad thing? Also, the game is supposed to be educational, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.
By the way, if you want to share your opinion on the game, I suggest that you write a review and post it somewhere.

Zoe Quinn \\\"[used] Robin Williams suicide as an excuse to garner support\\\"? The release was planned before Robin Williams\\\'s suicide. Quinn knew that she\\\'d get negative publicity, but didn\\\'t delay the game because she wanted to make it available. It wasn\\\'t an \\\"excuse to garner support\\\".

\\\"And don\\\'t act like this site hasn\\\'t had worse flame wars over more trivial matters.\\\" That\\\'s a red herring. The fact that there have been flame wars over more trivial matters doesn\\\'t justify putting obvious FlameBait on the site.

The [=DMoS=] comment is irrelevant for the discussion of whether \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' should be added on the page, but I\\\'d like to point out that it\\\'s not just Tropers \\\"decry[ing] cartoon writers for doing their job\\\". The tropers who have posted there thought the writers had done their jobs \\\'\\\'badly\\\'\\\', so they wanted to complain. Anyway, [=DMoS=] has strict rules to avoid flame wars.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to prove it). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate non-sufferers about depression. Is that a bad thing? Also, the game is supposed to be educational, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.
By the way, I suggest that you write a review and post it somewhere.

Zoe Quinn \\\"[used] Robin Williams suicide as an excuse to garner support\\\"? The release was planned before Robin Williams\\\'s suicide. Quinn knew that she\\\'d get negative publicity, but didn\\\'t delay the game because she wanted to make it available. It wasn\\\'t an \\\"excuse to garner support\\\".

\\\"And don\\\'t act like this site hasn\\\'t had worse flame wars over more trivial matters.\\\" That\\\'s a red herring. The fact that there have been flame wars over more trivial matters doesn\\\'t justify putting obvious FlameBait on the site.

The [=DMoS=] comment is irrelevant for the discussion of whether \\\'\\\'Depression Quest\\\'\\\' should be added on the page, but I\\\'d like to point out that it\\\'s not just Tropers \\\"decry[ing] cartoon writers for doing their job\\\". The tropers who have posted there thought the writers had done their jobs \\\'\\\'badly\\\'\\\', so they wanted to complain. Anyway, [=DMoS=] has strict rules to avoid flame wars.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to prove it). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate non-sufferers about depression. Is that a bad thing? Also, the game is supposed to be educational, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.
By the way, I suggest that you write a review and post it somewhere.

Zoe Quinn \\\"[used] Robin Williams suicide as an excuse to garner support\\\"? The release was planned before Robin Williams\\\'s suicide. Quinn knew that she\\\'d get negative publicity, but didn\\\'t delay the game because she wanted to make it available. It wasn\\\'t an \\\"excuse to garner support\\\".

\\\"And don\\\'t act like this site hasn\\\'t had worse flame wars over more trivial matters.\\\" That\\\'s a red herring. The fact that there have been flame wars over more trivial matters doesn\\\'t justify putting more FlameBait on the site.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to prove it). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.
By the way, Tropers/SizzlyBacon, I suggest that you write a review and post it somewhere.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to prove it). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic.

How is the \\\"awareness fallacy\\\" a fallacy? The game was meant to educate, not to be \\\"fun\\\". Of course, a fun \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' educational game would have been better, but being educational alone is a value.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s addition on this page, you have to prove it). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic.

I agree with Septimus Heap and oppose its addition unless you can provide independent evidence.

I\\\'m not siding with the critics (and if you want to use \\\"they\\\'re paid\\\" as an argument for the game\\\'s inclusion on this page, you have to prove it). I\\\'m just asking whether the game belongs on this page. According to the second important note, there needs to be independent evidence, such as actual, professional reviews, to list a work. A game isn\\\'t horrible just because it has a lot of negative reviews on Metacritic.