100 thoughts on “New Gaming Media Sites Are Emerging”

1. Im definitely curious to see how these alternative sites develop. Once they give an inch to the SJW crowd, its only a matter of time before they go downhill.

   1. What does SJW mean?

      1. Social Justice Warrior

         1. SJC sounds better (Social Justice Cunt)

         2. This one is also nice: http://i.imgbox.com/NPZlF8WV.jpg

      2. The “W” is the stupidest use of the word “warrior” in history.
         It says a lot about those types that they think posting their anger on Tumblr and other garbage social-media sites somehow makes them “warriors”.
         It’s an extension of our everyone-is-a-winner mentality applied to women, where one doesn’t actually have to accomplish anything to be the most special snowflake ever. One just needs to tear down those who have built the world and make it go around.
         Yet they’ll mock nerds endlessly for pretending to be ninjas or jedis or whatever else.
         But then we all know it’s much more accurately dubbed “social justice whiner”.

         1. I like to think that is part of the charm. The idea of the average SJW doing anything remotely like physical combat is so preposterous that we subliminally think ‘this person is ridiculous’ when we hear the title ‘SJW.
            And then they open their mouths and confirm that thought.

      3. Social Justice Whore.
         http://i.imgbox.com/q8rNX6he.jpg

         1. I give upvote for this!

         2. I hate feminism, but when you start doing shit like this you are basically acting the same way they are. This is just giving them fucking ammunition – you also have to remember that feminists are not a majority – just a powerful minority. They should really check their middle class privilege.

         3. This won’t go down well but Hieronymus is correct. This is brilliant photo-shopping that gives SJWs ammunition. There’s a distinction to be made between articles or comments that reduce SJWs to apoplectic rage (that weakens them in the process) and something like this which will confirm what they want to believe. Its self-indulgent and its the sort of thing that will keep away men who are still sitting on the fence
            …. and moreover would you want a blow job from that?

         4. >This is just giving them fucking ammunition
            No, it is not, Homer Simpson. It’s YOUR approach — be nice’n’friendly — that has been an utter disaster for the men’s rights movement. Since 100 years men listen to idiots like you with catastrophic results while feminism is getting stronger day by day.
            http://i.imgbox.com/ZqI4A3Ua.jpg
            THIS is the correct approach:
            http://i.imgbox.com/hjGUyOin.jpg
            >but when you start doing shit like this you are basically acting the same way they are.
            No, I am not.
            http://i.imgbox.com/NUtSapPH.jpg

         5. >and something like this which will confirm what they want to believe
            Nonsense. Feminists don’t believe something because it’s based on facts, but they interpret the facts to fit what they already believe.
            When the rape rate goes down, they interpret it as “Women are now more afraid than ever to go to the police”
            Feminism is not about facts.
            http://i.imgbox.com/khJhEwti.jpg

         6. I never recommend arguing with feminists – and have posted as much recently. What matters is tactics that work. We need greater numbers to be taken seriously and part of that will involve making arguments that persuade within the wider discourse. That doesn’t mean persuading feminists. It means persuading real people, including men who could be useful allies but who are still unsure

         7. >What matters is tactics that work.
            Here you have tactics that work: http://i.imgbox.com/D170npWg.jpg
            >We need greater numbers to be taken seriously. It means persuading real people, including men who could be useful allies but who are still unsure
            No, men ARE already convinced. It’s not that men are completely clueless and wholeheartedly want to support women’s privileges. The reason why feminism is so strong is because women are the majority of the population so they can femastasize everything from politics to colleges. As long as women can elect every feminist politician they want, they will win, no matter what fantastic arguments you have.
            http://i.imgbox.com/6VOda9PR.jpg

         8. “No, men ARE already convinced”
            …but above your yellow poster says “Without white knights feminism would end today”. I am inclined to think that the poster is right and that most men are not yet convinced, but that they could be.
            Nor am I convinced that feminism is a dominant creed simply because women are a majority. Self interest is rarely simply transparent, even if plays a large part. Ideology plays a huge part, and while it may reflect numerical dominance it may just as easily reflect very smart or motivated lobbying by special interest groups, or alliances between such groups. Look at the gay lobby. Look at the jewish lobby or other religious lobbies. The idea that feminism simply represents women’s base interests is in my opinion at best a half-truth. Playing smart nearly always beats numerical superiority in the same way that it nearly always beats physical superiority

         9. >”Without white knights feminism would end today”
            Because without guys like Obama and other women-elected politicians, it would.
            >Playing smart nearly always beats numerical superiority
            Says who? http://i.imgbox[.]com/K2KzF2Ds.jpg
            >in the same way that it nearly always beats physical superiority
            Except you won’t get elected when you aren’t a feminist, for example if you are against abortions, against support for single moms etc.
            >The idea that feminism simply represents women’s base interests is in my opinion at best a half-truth
            Really? Where are the women marching against the yes-means-yes policy? Where is the female outrage against male circumcision. This is the main mistake that men make. They think that women are a helper in the fight against feminism. They are not.

         10. The link doesn’t work.
             “This is the main mistake that men make. They think that women are a helper in the fight against feminism. They are not.”
             That may be right, but the main influence women have always had over men has been indirect – emotional or alternatively manipulative. Numerical advantage is secondary to that. Men, who buy into manipulations, turn numerical advantage into political advantage. My instinct is that ideology and the institutional bulwarks of ideology are what is critical. The fact that feminism is supported by a huge infrastructure dedicated to producing and reproducing its ideology isn’t just down to women acting with regard to instinctive self-interest however much that plays a part. Women themselves have played a relatively small part in producing that ideology, at least historically

         11. >The link doesn’t work.
             You have to delete the brackets of course.
             >That may be right, but the main influence women have always had over men
             has been indirect – emotional or alternatively manipulative.
             So what? Without women’s suffrage feminism would die a quick death. Keeping women’s suffrage and abolishing the manipulation would change hardly anything because women would still have the majority.
             >The fact that feminism is supported by a huge infrastructure dedicated
             to producing and reproducing its ideology isn’t just down to women
             Yes, it is. As soon as you allow women to enter an area, everything becomes more feminist.
             http://i.imgbox.com/4mHq9B6v.jpg

         12. I’ve read the article by O’Neil – the “stepford students” are the result of the left’s march through the institutions. Democracy may have inherent flaws but that march wasn’t in itself inevitable. As for women’s suffrage, it exists and I doubt its going anywhere. Politics as it stands, and even outside of democracy (of which the current configuration is only one possible configuration) is always about building alliances, even sometimes perhaps unholy ones. Majorities are not IMO pre-destined to pre-dominate – we’ll see I guess

         13. > As for women’s suffrage, it exists and I doubt its going anywhere.
             And that’s why you have to adjust your strategy. You cannot continue the old nonsense of “We will inform men and men will wake up”.
             Pushing for legislation limiting government spending (and debt making ability) would hurt feminism more than yet another blog about men’s rights.
             http://i.imgbox.com/nbVKYnfk.jpg
             Developing fembots and virtual sex would, too, hurt feminism more than attacking it directly.
             You can do these things without even mentioning feminism. Feminism works because women (via their electoral majority) are white knight enablers.
             Yet. Soon women will also become maybe the majority of politicians. Then good night.
             http://i.imgbox.com/0UM942Cd.jpg

         14. >are the result of the left’s march through the institutions.
             Not quiet.
             1. The left marched through the institutions and got c*ntified. The left without c*ntification would behave differently.
             2. The left could march through the institutions because women got equal rights. The left is not the problem, their empowerment by women is.
             http://i.imgbox.com/kYF9Nj4C.jpg

         15. Horseshit. You’re on this Manosphere site, believe you’re making a difference, and it still hasn’t halted the onslaught of feminism. You know why? because they feed on men getting angry at them etc. Don’t forget, feminists are making a living out of men – if men didn’t exist, did what feminists wanted them to do etc, they would have no reason for existence. Feminists NEED men.
             Fight against them and you are giving them energy. Use the judo philosophy – use your enemies strength against them.
             btw – feminism as you know it is not 100 years old, and idiots like myself did not perpetuate or encourage it.

         16. This dude needs support – he is valid. Give him some fucking support – anti femastasis is wrong in many ways.

         17. Have you ever been with a woman or lived with one over an extended period of time?

         18. >because they feed on men getting angry at them etc.
             No, they feed on shaming men into DOING something for them. The mangina matrix needs energy:
             http://i.imgbox.com/LkCRxp9W.jpg
             >Fight against them and you are giving them energy
             No, ignoring them (‘It will go away if you ignore feminism’) gives them energy, and helping them gives them energy. That’s why they are so strong: Because men either ignore how dangerous they are or men white knight for them. No man fights them.
             http://i.imgbox.com/J7ytfUMv.jpg
             >feminism as you know it is not 100 years old
             Feminism is female nature. It’s as old as the first women. Read http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen
             http://i.imgbox.com/8ajWbtHk.jpg

         19. >Have you ever been with a woman or lived with one over an extended period of time?
             Is that some bitchlogic trick question?

         20. Simple question. Doesn’t sound or look like you have much experience.

         21. Oh, it _IS_ bitchlogic.

         22. >anti femastasis is wrong in many ways.
             Yeah? Prove it.
             http://i.imgbox.com/lLWSqwJE.jpg

         23. I think you are answering my questions quite perfectly.

         24. You’re proving it all by yourself. It is there for everyone to see.

         25. >You’re proving it all by yourself. It is there for everyone to see.
             So can you prove that I am wrong or are you only trolling?

         26. You hate women – your posts show it – tell me why. Why do you hate women? I hate feminists, but I do not hate women.

         27. >You hate women – your posts show it
             Lolno. I hate women’s privileges.

         28. What privileges are those that you really hate?

         29. >What privileges are those that you really hate?
             For example the abortion privilege (women can decide to abort or not, men have no say), rape privilege (penetration is rape, circumclusion is not), then all the institutionalized wealth transfer from men to women etc.

         30. Ok. The last comment is too broad, need to be more specific – there isn’t some wealth transfer out of nowhere. circumcision is not rape – very different entities – one relates more to genital mutilation, the other to forced sexual activity. I do not understand men being against abortion. do you really want to have a child with a woman who does not want to have the child?
             I

         31. >need to be more specific
             Oh god, you’re a newfag. Look, I am not your “men’s rights explanator”. If you don’t even know the core concerns of men’s rights then inform yourself.
             >I do not understand men being against abortion.
             The issue is not “men being against abortion”. The issue is “men being against the women’s decision regarding abortion”. Can you read?
             >circumcision is not rape
             Oh, you can’t.

         32. Hmmm. I don’t think I am the fag – I think you may be the fag. You’re a fucking lunatic, and I still remain with my original premise – you have absolutely no experience with women – none whatsoever. You are most probably a prolific masturbator. You haven’t even answered anything I posited correctly.

         33. >I still remain with my original premise – you have absolutely no experience with women – none whatsoever.
             What the fuck are you doing in the manosphere using women’s favorite bullshit arguments? Are you a woman? Why are you so clueless? What are you doing here?

         34. I am not using women’s favourite bullshit argument at all. I still maintain – you are so vitriolic because you have no experience with women – you are a virulent masturbator.

         35. “You cannot continue the old nonsense of “We will inform men and men will wake up”. /
             Pushing for legislation limiting government spending (and debt making ability) would hurt feminism more than yet another blog about men’s rights.”
             Pushing for such legislation would be part of “informing men” so they /”wake up.” By all means try any tactics that ‘work’, but it sounds to me like you’ve given up on persuading those who aren’t already decided on the issue

         36. 1. – yes, but even with Engels you have the seeds of the matriarachal turn the left took. After world II it became increasingly common to equate struggle against capitalism against struggle against patriarchy. The originators of that argument were men
             2. yes & no – in your schema the broad mass of women are change agents and the left follows their lead. Are you sure it isn’t the other way round?

         37. anti-femastatis seems to be preaching to those who are already alienated by feminism. Quite aside of whether it is or isn’t a ‘nice’ picture it isn’t a wise tactic. No cause can prevail without claiming legitimacy

         38. >The originators of that argument were men
             The originators of any idea are men.
             >Are you sure it isn’t the other way round?
             Yes I am sure, as is proven over and over again what happens when you let women in.

         39. >I am not using women’s favourite bullshit argument at all.
             Yes, you are. Women LOVE to accuse men of being virgins. And you are not only using their favorite argument, you are additionally on a manosphere website where it should be a nobrainer to not shame men’s sexual behavior.
             I have no clue what you are doing here.
             >you are so vitriolic because you have no experience with women – you are a virulent masturbator.
             Bitchlogic par excellence. It goes on and on and on. Are you a woman or not?

         40. >Pushing for such legislation would be part of “informing men” so they /”wake up.”
             Nah, I would call it waking up when you try to implement spending limitation laws.
             >but it sounds to me like you’ve given up on persuading those who aren’t already decided on the issue
             You are mistaken. The more men are informed the better. However, the information must be different than what MRAs have been praying since decades. This strategy has failed.

         41. “The originators of any idea are men.
             >Are you sure it isn’t the other way round?
             Yes I am sure,”
             We are either the leaders or the followers. Sometimes what I hear is that we lead but women don’t follow, which sounds to me like an abdication of responsibility, and a contradiction of the claim. Alternatively we have always been the manipulated sex, and all those male originators were somehow on the female payroll even before they invented matriarchy. But again there’s danger to losing a sense of agency if one goes down that line.

         42. “I would call it waking up when you try to implement spending limitation laws.”
             Go for it, I doubt there’s many here who would object to that
             “You are mistaken. The more men are informed the better. However, the information must be different than what MRAs have been praying since decades.”
             If it’s failed or been counter-productive then that would appear to be the case, but whatever strategy take its place it will get nowhere if it cannot persuade those beyond the ‘vanguard’.

         43. >we lead but women don’t follow
             Women in the voting booth vote for those who promise the most female privileges. You can decide for yourself whether this is leading or following.
             >Alternatively we have always been the manipulated sex
             Before men had more rights and women less privileges. You can decide for yourself whether arrangements under such circumstances are manipulation or necessity.
             http://i.imgbox.com/QkMtRC8f.jpg

         44. >No cause can prevail without claiming legitimacy
             Except that women “legitimacy” is something completely different than for men.

         45. “Women in the voting booth vote for those who promise the most female privileges.”
             Yes, but half of the time when they’re overtly self-interested they’re arguing about what is ‘better’ for women. Moreover they’re doing so within a context where feminism has indoctrinated both sexes to vote for female interest – men might vote more for the right, but they also vote against that part of their self-interest that one might consider reflects specifically masculine self-interest. There’s no doubt there’s a correlation, but there are too many possible confounding variables to demonstrate its simply a case that men vote for men or that women vote for women (or women’s privilege)

         46. by legitimacy I just mean it can appear as part of the mainstream discourse as a legitimate claim etc

         47. >by legitimacy I just mean it can appear as part of the mainstream discourse as a legitimate claim etc
             So how did the strategy work out for MRAs? Are they now in the mainstream? NO. They are being ridiculed wherever possible. All this lap dog behaviour “Women are our friends”, “Together not apart”, “Hand in hand we work for solutions” has done nothing. MRAs are still portrayed as nazi idiots.

         48. Women vote for women. Men don’t vote for men. That’s one of the major problems that has been addressed in the Homer Simpson meme. That’s why women in a democracy have automatically a voting advantage.
             Women are much similar to each other than men are. There is a female bloc, but not a male one. This is also something that MRAs don’t want to see. They think that men will unite against feminism, no they won’t. MGTOW is the manly reaction, so something very different than MRA.

         49. at no point have I said any of those things. Legitimacy won’t be achieved by nice discourse, it will be achieved by effective discourse. The issue is what is effective discourse? Dog woman will never be effective discourse; some of the pamphlet’s you drop into ‘enemy territory’ might be.

         50. Its difficult to disentangle the role of feminism / leftism in schooling women to look after base self-interest. Someone has to tell you what self-interest consists of before you can pursue it.
             If “women vote for women” then get them to fight amongst themselves – exploit the tensions. If there is a ‘female bloc’ break it up. Politics has always been about elites, powerful interest groups, and alliances, it has rarely been about majority voters getting their way in any kind of straight-forward way. Moreover it may also be a question of male politicians appealing to women as a bloc that constitutes women as a distinct ‘voting block’

         51. Haha. I think aggressive behaviour and aggression to women is more like their favourite argument – which you’re showing in spades.
             Well, I don’t know what you’re doing here – if you hate them so much, why are you on a site that tries to teach you more methods to meet more women and get laid more? No, I’m not a woman – are you a homo?

         52. >Dog woman will never be effective discourse
             Says who? Prove it. While men might not take it too seriously and actually treat women like dogs, it may very well be possible that the attitude SHIFTS. Shifts back towards where it should be.
             You see that is the same strategy why feminists are winning. They shout “Every sex is rape” and slowly but surely the attitudes towards male sexuality shift towards yes-means-yes legislation.
             If men would constantly plaster the internet with macros like…
             http://i.imgbox.com/H59as0nL.jpg
             http://i.imgbox.com/3halWedf.jpg
             …then the attitudes would slowly but surely shift. I am not saying that they would ever actually reach such a state like portrayed in these macros, and I am not saying that men should actually treat women like that, but such ideas are door breakers, way pavers and discussion expanders, so that suddenly a whole range of possible attitudes towards women opens up, instead of being limited to “Men and women are equal and men should do what women want or fear a rape accusation”. Such macros redefine what extremism is so that suddenly the demands of MRAs would sound completely non-extremist. That’s also one of the reason why feminism wins. Femen burns barbies and throws Molotow cocktails at embassies and then the radical feminists suddenly appear less radical and more acceptable.
             The friendly’n’calm approach has utterly failed. There is literally hardly one single noteworthy win for men’s rights activists in the last decades. I think the last MRA win was in India, which underlines what I have been saying: When you have a female minority (like in India) it’s far more easy to win against feminism.
             http://i.imgbox.com/Jh09rnF4.jpg
             Also another thing: Most of the macros I posted ATTACK. That’s the opposite strategy of what MRAs are doing (informing and defending). Feminists ATTACK. They make MRAs defend their position. MRAs are always justifying. Feminists don’t win by informing and defending. They win by attacking and spinning and using white knights.
             Feminists spew “Gender pay gap!!!” and MRAs respond “No no no, it’s not true, look at this list of reasons why it exists”. So 1 sentence of a feminist triggers 30 minutes of MRA talk. It’s always respond respond respond (instead of attacking and making respond), it’s always defensive (instead of making the feminist defend her position).

         53. > if you hate them so much, why are you on a site that tries to teach you more methods to meet more women and get laid more?
             http://i.imgbox.com/Gn35IEVS.jpg
             >No, I’m not a woman
             The stop using bitchlogic.

         54. I agree about the need to attack rather than defend so that the agenda is not set (and therefore controlled by) feminists but by men. The nature of the attack is another thing: the first picture depicts an act that I have only encountered once before I think in Marquis de Sade. Perhaps you are right for Sade became something of an unlikely feminist hero (to the likes of Simone de Beauvoir…because he recognised the existence of female sexuality). Shock tactics may work, but I doubt that would work. It could itself probably be quite easily ‘silenced’, not to mention categorised (and therefore dismissed) as hate speech and then used to condemn the context it appears within as the same.
             “Such macros redefine what extremism is so that suddenly the demands of MRAs would sound completely non-extremist.”
             I get where you’re coming from with this. Men have been tip-toeing around, when what they need is to take a lesson or two from Ghengis Khan, but again I see no reason why that particular form of extremism would achieve that purpose. Its pointless going on about this one particular image, which I predict will simply send the ‘floating voters’ amongst men back to a guilty masturbatory funk. Generally speaking I like this site because while men are prepared to speak plainly the focus is on the real positives of male sexuality – focusing on anything else risks de-railing that message

         55. Totally agree with you regarding the extremism. I had not bothered to look back after his last post to me, but the hatred is deep with this one. I was actually somewhat taken aback when I saw the sewn up vagina.
             I applaud you for the way you tackled it with such control and decorum.

         56. Ta. Every movement will have its good and its bad cops. Extremism can be effective and many of his posters are quite persuasive but my suspicion is those two particular images could only be counter-productive

      4. Sloppy Jizzrag Woolies

   2. yeah, but if you give 8 inches to a feminist she will purr like a kitten 🙂

2. Can someone please explain what is GamerGate in a nutshell? I read RoK regularly, but I am not American so I still don’t get what’s the fuss about? Why so many people went nuts? How did it started? So there is a bunch of young people playing video games and then… what happened?

   1. In a nutshell, one of the writers here on RoK is a computer nerd who every now and then writes an article about computer games and how they’re relevant to being a man somehow (there’s also Christianity and politics nerds too). These authors are unlikely to get any pussy and spend their time on believing things like computer games, Christianity and politics are important causes worthy of being discussed by the PUA community.

      1. WRONG!

   2. I’m not a gamer. From what I gathered thus far, Gamergate seems to have two features that seem to intertwine: 1) Female game developers and reviewers who use the “sexism card”, and sex for that matter, to build publicity in order to earn income (See Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn) and 2) Game reviews that are used as a platform to promote politically correct messaging (ie. “Such and such game has sexist undertones…”). This is what I’ve learned so far.

   3. 1. A female game developer was revealed to have slept with several members of the gaming press, some of which had given her positive press for her barely-qualifies-as-a-game (Depression Quest).
      2. When this potential conflict of interest was revealed, many high profile gaming sites buried or downright deleted any comments that weren’t 100% against this supposed sexism and 100% in support of the female in question (or dared to suggest that there was any hint of corruption or collusion in the press).
      3. The Streisand effect kicked in, and thousands of gamers started asking WTF? Why are our legitimate questions being swept under the rug?
      4. Rather than allowing for an honest discussion, the press turned on their audience, and in a coordinated effort published a dozen similar “gamers are dead” articles across a dozen sites on the same day.
      5. Gamers said “fuck that shit” and went on the attack, hence GamerGate.
      6. In an effort to discredit anyone who would dare question their authority, the press and their feminist masters have relentlessly portrayed anyone in the GamerGate community as bigots, misogynists, etc.
      For more information: http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php/GamerGate

3. Who cares!? Put the damn controller down and go outside! You’ll never be successful man if you waste countless hours “playing” video games like a child. Time to grow up!

   1. Couldn’t agree more. Will never play again, there are no justifiable reasons. Even if its for ‘relaxing’ or ‘downtime’, there are other things you could do to achieve those goals. And who the fuck wants to ‘relax’? You’ll get time to relax when you’re 65.

   2. Yes to this Rick.
      There are a lot of things I would do if they made me king….banning these games wouldn’t be first, but it would happen in the first few months.

4. NicheGamer all the way. I’m totally not a shill by the way.

5. Question for the older men:
   What would be an ideal way to become more socially friendly and blend in society easily?
   It could be answers like charisma, charm, liguistic capability, etc but I want a concrete answer like : dancing classes, KUNG-FU classes, talking to strangers etc.

   1. Confidence. Just talk to a woman and don’t give them a line, or PUA stuff. Treat them with respect, even if they are a total slut/whore.
      With men, just be yourself – only insecure men are going to judge you.
      Remember – people are not going to remember what you did for them, but how you made them feel.

   2. It is simple. Be a human being. Human beings are social creatures. Smile when you walk past a pretty girl. Start a conversation when you are in line waiting for coffee (with men or women). Don’t be a dick. Be good to people. Go to the gym. Eat dinner at the bar of a restaurant now and then and talk to the bartender or other customers. Read books and know what’s going on in the world so you have something interesting to talk about.
      Really. Be a human being. That is it. Put down the video games and go for a run in the park on a nice day. Go to a museum and learn about something. Maybe you will meet someone and maybe not. If not, next time you do at least you will have something to talk about.
      People are always wondering how to become more socially friendly when, as a human, it is the most natural thing. You don’t need to work on it, you just need to stop working against it.

   3. Do you live in an urban area? Look at taking dancing lessons. Most cities have a ‘blues-fusion’ scene, and the dancers are a mix of lindy-hop, east and west coast swing, blues, and stone cold beginners. That is where I started a few years back. Community is pretty accepting and laid back once you have been a few times and people recognize you. I recommend this because it is something that forces you out of your comfort zone (most guys are not really into dancing) and gets you used to interacting with all kinds of pretty (and not so pretty) girls.

      1. Thanks ! Soon enough I will take a look into it !

      2. Urban area for me. Can I weave an activity to socialize and make money ? Part-time on that.

         1. Hmmm. If you want to mix socializing with money making and live in a decent sized city, might I recommend working in the promotions department of a local radio station? They go out to all sorts of activities (sports, clubs, whatever is related to their listeners demographic) and hand out free stuff and generally interact with people. I’ve got some cousins that do that in Vancouver, and their facebook is a constant parade of them doing fun stuff all over the lower mainland.

         2. That’s actually a fantastic idea. I’ll do some digging.

6. Look, this kid is seriously doing his research, and reporting good stuff. But NO chick is into a gamer. They don’t fucking care and think it is lame. Chicks will inform you that gamers just aren’t their bag. Unless…maybe…..you’re a really good looking gamer…with money.

   1. not everyone lives their lives entirely to impress women.

      1. Ok. Show me someone who doesn’t.

         1. Me and the guy that wrote this article for a start.

         2. ok. Tell me how.

         3. By not bowing to women like a little faggot, faggot.

7. I struggle to get motivated about games. Nobody will buy SJW games or even so called non sexist games because they will be boring. Nobody, not even the minority of gamer girls wants to play as a female to male black lesbian transgendered elf struggling against oppression from all the evil white patriarchal cis elves. The market will decide and no amount of corrupt journalism can change that because as I said nobody wants to play shit games.

   1. I want to agree with you, but I fear people are still buying Dragon Age: Inquisition.

      1. And how many people bought Gone Home based on the overwhelmingly positive reviews? Once I learned the “twist” in the story, it became obvious why the leftist/SJW crowd were falling all over themselves to prop that up as game of the year, despite the fact that it barely qualified as a game.

      2. Having googled Dragon Age: inquisition the first thing I saw was this http://www.theguardian.com/tec…
         But i guess if any genre was gonna get fucked up it would be that one.

   2. Having googled Dragon Age: inquisition the first thing I saw was this http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/14/boyfriend-dragon-age-inquisition-gay
      But i guess if any genre was gonna get fucked up it would be that one.

8. You used to be able to punch in a cartridge and play it, knowing that the game is at least finished.
   The good old days. I bought tons of catridge games for my Intellivision and Atari 2600, and tons of games for my Apple IIc on 5.25″ disk that were all ready to go. You bought the game, you knew it worked, you were hoping it was good (that’s what friends and their opinions were for).
   Now, not even close to that. Kind of annoying.

9. Anything under the Gawker umbrella is fucking garbage.

10. This is good stuff but can we stop complaining about game patches? Games are a fuck-hell of a lot more sophisticated than they used to be so stop whining about day 1 patches and the like. They won’t be going away.

    1. I just flicked your ear and you didn’t do shit about it.

11. My man Mr. Baroni!!
    “This means that you should never, under any circumstances, pre-order games or buy them at launch, no matter how hyped they are or who made them. That’s simply the sad situation we are in.”
    Preach it!!!!

12. The safest bet is to always buy new 12-48 months after release. Media can be aquired for next to nothing if one exerts enough patience.
    Those that pay full price are suckers and are contributing to the Industries issues.

Comments are closed.