In fairness, it's more enjoyable than some of the infuriatingly hard levels on there, though that may be in part because I love the concept, and it's not just ALL THWOMPS ALL THE TIME like some levels I've seen. I hate music blocks, though - music blocks and springs are the bane of my Mario Maker existence, they're over-relied upon and rely too much on timed jumps and chance, and fuck that noise. As much as I love that the whole point of Mario Maker is subverting what you expect from a Mario game - this question mark block must have a helpful power-up, oh wait, no it's a Boo - a lot of level designers really need to take a step back and see what makes Mario work in the first place. For me, the strength of Mario is that it never feels cheap, it always feels like if you fail it's your own fault, not a fault of the game or the level design. Too many Mario Maker levels have stuff like Thwomps falling you on the second the level starts, or blind leaps of faith - things that you basically need to get killed by first time round to learn from, and that's the antithesis of what makes Mario great.
I shall do it in the near future - currently I'm only playing on the present Mrs. Skummy's account, and have only uploaded one level, which is more or less just testing out the underwater palette. When I get the chance to play around more, I'll share level codes and whatnot.
For what it's worth, for me - and maybe this is me extrapolating beyond the known facts, admittedly - they only contacted him in the last 24 hours, about an article they'd been working on for weeks. The fact that they didn't consult him, or anyone else in a position to provide a counterpoint to the claims made by their anonymous sources, to me suggests that they had always envisioned the piece as a critical attack on him and his company and only at the last minute realised that, to abide by their own ethics policy, they would need to consult someone else. The fact that they approached him so late in the process, to me, speaks volumes about their intent.
Did I ever say it was the "definitive article"? No. What I did say is that there's nothing unethical about conducting an interview with the CEO of a company. You disagreeing with his points or motivation doesn't make the article "unethical". You want to talk ethics? They didn't contact Roberts, or anyone else at CIG, for comment or verification while researching this - not looking into the other side of the story makes it seem a lot more like the "attack piece" you're insisting it can't possibly be - and only contacted Roberts once the article was written, then conveniently lost his response that arrived before deadline, so the article was published with no opposite view - the exact thing you seem to find Kotaku's interview reprehensible for, with considerably less justification. In three weeks, they could have approached anyone at CIG to provide a rebuttal to any of these points and they didn't, they were happy to take anonymous sources at face value and publish them as fact. Is it only a problem that an article's biased and one-sided when you disagree with it, then?
But you're claiming it's "unethical" in some way? They conducted an interview. When I worked in journalism, I conducted countless interviews - if someone I interviewed said something that contradicted someone else's point, I was never criticised for not having also interviewed that person, because that wasn't the remit of the article. Ethics have nothing to do with it. If you're going to talk ethics, reporting on anonymous sources as fact is far more dubious than an entirely above-board interview with one man.
Again, agree or disagree with the content of either article, your point is that the Kotaku interview is "unethical", and "propaganda", which is just absurd.
How is that Kotaku article "apologist propaganda" or anything remotely resembling an ethics issue? Is it propaganda because it disagrees with the other article? Who gets to choose which one of those is "propaganda" and which is the truth? The Kotaku article, the way I see it, as someone with only a passing interest in Star Citizen as a product, explains a lot of people's concerns - not just about this game, but about crowd-funding in general. The Escapist piece, the one you're claiming is an unbiased report, reads like a tabloid hit piece. Maybe one is right and one is wrong, maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but it's hardly an ethics issue that different websites have different opinions of an issue.
Not to mention that Redditors have dug up an article from two years ago - because, as we all know, the greatest sin on the internet is change your mind or develop your opinions over time, and anything you said at any point in the past can be used against you in the present devoid of context - that, conveniently, is all about a video game studio accused of sexism so that, when it comes to motivating the GamerGate crowd, you can paint "the enemy" as a bunch of feminazi SJWs trying to TAKE OUR GAMEZ, with just a sprinkling of "oh right, yeah, ethics in whatever" over the top when you remember that's what it's all supposed to be about.
It felt really disjointed to me; had some nice ideas, then spent forever skirting around them, then BETTER FLOOD THE BASE FOR INSTANT PERIL. Not a great episode at all, just seemed to flit around too much, suggesting one thing then leaving it well alone for a while. It did a good job of the whole "never be sure if you're watching a two-parter or not" thing, though.
I'm sorry Joe - it always hurts, and never gets better, but at least you know deep down that it was the right thing to do. It's no way to live. Just think of the life you were able to give her while you could.
As for my pets...
Jodie does not like the Cone of Shame She's just had surgery on one eye that should hopefully fix at least one of her many, many health problems, but in the meantime she may end up having to wear an eyepatch - which is simultaneously sad and downright fucking adorable. I love this pup.