Leaderboard

Hello, the good people of OCR! First time remixer, long time listener here. So, this weekend has been a wild ride into the depths of virtualized midi I/O devices, with which I've managed to export some Lost Vikings-music that hasn't been shared yet. While still figuring out the ins and outs of Midi Yoke / Midi Ox and t2mf, I started this exploration into the somewhat-known by trying to rip the Introduction tale music from Lost Vikings, a rare gem that sadly not enough people know of. The Midi-to-text-to-midi resulted in a few jitters in BPM, but other than that the process exceeded my expectations. If you've got something that needs ripping, The Lost Vikings is not a hard nut to crack. But anyways, here's the Introduction tale background music, remixed to be a Future-bass-"ish" Synth-funk piece. Hope you enjoy! https://soundcloud.com/bracer-crane/lost-vikings-dos-version-remix

I flipped my shit when the end of Episode 4 came around. I am real into this series.

THIS. Listening to this just makes me so damn happy. This is exactly the type of stuff that keeps me coming back to OCRemix. Excellent work!

Yes, well: The internet, the video game industry, the "critics", Feminist Frequency and the material it "critiques" expand far, far beyond America. So if you're talking about the consequences or lack thereof of criticism and things that are "problematic", narrowing the discussion to America is useless since Sarkeesian's videos reach people who both support and don't support her views across the world. America has better protected "freedom of speech" than somewhere like Australia if we're using game bans as a benchmark, so they're irrelevant to the discussion? No, it was an honest series of questions. I'm quite convinced that if she were in a position where she had a say, she would fully support government censorship. also, to quote Neblix It's been pointed out so many times in this thread over the last 98 pages that criticism against the criticism Anita offers is silenced, viewed as being misogynistic or whatever. Raising awareness for something you perceive to be an issue, a problem, is worthless unless you are also offering a solution. Tell me again, Zircon, what is Anita's solution? Because all I can see is that her solution is to either change whatever it is she doesn't like to what she wants, or get rid of it entirely. Nothing seems to please her or her fans. Oh, my bad. You're okay with hyper-sensitive crybabies going on about how "problematic" the representation of (whatever) is and essentially pressuring companies into changing something they obviously had no intention of changing (freedom of speech), with non-existent evidence of this resulting in greater sales and objectively appealing to a wider demographic as a result, you're just not okay with it when the government does it. EDIT: Oh and if you want a prime example of whiny people who could just simply not buy something successfully getting it banned, feminists got GTA V banned from Target a year after it came out. but it doesn't matter because it's not America and the government didn't do it.

Fearmongering can get a whole lot worse... it's kind of funny that you'd criticize overstatement via overstatement. It's not just funny, it's the FUNNIEST! I agree that Shadowe should back those claims of explicit speech up with some quotes/links; as far as I've seen, personally, Anita & Leigh are very careful to avoid explicitly advocating for the banning/censoring of games... But Andy, as I've repeatedly pointed out, their rhetoric & "reasoning" are the SAME as those who've advocated for banning games (books/movies/etc.) in the past... As I've repeatedly pointed out, they assert direct causal lines between games and negative behaviors, with the type of overzealous certitude that, even if it's careful enough to avoid directly advocating censorship, leaves one very little ideological breathing room for alternatives... As I've repeatedly pointed out, they use zero-sum arguments which, instead of articulating an inclusive message that gaming is big enough to welcome/encourage other types of games, and other types of gamers, instead REALLY focus on how they think gaming is a town that's "too small for the both of us" - an exclusionary message. They're fighting fire with fire, exclusionary attitudes with exclusionary attitudes, when the opposite is needed. See Leigh's absurd GamaSutra piece on the death of the "gamer," for instance... it's not about widening the umbrella, as it should be, it's about kicking some folks & some games out from under it. What does it matter if they're careful enough to avoid directly stepping on the landmine of censorship, when they're employing every last rhetorical trick & argumentative fallacy that actual & would-be censors have, in the past? Did we not deplore those arguments, then? Are they only nonsensical and absolutist arguments when in the presence of an explicit demand? Do they suddenly become admirable or reasonable as long as the "magic word" isn't spoken? It's almost.... less honest. It's like when racists avoid using the N-word and speak in euphemisms.... you KNOW what they're trying to say, because you've HEARD the story before... Call me crazy, but I think art is improved & enriched through karma... not dogma. Criticism can be filtered through a lens, but it should still be looking at something... when the art drifts out into peripheral vision (and beyond), it becomes rhetoric. What you're basically saying is that you have no internal standard as to what the word "criticism" even means. Okay, that's cool. I do. As I made clear, cultural criticism - to be considered as criticism, to me - still has an obligation to put the work first & foremost, to probe instead of proselytize. If you're saying that as long as someone is talking about art, even if they're transparently using it as an excuse to push an agenda and don't really seem to care much about the art, you still consider that criticism, well... we strongly disagree. As stated, I respect both art & criticism too much to be that... lenient.

If that's the case then the primary disagreement here is not anything to do with free speech principle, it has to do with the fact that he claims to have proof of the explicit admission of calling for banning games and you claim there is none. It seems the burden of proof is on him. @Shadowe: can you please provide actual links to the behavior you're talking about? The conversation can't really advance beyond if one person is saying "they're doing it' and one is saying "they're not doing it" ping ponging at each other.

Show me the legions of game critics who are actually, literally trying to ban games. I'm sure some people - somewhere - are saying that, but that's on the ultra-extreme part of the spectrum. For example, I've watched all of Anita's videos and she never, repeat never, says that games should be banned in any of them. I've read Leigh Alexander's work, I read Polygon, Kotaku, r/games, r/gaming every day... I'm not seeing this narrative of critics trying to ban games. That's simply fearmongering at it's worst (the kind Shadowe has bought into, hook line and sinker). Critics "encouraging removal" of ELEMENTS in games? Sure, but that's not the same thing as calling or supporting for literal, actual government censorship or bans of games. That's not happening. Opinion pieces should never be equated to actual censorship.