Page 3 of 8 [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

28 Dec 2014, 2:30 am

Also, this game shouldn't be called "Hatred", it should be called "trolling gamers and their media for exposure", and treated the way trolls usually are. Unless it's actually a good game of course.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


xxZeromancerlovexx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,342
Location: Thra

05 Jan 2015, 12:24 pm

Here's my opinion. The game sounds stupid. A game where all you do is kill innocent people is stupid. I play violent games sometimes, but not obsessively. There are people who get obsessive.

All because I play Black Ops 2 zombies sometimes doesn't mean that I'm violent. To be honest just the thought of holding a gun freaks me out in real life. A person who is obsessive over a game like Hatred may not always be violent, but if they talk about it constantly they could be mistaken for violent.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,463
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

06 Jan 2015, 4:38 am

Syd wrote:
If this is what is considered "entertainment" these days, I wouldn't be surprised if the following already exist:

- game involving raping
- domestic abuse/ wife-beating game
- game where you play as an ISIS terrorist


All of those kinds of games, unfortunately. All such games are usually shot down and criticised though.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,463
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

06 Jan 2015, 4:48 am

Dox47 wrote:
Syd wrote:
- game involving raping


Custer's Revenge, an 80's unlicensed NES game.


Yes, and if you're looking for a domestic abuse game, you could try "The Boyfriend Trainer", a mobile game that tried to make domestic abuse funny and was taken off the Apple I-tunes store because of all the controversy it caused.

I'm sure there are games where you play as an ISIS terrorist too, at least there are definitely ones where you play as a Palestinian terrorist. Yes, some of their supporters actually make those games in the Middle East.



mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,993
Location: Alberta, Canada

06 Jan 2015, 5:04 am

The thing that gets me about "Hatred", is that it's not even an original concept. It's essentially "Postal" with shinier graphics, but without the humour.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

06 Jan 2015, 11:23 am

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
The thing that gets me about "Hatred", is that it's not even an original concept. It's essentially "Postal" with shinier graphics, but without the humour.


You don't actually know if it won't have humour. All we've really seen was a shock trailer that failed to live up to the developer's expectations. And the graphics aren't really shinier, they have a darker pallet.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


andrethemoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,274
Location: Sol System

06 Jan 2015, 5:10 pm

Protogenoi wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
The thing that gets me about "Hatred", is that it's not even an original concept. It's essentially "Postal" with shinier graphics, but without the humour.


You don't actually know if it won't have humour. All we've really seen was a shock trailer that failed to live up to the developer's expectations. And the graphics aren't really shinier, they have a darker pallet.


It won't have humor, considering the development team is composed of a lot of neo-nazis and very far right individuals.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

06 Jan 2015, 5:54 pm

epiccolton26 wrote:
Image


Is it just me, or is it that the logo for Hatred has an eerily similar style to the upcoming DooM 4 Logo?? :? Might be my DooM fanboyism kicking in, but it's something I wanted to point out.

On-Topic: The game's been added to Wikipedia's list of controversial video games now. :|

Also, to be honest, I don't know how to react to this controversy. Yes, it's a terrible idea from the doggone start, but I feel as though it's pointless to get angry at a bunch of attention seekers spamming the controversy button.


Yes, they intentionally made it similar to the Doom logo. It's a tribute of sorts.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

06 Jan 2015, 6:00 pm

andrethemoogle wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
The thing that gets me about "Hatred", is that it's not even an original concept. It's essentially "Postal" with shinier graphics, but without the humour.


You don't actually know if it won't have humour. All we've really seen was a shock trailer that failed to live up to the developer's expectations. And the graphics aren't really shinier, they have a darker pallet.


It won't have humor, considering the development team is composed of a lot of neo-nazis and very far right individuals.


Except none of them are neonazis and I doubt any of them are far right. That has been proven to be a myth that some people have made up to help rationalize their dislike of the game.

You are doing nothing more than miming a false accusation...

“My grand-grand father was killed by Gestapo. Some members of my family were fighting against nazi occupation in the polish underground army called ‘Armia Krajowa,’” Zielinski wrote. “My forefathers suffered greatly because of totallitarian regimes, so who the f**k would I be if I'd truly support any of nazi activists?"

“In response to repeated allegations against me, I’d like to state that I’m opposed to all totalitarian ideologies,” Stychno said. “The t-shirt that I’m wearing on our team picture refers to National Polish Army troops, that in 1945 refused to lay down arms and continue fighting against the new invader, to regain independent Poland. They did so because they’ve rightly anticipated Soviet security service repressions against Polish already demilitarized army. I would also like to emphasize that until the year 1945 those troops were actively fighting against the Third Reich occupation. Those soldiers are Polish national heroes and as such deserve commemoration. Just as much as American troops that lose their lives fighting against terrorism. As to organizations that profiles I follow, they refer to the patriotic and libertarian tradition, and not to the totalitarian ideology.”

"These accusations are simply really stupid. :)," Zieliński said, "'Żołnierze Wyklęci' were an underground polish army, who were fighting Nazis and after the fall of [the] Third Reich, they were treating communists who came to Poland as the same kind of enemy that Nazis were. They were fighting with those new occupants after the war is over. They were never associated with Freikorps, it's bullshit and I don't know where from people get their historical informations."

Or are their words meaningless to you? Maybe because they are doing something you don't like they and therefore shouldn't be considered human at all and and therefore also none of their words must be nothing more than evil lies.

And therefore also there must be no redeeming points to anything they make because they all must be sick bastards.
So much so that we are suddenly free to judge without examination. :roll:


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,993
Location: Alberta, Canada

06 Jan 2015, 8:34 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Syd wrote:
- game involving raping


Custer's Revenge, an 80's unlicensed NES game.


Actually, "Custer's Revenge" was an Atari 2600 game. The NES didn't have any games involving rape, though there were a few unlicensed XXX games made for it by a Taiwanese company IIRC.

Protogenoi wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
The thing that gets me about "Hatred", is that it's not even an original concept. It's essentially "Postal" with shinier graphics, but without the humour.


You don't actually know if it won't have humour. All we've really seen was a shock trailer that failed to live up to the developer's expectations. And the graphics aren't really shinier, they have a darker pallet.


I just meant shinier graphics as in "more modern" graphics. "Hatred" is an Unreal Engine 4 game, while "Postal" is a game that came out way back in 1997/1998 and likely used 2D, software-rendered graphics in 640x480.

Protogenoi wrote:
andrethemoogle wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
The thing that gets me about "Hatred", is that it's not even an original concept. It's essentially "Postal" with shinier graphics, but without the humour.


You don't actually know if it won't have humour. All we've really seen was a shock trailer that failed to live up to the developer's expectations. And the graphics aren't really shinier, they have a darker pallet.


It won't have humor, considering the development team is composed of a lot of neo-nazis and very far right individuals.


Except none of them are neonazis and I doubt any of them are far right. That has been proven to be a myth that some people have made up to help rationalize their dislike of the game.

You are doing nothing more than miming a false accusation...

“My grand-grand father was killed by Gestapo. Some members of my family were fighting against nazi occupation in the polish underground army called ‘Armia Krajowa,’” Zielinski wrote. “My forefathers suffered greatly because of totallitarian regimes, so who the f**k would I be if I'd truly support any of nazi activists?"

“In response to repeated allegations against me, I’d like to state that I’m opposed to all totalitarian ideologies,” Stychno said. “The t-shirt that I’m wearing on our team picture refers to National Polish Army troops, that in 1945 refused to lay down arms and continue fighting against the new invader, to regain independent Poland. They did so because they’ve rightly anticipated Soviet security service repressions against Polish already demilitarized army. I would also like to emphasize that until the year 1945 those troops were actively fighting against the Third Reich occupation. Those soldiers are Polish national heroes and as such deserve commemoration. Just as much as American troops that lose their lives fighting against terrorism. As to organizations that profiles I follow, they refer to the patriotic and libertarian tradition, and not to the totalitarian ideology.”

"These accusations are simply really stupid. :)," Zieliński said, "'Żołnierze Wyklęci' were an underground polish army, who were fighting Nazis and after the fall of [the] Third Reich, they were treating communists who came to Poland as the same kind of enemy that Nazis were. They were fighting with those new occupants after the war is over. They were never associated with Freikorps, it's bullshit and I don't know where from people get their historical informations."

Or are their words meaningless to you? Maybe because they are doing something you don't like they and therefore shouldn't be considered human at all and and therefore also none of their words must be nothing more than evil lies.

And therefore also there must be no redeeming points to anything they make because they all must be sick bastards.
So much so that we are suddenly free to judge without examination. :roll:


I still don't get why one of the development team members "liked" a page for a far-right group on Facebook then. He says he wanted to keep an eye on them and make sure they weren't doing anything bad, but I'm pretty sure he could have just bookmarked their page instead of "liking" it. "Likes" are a valuable commodity for advertisers, and I'm sure extremist groups use them as a gauge to determine how much support they have.



Misery
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,217

06 Jan 2015, 10:58 pm

Protogenoi wrote:
Or are their words meaningless to you? Maybe because they are doing something you don't like they and therefore shouldn't be considered human at all and and therefore also none of their words must be nothing more than evil lies.

And therefore also there must be no redeeming points to anything they make


This, pretty much exactly, though not for the reasons you're thinking (and probably phrased alot differently; I'm hardly going to call them "not human" or something, I'll call them "asshats" instead).

EVERYTHING these guys say at this point should be considered, by default, to be a lie, unless they directly show proof. And then multiple people need to CHECK that proof to make sure it's real. Yes, I mean this. Why? Because it's already been proven all over the freaking place, over and over again, that these dolts will say "controversial" stuff *just* to get themselves noticed, and thus get their GAME noticed. And that stuff does NOT need to be true. Truth is irrelevant; it matters only that it gains them more traction.

Like I've already said: as publishing/advertising practices go, this is a ***NASTY*** group. Even EA typically doesnt pull crap like this. Even good ol' Bobby Kotick probably wouldnt do some of the tactics these guys are using. Consider those things for a moment.


mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
I still don't get why one of the development team members "liked" a page for a far-right group on Facebook then. He says he wanted to keep an eye on them and make sure they weren't doing anything bad, but I'm pretty sure he could have just bookmarked their page instead of "liking" it. "Likes" are a valuable commodity for advertisers, and I'm sure extremist groups use them as a gauge to determine how much support they have.


It's simply because it creates controversy and thus keeps them in the news, as soon as people notice that they have put a like in a place like that.

Dont get me wrong: Maybe they genuinely DO like it. But I'm more willing to bet it was misdirection.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

06 Jan 2015, 11:43 pm

Misery wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
Or are their words meaningless to you? Maybe because they are doing something you don't like they and therefore shouldn't be considered human at all and and therefore also none of their words must be nothing more than evil lies.

And therefore also there must be no redeeming points to anything they make


This, pretty much exactly, though not for the reasons you're thinking (and probably phrased alot differently; I'm hardly going to call them "not human" or something, I'll call them "asshats" instead).

EVERYTHING these guys say at this point should be considered, by default, to be a lie, unless they directly show proof. And then multiple people need to CHECK that proof to make sure it's real. Yes, I mean this. Why? Because it's already been proven all over the freaking place, over and over again, that these dolts will say "controversial" stuff *just* to get themselves noticed, and thus get their GAME noticed. And that stuff does NOT need to be true. Truth is irrelevant; it matters only that it gains them more traction.

Like I've already said: as publishing/advertising practices go, this is a ***NASTY*** group. Even EA typically doesnt pull crap like this. Even good ol' Bobby Kotick probably wouldnt do some of the tactics these guys are using. Consider those things for a moment.


mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
I still don't get why one of the development team members "liked" a page for a far-right group on Facebook then. He says he wanted to keep an eye on them and make sure they weren't doing anything bad, but I'm pretty sure he could have just bookmarked their page instead of "liking" it. "Likes" are a valuable commodity for advertisers, and I'm sure extremist groups use them as a gauge to determine how much support they have.


It's simply because it creates controversy and thus keeps them in the news, as soon as people notice that they have put a like in a place like that.

Dont get me wrong: Maybe they genuinely DO like it. But I'm more willing to bet it was misdirection.


Hmm... Let's see if I can explain myself better on that...
...
It is still highly unlikely that they are neonazis, which was my point. I'm fully aware that they are creating controversy as a marketing ploy, but marketing doesn't make them neonazis or fascist or totalitarian in any way, it just makes them assholes.
Theses guys are surrealists at best, unethical capitalists at worst.
(Surrealism and viewing mass murder as art actually do go hand in hand. Andre Breton confirmed in his Surrealist Manifesto (1924) that senseless killing would be the purest surrealist act, specifically “The purest surrealist act is walking into a crowd with a loaded gun and firing into it randomly” )
I believe that the developers are surrealists, especially since they claim to be using the game to prove that "video games aren't art" which does seem to be a lie as the game is filled to the brim with artistic surrealist style symbolism.

But still, they aren't neonazi's or fascists. And we can't immediately assume that everything they say is a lie without examining it. These guys are telling halftruths. They wouldn't like a neonazi page if it could be proven that they actual support it as it would immediately cause them to be brushed off. In order to keep spreading rumors they have to strategically separate themself from their own ideology and hint at others.

To create controversy you need both a falsity and a truth. Truth is always incredibly relevant when coming up with lies. A lie is effective when based in truth, the problem is weeding out between the fiction and truth. At the point you consider everything they say to be a lie, you are dehumanizing them.


And no, using controversy as a marketing ploy does not necessitate that their work will be crappy.
As examples:
Elvis - went out and created controversy as a marketing ploy, right from the beginning with being signed by an R&B label, and then later with the waist gyration.
Rolling Stones - Used controversy as a marketing ploy
Voltaire - was incredibly controversial and knew that and used it to sell his work
Andre Breton and all his followers thrive off of some of the nastiest controversy, at least back then as the surrealist movement has gone far away from their roots in recent years... And yes, Surrealist artists have always clung to some of the nastiest controversies to market themselves.
And there are plenty of other examples.

In fact, if they do produce a bad game, then they will severely lose the hype and that will ruin them for good. It may even make it hard for them to continue in the industry if they fail to live up their work.
This gives them incredible motivation to deliver.

As a side note, these guys don't believe in making you pay for DLCs. They claim that all DLC's released will be free. If they turn back on this, there will be a significant blow to their fanbase. Additonally, this statement does show that they know that they have to deliver at extreme loss to themselves.
It's a simple Nash Equilibrium, Game Theory Economics 101. Game Theory is a major part of my special interest into games in general. I know my economics.
Game Theory is in my opinion the best way for separating lies from truth by looking at motivation(especially profit, if these guys are in it for quick money than Game Theory applies very easily, and we all know that they're marketing strategy does seem to support this.)
If they don't follow the strategy I have stated then they either have other motivations or are simply stupid or irrational. Time will tell.

Of course, I wouldn't expect the game to get good reviews from many major reviewers... especially IGN. However, that doesn't matter much as long as it satisfies the clients. If the clients give it good reviews than they have succeeded with their marketing scheme.

Also I've already released a short Christmas themed parody of Hatred that I might share sometime... which is also somewhat incredibly disturbing in content, but is free.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,299

06 Jan 2015, 11:52 pm

Redstar2613 wrote:
When we have games, things that are made for entertainment, that are literally just about killing innocent people because you hate them all, there is something incredibly wrong with the world.
...
I just saw a gamespot article about this game. I'd never heard of it before and I kinda wish I never did. This game is exactly why people say video games cause violence. It has been referred to as a Columbine simulator.
People say "there's already violent video games like Grand Theft Auto, whats the difference?"
In other violent games like Grand Theft Auto, you can go around killing innocent civilians but thats not the point of the game. Hatred is literally just about killing innocent people because you hate everyone. You prepare, put on a trenchcoat, then go slaughtering and then it seems you either just see how long you can last, or kill yourself after killing everyone. It really does feel like they want to put you in the shoes of a f*****g psychopath and that they're glorifying the murder of hundreds of innocent people.

But so many people are defending it. Bringing up their freedoms (while simultaneously allowing the Government to take real freedoms away) "no, dont take away out freedom to virtually slaughter people, but by all means, don't allow us privacy or justice system that actually works". Ugh...
Obviously, playing any violent video game isn't going to make someone go out and start killing people.
But when a game focuses solely on murdering innocent people specifically because the main character hates the world (which a lot of people can relate to in some way), allowing people to live out their dark fantasy, it's putting a fun spin on something horrible, glorifying it and desensitizing the player.

How can people not see that this is a really, really bad thing? I used to be all for games letting you play the game bad, movies focusing on the bad guys more and making them more likeable. But this is getting way out of hand.


That's probably what people said about chess when it was first invented. Which, as you may realize, is a game of war. The only difference is how realistically the pieces are made. I think it's a good thing to put it out in the open, not hide it behind a veneer of civility. Chess is violence, Hatred is violence, humans are violent. I wish we weren't, but there it is.



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

06 Jan 2015, 11:59 pm

AspE wrote:
Redstar2613 wrote:
When we have games, things that are made for entertainment, that are literally just about killing innocent people because you hate them all, there is something incredibly wrong with the world.
...
I just saw a gamespot article about this game. I'd never heard of it before and I kinda wish I never did. This game is exactly why people say video games cause violence. It has been referred to as a Columbine simulator.
People say "there's already violent video games like Grand Theft Auto, whats the difference?"
In other violent games like Grand Theft Auto, you can go around killing innocent civilians but thats not the point of the game. Hatred is literally just about killing innocent people because you hate everyone. You prepare, put on a trenchcoat, then go slaughtering and then it seems you either just see how long you can last, or kill yourself after killing everyone. It really does feel like they want to put you in the shoes of a f*****g psychopath and that they're glorifying the murder of hundreds of innocent people.

But so many people are defending it. Bringing up their freedoms (while simultaneously allowing the Government to take real freedoms away) "no, dont take away out freedom to virtually slaughter people, but by all means, don't allow us privacy or justice system that actually works". Ugh...
Obviously, playing any violent video game isn't going to make someone go out and start killing people.
But when a game focuses solely on murdering innocent people specifically because the main character hates the world (which a lot of people can relate to in some way), allowing people to live out their dark fantasy, it's putting a fun spin on something horrible, glorifying it and desensitizing the player.

How can people not see that this is a really, really bad thing? I used to be all for games letting you play the game bad, movies focusing on the bad guys more and making them more likeable. But this is getting way out of hand.


That's probably what people said about chess when it was first invented. Which, as you may realize, is a game of war. The only difference is how realistically the pieces are made. I think it's a good thing to put it out in the open, not hide it behind a veneer of civility. Chess is violence, Hatred is violence, humans are violent. I wish we weren't, but there it is.


Chess was more than a game of war. It was a war simulator in a way. It was used to train nobility in war strategy.
And at least Hatred throws the violence it into our face. Killing is killing regardless of sides or ideology. Perhaps it can be rationalized away, but violence can rarely be justified. Whenever an act of violence occurs, at least one side is at fault and often both sides have blood on their hands already. All that is almost ever really ever done is rationalization.
Hatred presents us with violence that can not be rationalized and asks us to just deal with it. It's horrible, but only because of perspective.
meh... i think I should explain this better.


_________________
Now take a trip with me but don't be surprised when things aren't what they seem. I've known it from the start all these good ideas will tear your brain apart. Scared, but you can follow me. I'm too weird to live but much too rare to die. - a7x


Misery
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,217

07 Jan 2015, 9:13 am

Regardless of any of that, my views on this remain pretty much the same:

1. They are using "controversy" to cover up a lack of actual design skills... just looking at the gameplay tells me this. The one and only thing that makes the game stand out among other exceedingly generic games of that type is the horrible "brutal pointless murder of innocent person" scene that sometimes happens before a kill. Otherwise... very generic. And again, I say this as someone who has played that sort of game (overhead shooter) to absolute freaking death. Even if the awful themes were entirely removed, there would STILL not be enough here to even come close to convincing me that this was going to be much good.

2. Yes, I know the devs are telling "half truths". That's part of my point, and part of why I take everything they say as a possible lie. I suppose I shouldnt say "assume everything they say is a lie", but should instead say "dont trust anything they say", because it could be true, but it could be a lie, and they'll do what they can to make it hard to spot (and most people wont even LOOK).

3. Wether they're neo-whatsits or surreal somethings or whatever really, REALLY doesnt matter. At all. Not one bit. What matters is that they give some sort of vague POSSIBLE suggestion maybe sort of in the direction of stuff like that. Because people will latch onto it so very easily, and this gets them talking, and the more talk there is, the more publicity there is. And that sort of tactic is the thing I am so very against. I couldnt care less about the personal lives of these people, frankly. What I care about is the nasty business practices they're using to sell something, in place of, you know, just making an obviously good game.

4. They dont NEED to produce a good game at this point. That's part of what they're up to: People now will buy the game REGARDLESS of what they think of it. They'll buy it because it'll make them appear "edgy". They'll buy it because it's "sticking it to the MAN!!!111". They'll buy it because it goes against the negativity the media hits it with. And of course, they'll buy it because others are. These are all fantastically stupid reasons to buy a game. But THIS game's advertising campaign is ENTIRELY focused squarely on making these things happen. And coming up with a campaign like that is alot less costly than having to focus on making a true, quality game. Game design is EXPENSIVE, and I sure as heck dont mean just graphics. Using Twitter to drum up sales by looking like controversial jerks is not.

5. The DLC comment from them doesnt surprise me. As I said above though... I wouldnt trust it any further than you could throw the planet Jupiter. Frankly, I'd trust bloody Activision before I'd trust the word of these guys at this point.


One way or another, this is still all sorts of stupid to me, and I'm genuinely hoping that one way or another, the game bombs, or somehow knocks these guys out of business later on. Normally I'd never say something like that... well, maybe... but THIS time, I will.

For the most part I intend on just ignoring the damn thing and have pretty much lost interest in following it much. There's other, more interesting things going on currently that have caught my attention. Which is probably for the best.