Thread:Channeleven/@comment-30161214-20180306213144/@comment-26284408-20180306215137

"Super Oppressed People is still there because an intentionally bad game is still a bad game."

That just doesn't feel right. Wouldn't making an article based on an intentionally bad game be redundant? I'd understand if the creator intended for people to dog on the game and they could joke about it at its expence, but the game was meant to give players an idea on how radical SJWs intend to portray gaming. It's over the top, but kinda the purpose for a game of such nature.

"There isn't a page about Miyamoto's fuck-ups because it's completely unnecessary. They belong to the bad qualities in his Awesome Games article."

Okay, that's well and good, but why haven't they been put there yet? I, in a way, brought this up when I made an article discussing the fuck-ups and since then not a single tidbit was included on Miyamoto's AGW article.

"Anything else you'd like to state?"

For now, all I could say is that you guys could've handled this a bit better, mostly the likes of MagnumFederal2 who's taking this further than necessary (to the point I wonder if he's taking any of this seriously.)