Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd Aug 2009 19:17 UTC
Games PC gamers vs. console gamers. There's this assumption that PC gamers are capable of playing more complex games than console gamers. The games industry itself has picked up on this assumption and generally dumbs down games for the consoles because they assume us poor console gamers are not capable enough, and as the consoles have increasingly become the focal point of the industry, PC games also started suffering from the dumbing down effect. That's why the developers behind Sacred 2 deserve all the more praise for not assuming all gamers on consoles are 13-year-old Halo-addicted kids by releasing a traditional top-down hack and slash game with an incredibly detailed world and intricate character development.
Thread beginning with comment 380173
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Offensive?
by gedmurphy on Sun 23rd Aug 2009 21:11 UTC
gedmurphy
Member since:
2005-12-23

"13-year-old Halo-addicted twats"

I had to take a second look when I read that ...
Very unprofessional, but rather amusing to see text like this in what is meant to be a professional news site. haha

RE: Offensive?
by helf on Sun 23rd Aug 2009 21:27 in reply to "Offensive?"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, if you look at OSN as Personal Blog (tm), then it isn't quite as offensive. ;)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE: Offensive?
by frood on Mon 24th Aug 2009 05:20 in reply to "Offensive?"
frood Member since:
2005-07-06

Well not offensive as such. Just makes the author appear illiterate and stupid.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE: Offensive?
by jibadeeha on Mon 24th Aug 2009 07:22 in reply to "Offensive?"
jibadeeha Member since:
2009-08-10

"13-year-old Halo-addicted twats"

I had to take a second look when I read that ...
Very unprofessional, but rather amusing to see text like this in what is meant to be a professional news site. haha


Yup, very unprofessional and unnecessary IMHO ... C'mon Thom you are the Managing Editor here, is this sort of language really necessary? I hope this isn't a sign of things to come for OSNews ;)

Edited 2009-08-24 07:23 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE: Offensive?
by Esmall on Mon 24th Aug 2009 07:27 in reply to "Offensive?"
Esmall Member since:
2009-08-24

I thought it was very offensive. Previously, I directed my students to follow stories on osnews as part of a class following technology trends. I will no longer be able to do this. This was personally very embarrassing for me, as it was a student who told me "twat" was being used in a piece on osnews. I urge you to improve your standards.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[2]: Offensive?
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 24th Aug 2009 07:37 in reply to "RE: Offensive?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

As far as I know from British English, "twat" means nothing more than "fool". I don't see how it is supposed to be offensive in any way.

While indeed most often used in the above way, it technically also refers to female genitalia (just found that out). Well, that still wouldn't be a reason for me to lose any sleep over it (I'm not puritan), but I've removed it anyway.

Edited 2009-08-24 07:40 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[2]: Offensive?
by Soulbender on Mon 24th Aug 2009 08:58 in reply to "RE: Offensive?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Welcome to the Internet. Warning, people may say things you dislike in a language you don't approve of.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE: Offensive?
by Esmall on Mon 24th Aug 2009 10:34 in reply to "Offensive?"
Esmall Member since:
2009-08-24

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twat

First few lines say it all.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1