You can smell my finger

[Upthorn]

Okay. I interpreted beatbandito's statement to mean that this isn't the case, and the review's statement on the matter was false, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[beatbandito]

I mean, Beat, this is all kind of irrelevant because IMO opinion, even with a changed ending that still sounds pretty shit.

Something being totally awful, but then pulling back to be slightly less awful towards the end, doesn't make it not-awful in any overall sense. Even if I fully accept everything you say, this still seems to be a game about schlock fratboy "psychiatry", beatings, drugging, incest, and rather contrived and juvenile justifications for all that.

What aspects of trauma do you think are off-limits for people to try and contextualize through art? Is a genuine, but poor attempt to cover disturbing topics worse than feeling like they're not allowed to be voiced? Is this game either of those things? No one in this thread seems to know, since the only reference I see anyone making is to the article.

Hey, guys: Everybody here's been focusing solely on beatbandito's statement that "also, an ending exists that the review didn't mention." And that his description of that ending didn't do a great job at distinguishing itself from the reviewer's description of the ending that the reviewer found.

But what I heard him say is that he perceives the entire Kotaku article as extremely disingenuous.

framing it with "That time loop gives him the opportunity and impetus to do terrible things to his wife." is like saying "red dead redemption is a game about killing hookers"

This part here tells me that "yes, those are things you *can* do to advance the game's plot, but they aren't things you *have* to do, simply the route that the reviewer found easiest to take."
Whereas the entire review is predicated on the premise that the game forces you to do these things to avoid getting murdered and figure out what's going on.

Thank you for actually evaluating the point I was trying to make. I honestly don't know how I can reference my original point any better than just requoting my entire post. I literally said no statement of what happens is false, but the way it's being contextualized is very in-line with kotaku's trend up over the past year of going for shock statement headlines and content. I'm not even trying to defend the game, just saying that my experience with the content was not nearly as extreme as the writer is stating. And as I have clarified since, they legitimately do make reference to something in the "true ending" that is a line from the ending that is factually, the way the game develops and plays out, not the true ending.

Responding directly to an article and getting responses saying that they don't think I'm right, based off the same article, is infuriating. I might as well try to make a point on twitter.

No, it's all part of the route you have to take

this is correct

with the understanding that the time loop will erase the event for everybody else.

this is less correct. It gets complicated, as these kinds of stories tend to.

I don't have any particular love for the game, and even the original post Thad made wasn't enough reason for me to respond until I saw the reactions here, and in the comments saying that they're happy they don't have to play games and can just read articles like that to know what they're really like. And if I say "hey I have more directly interacted with this story and don't think this is a great take" I don't want to fucking hear "prove it" as a response.

[KingRoyal]

What were asking you prove is your assertion that the reviewer had some kind of false or incomplete review of the game, the assertion that you're making. We get that you had a different experience, that's fine, it's just you seem to suggest that the reviewer has a false or incorrect one, which doesn't seem fair. And the only example you gave was the ending and, I'm sorry, your description of the ending and their description both line up.

For a game you don't have any particular love for, you are eager to tear down someone else's experience as false.

And to answer your question

What aspects of trauma do you think are off-limits for people to try and contextualize through art? Is a genuine, but poor attempt to cover disturbing topics worse than feeling like they're not allowed to be voiced? Is this game either of those things? No one in this thread seems to know, since the only reference I see anyone making is to the article.

I don't think this is necessarily an issue of trauama being portrayed so much as making the player cause trauma thoughtlessly. Like, say, having the player mete out trauma to the other characters in the story as a means of advancing the player character's own arc

[Friday]

What aspects of trauma do you think are off-limits for people to try and contextualize through art? Is a genuine, but poor attempt to cover disturbing topics worse than feeling like they're not allowed to be voiced?

This is actually something I'd like to discuss because it's a legitimate important topic, but this conversation is now dragging kotaku and reviews and other baggage that I don't want, so I'm gonna make a new thread. But thank you for providing a good thesis, just wanted to note that here.

[Mongrel]

I don't think this is necessarily an issue of trauma being portrayed so much as making the player cause trauma thoughtlessly. Like, say, having the player mete out trauma to the other characters in the story as a means of advancing the player character's own arc

Pretty much this, yeah.

[beatbandito]

I don't think this is necessarily an issue of trauama being portrayed so much as making the player cause trauma thoughtlessly. Like, say, having the player mete out trauma to the other characters in the story as a means of advancing the player character's own arc

For a game you don't have any particular experience with, you are eager to tear down someone else's creation as thoughtless.

[Thad]

"You didn't tell me exactly what to think. So I have no reasons to not absolutely accept this other opinion that did tell me what to think."

why do you do this every time

That's a serious question. And I'm not asking you to answer, but I think you should think about it. And if you're still mad, think about it when you're not.

I've gone back and forth, over the years, about whether you're being disingenuous on purpose, or if it's just something you do reflexively when you're frustrated.

But it's your one move, your go-to. Every single time you're having a disagreement with somebody and it starts to get heated, you go straight to the strawman. Every time. You do some variation of "so what you're saying is" and then something they didn't say.

And the most sympathetic interpretation I can come up with is, you really believe it. In the heat of the moment, you really believe the thing you're accusing them of saying is equivalent to the thing they actually said.

It happens. It's the way the mind works. When you're angry or frustrated, you're less inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt, and more inclined to interpret their words in the most negative way possible.

But the next time you notice yourself doing it -- if you even *do* notice yourself doing it -- ask yourself this: is it *really* the same thing? Is what you're accusing them of saying *really* the same thing as what they said?

And if it's the same...why is it different?

If your words really do mean exactly the same thing as their words...then why did you need to change their words at all? If the clear, unambiguous meaning of what they're saying is really what you're saying it is...shouldn't that be self-evident in *their* word choice?

In short: if you're *not* changing the meaning of what they said, then what is the purpose of changing the words? Why do you need to do it at all? Why do you need to respond to some made-up quote? Why can't you just respond to the real one?

And maybe, if you catch yourself doing it in the first place, you should take that as a sign that things are getting heated and it might be a good idea to step away, come back later? Or not at all? I get that that's hard; it's been an extremely difficult lesson for me, and I'm still not great at following it. But y'know, even if you're sure you're right, and you think it's important to convince people that you're right, you can't always do that. Or even if you can, if the effort leaves you (and them) frustrated and angry, sometimes it's just not worth it.

God knows I don't always walk away when I should. Hell, this post itself could be a waste of my time and make things worse. But I hope it isn't and it doesn't. I feel like it's worth at least trying to get us off this merry-go-round.

[beatbandito]

It's because you're reductive and act like any conversation is an academic argument where if you start with any kind of published article, anyone else has less input than you unless they can find another published article that perfectly reflects their own views.

Also because you do things like skipping over the posts actually responding to you and focusing on one that was directed at someone else, which you don't really need to respond to. Or even, over a day later, respond to your own post instead of my, or anyone else's, responses that came since then. Because the actual conversations don't seem to matter to you as much as feeling like you're the one who's doing it right.

[beatbandito]

And, again, this is the very first line of an article that I said I didn't agree with and have only been met with accusations of "denying their experience/opinion"

Twelve Minutes is, or at least should be, a game about trauma. It is, but it isn’t.

get better sources

[beatbandito]

And the fucking TITLE for the article that quotes one of the middle-game resolutions as the "true ending".

Twelve Minutes Might Have The Worst Video Game Ending Of The Year

It's a joke that the only responses have been "well, as someone who still hasn't bothered to even check themselves: I don't see anything wrong here, so you must be overreacting"

[mharr]

Well the piece has definitely achieved the Art goal of engendering feelings.

[Mongrel]

To wade back in a bit, the last thing that anyone said was your reply here, which was a hard stop.

I don't think this is necessarily an issue of trauma being portrayed so much as making the player cause trauma thoughtlessly. Like, say, having the player mete out trauma to the other characters in the story as a means of advancing the player character's own arc

For a game you don't have any particular experience with, you are eager to tear down someone else's creation as thoughtless.

Royal and I weren't talking about endings necessarily, but your response there seemed not only strawmannish and assuming bad faith on Royal's part, not to mention so visibly tainted by incensed rage that it visibly ended the conversation entirely. I certainly didn't see any point in replying to that myself, much less any actual utility in doing so.

I'm hoping enough time has passed for you to not take this criticism too personally. Nobody's here to give you shit without reason and I'd like to be generous enough to actually think that absolutely no one here - yes, even Thad - still gives a shit about Being Right in internet arguments. At least, not on this forum anyway.

[beatbandito]

Royal and I weren't talking about endings necessarily,

What were asking you prove is your assertion that the reviewer had some kind of false or incomplete review of the game, the assertion that you're making.

And the only example you gave was the ending and, I'm sorry, your description of the ending and their description both line up.

You just seem incredibly aggressive about how someone else interpreted a game you watched, to the point that you're accusing them of not actually playing it and only taking the opinion they did to generate clicks, which does not seem fair or accurate.

No matter what you or I think about the game, it's unfair to say the reviewer didn't finish it when they cite the specific ending you yourself said is the true one. You can disagree with the take without accusing them or anyone of having not experienced it fully.

That quote from the article makes it sound like they did in fact get the true ending

[beatbandito]

Like, literally my first post included a line about the ending, and that was the thing both Thad and Royal jumped on, about an article titled "Twelve Minutes Might Have The Worst Video Game Ending Of The Year".

It's reductive to say the entire thing was about the ending at this point, since for me it quickly became "I wanted to express my opinion, I'm not going to fucking prove its value to you if you don't believe it." But saying the ending has nothing to do with it is the unfunny side of "Mongrel doesn't understand what's happening".

[KingRoyal]

You are deliberately ignoring that we also reacted to your hostile comments about the reviewer.

Please don't bother responding to this. Enough time has already been wasted with these posts about something you supposedly don't care about

[Brantly B.]

I feel like I'm in some sort of time loop.

[beatbandito]

You are deliberately ignoring that we also reacted to your hostile comments about the reviewer.

Also of note is that the reviewer seems to have not actually beaten the game.

yeah man, I was starting gamergate 2 over here before you saved the day

[KingRoyal]

At least Thad now has an answer to whether you're being disingenuous on purpose

[beatbandito]

So other than just telling me you don't think the ending is different based on my posts, and you do think I'm being disingenuous with them. Do you ever plan on actually providing input or opinion? Because so far you seem to have used defending the reviewer (when I commented on the articles for the site, I never mentioned the reviewer outside of the ending) and saying that the exact quotes for the endings they use and I give "sound the same". This is why it seems like twitter melted your brain.

[KingRoyal]

At least Thad now has an answer to whether you're being disingenuous on purpose