In general do you always want to take the training mini-games? The 100 gold cost seems to prevent me making money to actually press forwards.
Training only serves to allow some ponies to work harder more lucrative jobs. Your goal isn't to train them all up, just enough to get good money from your buildings.
0
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
+4
gavindelThe reason all your softwareis brokenRegistered Userregular
So yeah, I'm actually like, long time friends with the feminist writer who did that ridiculous bullshit piece on Slate the other day. The one that suggested that Equestria Girls was a response from Hasbro to the demands of Bronies who wanted it because of a sexual fetish.
I.... responded to her on Facebook.
...
...
GUYS WHY DID I DO THAT
0
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
Oh dear. I haven't read the Slate piece - Is she, like most folk trying to blame EG on the bronies, one of those people who claim to be a feminist but has none the less spent the last three years ignoring a high-quality cartoon aimed at a primarily female target audience with lots of positive non-sexist messages on the grounds that it's covered in icky boy cooties, uurgh yuck?
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
0
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
So yeah, I'm actually like, long time friends with the feminist writer who did that ridiculous bullshit piece on Slate the other day. The one that suggested that Equestria Girls was a response from Hasbro to the demands of Bronies who wanted it because of a sexual fetish.
I.... responded to her on Facebook.
...
...
GUYS WHY DID I DO THAT
Because you cared enough that she didn't continue to make the wrong assumption?
So yeah, I'm actually like, long time friends with the feminist writer who did that ridiculous bullshit piece on Slate the other day. The one that suggested that Equestria Girls was a response from Hasbro to the demands of Bronies who wanted it because of a sexual fetish.
Anyway, that Slate piece is dumb. Really, this whole notion that Hasbro is actually trying to appeal to bronies' sexual fetishes is unbelievably stupid. This is the same company that censored Derpy because one too many soccer moms complained, do these people seriously think that Hasbro would willingly suffer the wrath of soccor moms, moral crusaders, and faux news just to give fap material to some neckbeards on the internet? Especially when those very neckbeards have been extremely efficient at producing fap material for themselves?
See also: The Shortpacked a couple of posts above this one.
Lavok on
0
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
Just curious, has she responded to you yet Elk? And can she rationaly debate her beliefs?
Yes, and, I guess what I can only conclude at this point no. Spoilered for long wall of text.
So the writer linked to her Slate piece on FB with the clickbait line: "Is Hasbro abandoning little girls to sell My Little Pony directly to adult men?"
I know it's hard to say convincingly, but it wasn't even about this stupid cartoon show to me. It was about how this was a person I knew, who has significant influence on issues that are so goddamned more important that a fucking children's cartoon, looking like a goddamn idiot because of this article. The best way I could describe it, I guess... okay, you know how on King of the Hill, when they made fake feminist characters that were meant to be caricatures of what the most extreme over the top feminist advocate sounds like to a conservative? That's what she sounded like here.
So this is what I wrote:
"Is Hasbro abandoning little girls to sell My Little Pony directly to adult men?"
This question could have been answered with five minutes of actual research: no.
Let's put aside the faulty argument that the adult fanbase of the show is actually happy about Equestria Girls (I've sure I can cherry pick comments as well as you can).
Hasbro isn't abandoning MLP at all; it's one of their top selling products and a simple email or tweet to Megan McCarthy (the head writer for the show and for the Equestria Girls movie) would have been happy to point out the original show remains in production for the fourth season.
The remainder of that five minutes would have turned up press releases about the rising success of the "Monster High" fashion doll line, which is quickly becoming Mattel's most successful product, and how Hasbro somehow felt that maybe there would be a profit is likewise making a line of fashion dolls of girls with magical origins and rainbow varieties of skin tone.
I find it astounding at how easy you could have found this out, and perhaps noticed the conclusion that a large toy company decided to make a competing product to a rival toy, and instead reached the conclusion, based on a really offensive bias and some self-enjoyable nutpicking, that instead this is the whim of a large corporation catering to perverts.
We've been what I consider friends or at the very least respectful acquaintances for nearly ten years, Amanda, and you're aware I hope of my involvement and interests in the cartoon industry as well as the subjects I fully concede to your expertise on. So while it's your prerogative to dismiss this as you're doing on Twitter as "Brony whining" (let's face it, it sure as shit is easy to do that), I hope you'll at least consider that maybe people are angry because you wrote a poorly researched piece with a completely invalid premise and think that's okay because you can respond to that by laughing at the worst extremes of its fanbase. I imagine yes, you have many "whining" Bronies angry at you. Frankly, I'm just disappointed because I know for a fact you've done much, much better than this.
I got this response a few hours later.
I give exactly zero credence to geeks loudly complaining that a new iteration of a beloved product "ruins" it. Wait until it comes out and then see. I bet Hasbro knows them better than themselves. But even if Hasbro gambled incorrectly, doesn't mean that wasn't their motivations. It's not fair to call it "nut-picking" of Bronies who are, kind of by definiton, nuts. I'm skeptical of claims that it's only a small percentage who have sexualized interest in the product. I don't actually have a problem with that---to each their own---and find the people overreacting to be classic doth protest too much types.
A lot of this is in context of her Twitter responses too, which aren't even worth getting into, but again, this was when I made the huge rookie internet mistake of actually getting angry. This is trolling. There's no other way to describe it because to be so proud of deliberately being ignorant about something just to feel like you won an argument with complete strangers.
So I wrote her back again, and at this point I haven't gotten a response. I don't know if I will, but I'm sure if I do it will be a pithy response like the last one effectively claiming "I'm right because you're a freak." So, bravo to that. But because I'm an idiot who stupidly believes you gain moral victories by yelling at a brick wall, I made the only effort I could to point out that, at the very least, people with intelligence were aware that she had her head up her ass.
Amanda, I'm sorry but this is absurd. There's nothing that will prove your theory about their "motivations;" your suggestion about Hasbro's motivations is wrong and you're actively ignoring and/or mocking the people trying to tell you this. And for the life of me I don't understand why.
As I noted in my previous comment, and you completely ignored, Equestria Girls is about competing with Mattel's Monster High doll line. You either don't know what that is, or must have consciously avoided it when writing your article (you did mention two other toy lines but not this despite MULTIPLE articles that are saying exactly what I'm about to say here) because it proves what this is all about- and it's certainly not about appealing to a straw man army of perverts. Anyone who takes one look at these toys knows EXACTLY what Hasbro's motivation is:
Mattel makes an annoyingly successful doll line of teenage monster/animal girls with multicolored skin, big boots and fashion accessories to sell to the tween market. Hasbro, for some strange reason, felt like they enjoy making money too, and launched a competing product. This was by and large of great consternation to MLP fans, including "Bronies," because they embraced the show for being something BEYOND a girly toy line. But of course someone actually TOLD you that and- I'm getting ahead of myself.
So as I've learned from your article, there's actual TWO equally logical and factually-based theories here. Hasbro, whom as someone recently noted, "knows better than we do" about their own products, could be making a toy based on marketing evidence of a competitor's product. Either that, or, per your thesis, Hasbro is clearly just doing this for all that sweet, sweet sex-fetishist money-- a conclusion reached via your personal analysis of adult fans and producers of the show and toy line, derived from, apparently, communicating with none of them whatsoever when writing an article about them.
And honestly, I don't even know where to go with that. Despite them highlighting that you know little to nothing about the show or the fanbase you wrote an article about, your response to people who actually watch the show and are part of the mainstream fan community is to say you "give them zero credence?" You can be a journalist or you can have a preconceived bias you're determined to embrace to make sure the narrative fits it, but you can't have both. You're "skeptical of claims that it's only a small percentage who have sexualized interest?" Jesus CHRIST. That's what right-wing bigots say about Boy Scout leaders. You should know better than this. When someone tweeted (with links to popular fan sites) that the adult fanbase's overall response to Equestria Girls was NEGATIVE, you literally said you "don't take it seriously." And then here, you handwave it by saying that the fanbase has a psychological problem. Be sure to remember that the next time Rush Limbaugh gets away with ignoring a feminist argument because they're "all just hysterical."
You wrote an entire article about the fan base of a show without apparently talking to the fan base of the show, and when corrected by the actual fan base of the show, you said they're wrong because they don't fit your description of them, which is based on whatever makes your article valid. And as I just noted, your article isn't valid. At all. It's just wrong. And it's incredibly frustrating to see how you've responded to it by using some of the most famously unfair and unethical practices of your own detractors on issues of far greater concern than this.
And honestly, the last sentence explains why I'm so raw about this. She writes about workplace harassment. She highlights children being raped and sex slavery in South Asia. She's gotten justice for domestic abuse victims. And for some reason she got bored one morning and decided that "guys who watch a pony show are perverts" was a good bandwagon to jump on. And when pretty much the entire internet pointed out the flaws in her argument, she literally "doesn't take them seriously." Christ.
She spent yesterday praising Patton Oswalt for talking openly about his views being changed on rape jokes. She can't process that she shit the bed talking about a children's cartoon. It's hard to process that with someone I actually thought I knew and I feel sad that I'm going to be incapable of taking her seriously about serious things now because of how much of an ignorant ass she sounded of a thing of so little goddamn significance.
So as I've learned from your article, there's actual TWO equally logical and factually-based theories here. Hasbro, whom as someone recently noted, "knows better than we do" about their own products, could be making a toy based on marketing evidence of a competitor's product. Either that, or, per your thesis, Hasbro is clearly just doing this for all that sweet, sweet sex-fetishist money-- a conclusion reached via your personal analysis of adult fans and producers of the show and toy line, derived from, apparently, communicating with none of them whatsoever when writing an article about them.
You're absolutely right in your point. Hasbro is doing this to make money, anyone who has a vague idea of what the word economics means should know that. She seems to understand that, but then she just draws in this attention grabbing sexual fetishist garbage. It's so pants on head she has to be trolling, or writing for Kotaku (or both I suppose). If anything switching to pastel colored people is gonna give them less money from the creepy adult audience, cause last I checked furries/"cloppers" don't give a damn about humans.
There's probably no need to be antagonistic about it. Her claim is laughable enough to just laugh, and assert that the dolls don't really match adult standards of sexiness (or anything else, really) at all. There's no way they're intended for us.
If Hasbro were catering to the brony crown to a significant degree you'd probably see more Luna and Celestia mythology/arcs. Which would be rad.
EDIT: Also neither of you have accepted my Gameloft invite apparently and my Applejack questline wont advance for me, do I have to do the gifting/find Derpy quests?
They tried to cater to the Bronies. Derpy cameo every episode and a special Derpy scene! Then they forgot to explain the gender to the VA and everything fell to pieces.
OK oddly enough EQ is coming out tomorrow? On a Sunday?
Dodged a bullet thinking it was coming out today. Had to step out of the house for a while and I contemplated on seeing it.
Moviefone set me straight though. Apparently set tomorrow straight too since there is no showtimes listed at my theater that has it listed for showing.
If Hasbro were catering to the brony crown to a significant degree you'd probably see more Luna and Celestia mythology/arcs. Which would be rad.
EDIT: Also neither of you have accepted my Gameloft invite apparently and my Applejack questline wont advance for me, do I have to do the gifting/find Derpy quests?
Your friend request isn't coming up for me (I've been checking, but the Gameloft connection is finiky at best). And yeah, the quests you kinda have to do. Since Derpy is kinda random, and it's only 1 gem to skip (same with the gifting stuff) and you can make 2 gems a day (or 4 if you're lucky) you should be fine.
Here's what you gotta do for Gameloft friends. Install their 3D client (it has a better interface for this), find someone with a lot of friends (my account is a decent example assuming you can find it, should be under Ruldar or possibly djthomp), and go down their friends list friending everyone on it.
After a few passes at this, you will end up with so many friends sending in hearts you will have more in your inbox then you know what to do with. It caps at 500, or at least it did 6 months ago when I was still playing.
You know, it's a shame that no US company ever made a deal with the Pinky:st people and make some dolls in that style-
'Cause goddamit, Pinky:st figures are so goddamned awesome and adorable . I have quite a few of them myself, though I don't really buy them anymore due to funds and a fear of my cats trying to eat the parts...
EDIT- Though, at least pinky:st custom makers are out there-
Posts
Training only serves to allow some ponies to work harder more lucrative jobs. Your goal isn't to train them all up, just enough to get good money from your buildings.
I fucked up. I fucked up REAL bad
So yeah, I'm actually like, long time friends with the feminist writer who did that ridiculous bullshit piece on Slate the other day. The one that suggested that Equestria Girls was a response from Hasbro to the demands of Bronies who wanted it because of a sexual fetish.
I.... responded to her on Facebook.
...
...
GUYS WHY DID I DO THAT
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
Because you cared enough that she didn't continue to make the wrong assumption?
Then after the trailers they started calming down.
It looks like they've settled on the final apperance for the EG dolls and packaging. Possibly anyway.
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
Anyway, that Slate piece is dumb. Really, this whole notion that Hasbro is actually trying to appeal to bronies' sexual fetishes is unbelievably stupid. This is the same company that censored Derpy because one too many soccer moms complained, do these people seriously think that Hasbro would willingly suffer the wrath of soccor moms, moral crusaders, and faux news just to give fap material to some neckbeards on the internet? Especially when those very neckbeards have been extremely efficient at producing fap material for themselves?
See also: The Shortpacked a couple of posts above this one.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
God Bless Singstar.
Yes, and, I guess what I can only conclude at this point no. Spoilered for long wall of text.
So the writer linked to her Slate piece on FB with the clickbait line: "Is Hasbro abandoning little girls to sell My Little Pony directly to adult men?"
I know it's hard to say convincingly, but it wasn't even about this stupid cartoon show to me. It was about how this was a person I knew, who has significant influence on issues that are so goddamned more important that a fucking children's cartoon, looking like a goddamn idiot because of this article. The best way I could describe it, I guess... okay, you know how on King of the Hill, when they made fake feminist characters that were meant to be caricatures of what the most extreme over the top feminist advocate sounds like to a conservative? That's what she sounded like here.
So this is what I wrote:
This question could have been answered with five minutes of actual research: no.
Let's put aside the faulty argument that the adult fanbase of the show is actually happy about Equestria Girls (I've sure I can cherry pick comments as well as you can).
Hasbro isn't abandoning MLP at all; it's one of their top selling products and a simple email or tweet to Megan McCarthy (the head writer for the show and for the Equestria Girls movie) would have been happy to point out the original show remains in production for the fourth season.
The remainder of that five minutes would have turned up press releases about the rising success of the "Monster High" fashion doll line, which is quickly becoming Mattel's most successful product, and how Hasbro somehow felt that maybe there would be a profit is likewise making a line of fashion dolls of girls with magical origins and rainbow varieties of skin tone.
I find it astounding at how easy you could have found this out, and perhaps noticed the conclusion that a large toy company decided to make a competing product to a rival toy, and instead reached the conclusion, based on a really offensive bias and some self-enjoyable nutpicking, that instead this is the whim of a large corporation catering to perverts.
We've been what I consider friends or at the very least respectful acquaintances for nearly ten years, Amanda, and you're aware I hope of my involvement and interests in the cartoon industry as well as the subjects I fully concede to your expertise on. So while it's your prerogative to dismiss this as you're doing on Twitter as "Brony whining" (let's face it, it sure as shit is easy to do that), I hope you'll at least consider that maybe people are angry because you wrote a poorly researched piece with a completely invalid premise and think that's okay because you can respond to that by laughing at the worst extremes of its fanbase. I imagine yes, you have many "whining" Bronies angry at you. Frankly, I'm just disappointed because I know for a fact you've done much, much better than this.
I got this response a few hours later.
A lot of this is in context of her Twitter responses too, which aren't even worth getting into, but again, this was when I made the huge rookie internet mistake of actually getting angry. This is trolling. There's no other way to describe it because to be so proud of deliberately being ignorant about something just to feel like you won an argument with complete strangers.
So I wrote her back again, and at this point I haven't gotten a response. I don't know if I will, but I'm sure if I do it will be a pithy response like the last one effectively claiming "I'm right because you're a freak." So, bravo to that. But because I'm an idiot who stupidly believes you gain moral victories by yelling at a brick wall, I made the only effort I could to point out that, at the very least, people with intelligence were aware that she had her head up her ass.
As I noted in my previous comment, and you completely ignored, Equestria Girls is about competing with Mattel's Monster High doll line. You either don't know what that is, or must have consciously avoided it when writing your article (you did mention two other toy lines but not this despite MULTIPLE articles that are saying exactly what I'm about to say here) because it proves what this is all about- and it's certainly not about appealing to a straw man army of perverts. Anyone who takes one look at these toys knows EXACTLY what Hasbro's motivation is:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/17/business/la-fi-mo-mattel-earnings-20130417
Mattel makes an annoyingly successful doll line of teenage monster/animal girls with multicolored skin, big boots and fashion accessories to sell to the tween market. Hasbro, for some strange reason, felt like they enjoy making money too, and launched a competing product. This was by and large of great consternation to MLP fans, including "Bronies," because they embraced the show for being something BEYOND a girly toy line. But of course someone actually TOLD you that and- I'm getting ahead of myself.
So as I've learned from your article, there's actual TWO equally logical and factually-based theories here. Hasbro, whom as someone recently noted, "knows better than we do" about their own products, could be making a toy based on marketing evidence of a competitor's product. Either that, or, per your thesis, Hasbro is clearly just doing this for all that sweet, sweet sex-fetishist money-- a conclusion reached via your personal analysis of adult fans and producers of the show and toy line, derived from, apparently, communicating with none of them whatsoever when writing an article about them.
And honestly, I don't even know where to go with that. Despite them highlighting that you know little to nothing about the show or the fanbase you wrote an article about, your response to people who actually watch the show and are part of the mainstream fan community is to say you "give them zero credence?" You can be a journalist or you can have a preconceived bias you're determined to embrace to make sure the narrative fits it, but you can't have both. You're "skeptical of claims that it's only a small percentage who have sexualized interest?" Jesus CHRIST. That's what right-wing bigots say about Boy Scout leaders. You should know better than this. When someone tweeted (with links to popular fan sites) that the adult fanbase's overall response to Equestria Girls was NEGATIVE, you literally said you "don't take it seriously." And then here, you handwave it by saying that the fanbase has a psychological problem. Be sure to remember that the next time Rush Limbaugh gets away with ignoring a feminist argument because they're "all just hysterical."
You wrote an entire article about the fan base of a show without apparently talking to the fan base of the show, and when corrected by the actual fan base of the show, you said they're wrong because they don't fit your description of them, which is based on whatever makes your article valid. And as I just noted, your article isn't valid. At all. It's just wrong. And it's incredibly frustrating to see how you've responded to it by using some of the most famously unfair and unethical practices of your own detractors on issues of far greater concern than this.
And honestly, the last sentence explains why I'm so raw about this. She writes about workplace harassment. She highlights children being raped and sex slavery in South Asia. She's gotten justice for domestic abuse victims. And for some reason she got bored one morning and decided that "guys who watch a pony show are perverts" was a good bandwagon to jump on. And when pretty much the entire internet pointed out the flaws in her argument, she literally "doesn't take them seriously." Christ.
She spent yesterday praising Patton Oswalt for talking openly about his views being changed on rape jokes. She can't process that she shit the bed talking about a children's cartoon. It's hard to process that with someone I actually thought I knew and I feel sad that I'm going to be incapable of taking her seriously about serious things now because of how much of an ignorant ass she sounded of a thing of so little goddamn significance.
You're absolutely right in your point. Hasbro is doing this to make money, anyone who has a vague idea of what the word economics means should know that. She seems to understand that, but then she just draws in this attention grabbing sexual fetishist garbage. It's so pants on head she has to be trolling, or writing for Kotaku (or both I suppose). If anything switching to pastel colored people is gonna give them less money from the creepy adult audience, cause last I checked furries/"cloppers" don't give a damn about humans.
EDIT: Also neither of you have accepted my Gameloft invite apparently and my Applejack questline wont advance for me, do I have to do the gifting/find Derpy quests?
Nice, I tried to do something similar a long time ago...
Dodged a bullet thinking it was coming out today. Had to step out of the house for a while and I contemplated on seeing it.
Moviefone set me straight though. Apparently set tomorrow straight too since there is no showtimes listed at my theater that has it listed for showing.
Those stickers don't look that collectable to me.
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
...is that a yes?
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)
Your friend request isn't coming up for me (I've been checking, but the Gameloft connection is finiky at best). And yeah, the quests you kinda have to do. Since Derpy is kinda random, and it's only 1 gem to skip (same with the gifting stuff) and you can make 2 gems a day (or 4 if you're lucky) you should be fine.
After a few passes at this, you will end up with so many friends sending in hearts you will have more in your inbox then you know what to do with. It caps at 500, or at least it did 6 months ago when I was still playing.
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
Oh your an alicorn now that's greeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.
Edit: Gah, I refreshed the thread but apparently it didn't refresh. That happens way too often >.<
Heh at least you have an alibi.
You know, it's a shame that no US company ever made a deal with the Pinky:st people and make some dolls in that style-
'Cause goddamit, Pinky:st figures are so goddamned awesome and adorable . I have quite a few of them myself, though I don't really buy them anymore due to funds and a fear of my cats trying to eat the parts...
EDIT- Though, at least pinky:st custom makers are out there-
UUUUGH. SO CUTE!