https://twitter.com/specialfester/status/615325547313430528
Children's author denounces trigger warnings and emotionally unstable people who need them. Ban Gone with the Wind; some people say. Grow up I say! If maintaining emotional equilibrium requires other people and art to jump through hoops for you, just shut off the world and live alone. It'll be better for everyone.

Err. Destructiod is saying that there's a parody game especially designed to anger 'SJWs' and pander to GG, I don't know what 'bait' you guys think they are taking, they seem like they are just saying what is happening, y'know, reporting on the latest developments in video games, as is their job?

I like the part where they say:
"I'm sure this one won't get funded though, because surely the people who decry politics in their video games wouldn't back a game purely based on politics in their video games -- no one likes a hypocrite."

which is a damn good point - i.e .
"Waaa stop bringing politics into computer games"
"Here's a game that supports your politics and satires your political opponents"
"Shut up and take meh monies!"

The only thing i *would* say is that by choosing to report on this particular Kickstarter campaign they are giving publicity to something they claim to be against - it's almost like they're secretly GRATEFUL that this kickstarter has popped up to stoke the fires of rage and decent, keep the 'war' rumbling on and keep those all important page clicks high...

Yes; he is stating the obvious fact anyone with half a brain or less than Nazi zeal could've understood. And he is still taking it. You heard how how the dev mentioned it'll be more violent than hatred yes? This is how. Look at that homophobic transphobic kill the f** game. People stopped talking about, it fell through the popularity sealing.

Where did you find the dumbfuck idea that GGers don't want politics in games? Papers Please, This War of Mine, TW series etc are all political. And lets not forget which side's idiots claimed a game based on Slavic(=NE Europe=white skinned people) is ''racist and misogynistic''? Is it an admission that you think the hipster games currently on the market push an agenda? Or do you find it difficult to grasp that there is a difference between having politics and pushing a political agenda?
Because then Gone Home and kill the f** are both ''your(ie enlightened man hating leftists)'' games because GH pushes a radical leftist agenda and the other pushes a radical rightist agenda, both being political.
GG wants LESS POLITICAL PREACHY JOURNOS and not non-political games. If anything, its you guys who hate games with politics, because everything other than your BS worldview is ''intolerant hate'' and hence all humans should be intolerantly hatefully towards it.

If people are complaining about Gone Home it's because OK a. it's short but b. It builds all this atmosphere and suspense and then... like a damp fart, it's just a lesbian relationship, it's 'limp and flaccid' like Saved by the Bell or an after-school special, if that's what passes for 'radical' ANYTHING these days I want the 90s (or better then punk rock 70s) back and I want them NOW goddamit!

BTW I'd edited my previous post not sure if it answers or even goes some way to agreeing with your first paragraph there or not...

Wow - I really struggle to get my head around this whole "Games 'without' mechanics are pushing a radical leftist political agenda" theory - I don't know why Gone Home has become the poster child for this either when there are notes you have to look for at least, again what about Dear Ester than predated it or The Stanley Parable, or anything by Tales of Tales?
Hells, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, look who the OP of this thread is! go ask jefequeso if he thought he was pushing a radical leftist agenda when he made 'walking simulator' 'The Moon Silver'
http://store.steampowered.com/app/329830/

In regard to the second part, as I said, I suspect that they're taking the bait on purpose because the war has turned out to be profitable for them...

Please quote where:
1.I said games with less focus on the mechanics are a bad game experiences
2.I said games with less focus on mechanics are the ones and only ones pushing a leftist agenda

Please quote where *I* said or even implied that you said these kinds of games are a bad gaming experience
and secondly there was no talk of these games being the ONLY ones to push a radical leftist agenda

You said that Gone Home pushed a radical leftist agenda, I said that it's not a radical leftist game because the lesbian 'reveal' really isn't at all radical in this day and age, in fact most people were all 'meh, is that IT' about it.
Then you came back with 'It's not about the lesbianism, it's about the lack of mechanics'
So I took that to mean that you though ALL games that lacked mechanics pushed a 'radical leftist agenda'
So if it's not the lesbianism and not the lack of mechanics then what is it about 'Gone Home' that pushes a 'radical leftist agenda'? Or does it somehow lack mechanics in a specific way that pushes the agenda that other mechanic-less games don't? OR is it the specific mix of lacking mechanics AND being about lesbianism that puts it slightly to the left of Mao's little red book?

I said its a leftist agenda game because the developers and their sympathizers push it claiming it is a game it is clearly not. Not that it was radical leftist BECAUSE it had a lesbian relationship as a plot subject. I'm fairly certain supporting LGBTQ rights will fall slightly left of center but you assumed I was saying support of said rights / inclusion of said characters was radical leftist. Anyhow, I didn't say GH was a radical left game because it had a lesbian relationship in it. I said so because it is being praised by the gaming sites as a game which it is not.

So... what are they saying it is that it is not then?

I know it was already pointed out to you that no one is arguing against politics in games, but it bears repeating: games and game journalism are different things.

Of course that's the whole point, though it's worth noting that they're putting short-term gain ahead of long-term sustainability by doing so, ensuring that a bunch of people will be around to archive their journalistic failings for all to see when they inevitably screw up. The longer they milk this whole thing for clicks, the more mistakes they make and the more obvious their bias and general incompetence becomes to outside observers.

Which is dumb, but they haven't exactly shown a remarkable amount of foresight throughout all of this.

Bias and in left and right political bias? Hmm, I think that might just be a thing now - I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if, going forward, each gaming site has it's political bias, left or right, unapologetically front and centre in the same way newspapers and other media outlets do, if that's not what we're seeing already, for better or worse...

you seem to ignore what we've been saying. It is disliked not because of its political agenda, but because it got so much praise for just having this agenda. That the main reason critics praised it to heaven was because of its agenda, entirely ignoring all other things. And then the journos act like people who like the classic violent game are retarded.

Perfect.....well, nearly perfect.

OK but how can the game have an agenda based on it's critical reception?
How is it even responsible for it's own critical reception? I mean you make a game and put it out there, promote it etc. but you're not responsible if a bunch of journos decide it's the best thing since sliced Pac-Man when it isn't, unless the devs slept with a butt-load of journo or something! - Imagine that :-D
But even if they did, that doesn't indicate an 'in-game' agenda, I mean if someone was to just play the game without knowledge of the critical reception and other politics surrounding the game, they would not be subjected to any kind of 'radical leftie agenda'

Unlike the 'Kill the f*gs' game which is hate-filled actually in-game