@bdiddytampa: Being wrong and stupid for everyone to see bothers you A LOT, doesn't it? LOL don't worry, I needed some distraction from what I'm doing right now anyway so that's cool.

I just find it amazing that (1) you're so stupid to understand my reply even after all this time (seriously? lol); (2) you're even more stupid to actually think I was off-tangent (wtf?! lol); (3) for the second time, pathetically you snap out on someone who's not as active here anymore thinking you'll get the last snappy comment on an argument you clearly lost; and lastly, how my post bothers you til this day (which is the most priceless btw LOL). Oh and 'cupcake'? try that when you're smart enough to back it up otherwise you just sound like an ass.

You must be losing sleep knowing you just exposed yourself on those posts as a dumbass who ironically thinks too highly of himself to subject himself to corrections. Sad, but troll away if that makes you happy.

Well, let this haunt you forever. And i know damn well it will lololoolololol

P.S. i won't read your desperate empty attempt of a comeback--like all that you've come up with so far--because I know it will piss you off even more, so so much more. But spam away if you want. I won't respond. I'll just let you lose sleep as to why--maybe I've unsubscribed, maybe I'm just ignoring. But whatever it is, you're still wrong though ;)

@DeFiLeDTitan: Petty as it is, it's quite a popular debate really and dragged to the point that whether it's real or not is no longer the point. People, after all, tend to have more fun with rumors if they stay as is. It's been referenced in popular media so many times--from serious conversations to jokes. But i suppose most here in GS aren't familiar with it and would be confused by what I was gunning at. Perhaps many (especially the younger crowd) don't even know it's a namesake for Mr. Disney.

Anyhow, I'm passing the ball to mr Disney himself..err..Disney in Family Guy >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAcIzPmOhBQ

@p1p3dream: I had just replied to your initial response though before you took it down. But then again, i hate explaining my jokes so i guess I'm good with that.

Well, this makes my reply to defiledtitan empty. heck, if he's on gamespot he must know how to google stuff

@DeFiLeDTitan: Analyze the thought before you snap. If you didn't get the reference and the sarcasm, read my response to pipedream. Was trying to be responsible with "or so rumors go" as some might take it hook line and sinker.

Wait, the late Walt Disney himself was anti-semitic (or so the rumors go). So if anything, PDP is just being consistent with the brand. Don't see what's wrong here really

@phili878: Don't worry, you're not the first and, as with your case, it's quite understandable for you to have initially missed that this is all intended for some laughs.

@phili878: (Firstly, don't mind the profile pic. If I be taken as biased early on, then whatever) You're taking this way too seriously. The skit is called "Clueless Gamer" for a reason--and that's because he is just that. All of his comments--stupid, funny/not funny, obnoxious or however you may think of it--are all grounded within that context. Try to play a game with your dad or perhaps your grandfather who has no ounce of knowledge or interest in video games next to you and you may just find that some of his comments may be theirs as well. And that's the comedy of it. He's not doing a review of the game here but rather a comedy skit, that thing is clear.

On where the game starts, (again, on the context this being of a comedy skit) don't take it seriously. Clueless gamer skits lasts for 7-10 minutes so he is made to play the game in different pre-saved points of it. His people choose beforehand which parts would most likely illicit a funny response from him and let him play it one after the next. He doesn't play it through and through or even from the start as normal game reviews (not comedy skits) would be done. So if he said his game started at this point, well, in his case it did. On clothing, again, this is a guy who has no knowledge in games and doesn't pretend to be otherwise, so it's only natural for him to point out what's wrong as he sees it where he sees it (like wearing leather and running around in the desert or a group of guys battling a gigantic monster then afterwards get confusingly fixated with a wedding dress) as opposed to game reviewers that go beyond that (mechanics, how the game plays etc. the serious stuff). And again, that's the comedy of it. On his company while playing, Aaron is his guy to who gives him structure to whatever he's playing as, again, he is totally clueless about these things; while, Elijah Wood happens to be the featured celebrity for this particular skit. It started out with just Conan and Aaron but later on at some point they featured celebrities for some star power and also for the funny banter. On laughter, if you don't know the show's format it's understandably weird. But he hosts a late night show with a live audience. At part/s of the show usually before the interviews, he shows these skits and the laughter you hear comes from that same live audience. The very same thing with some comedy shows that also have live audience, the laughs I mean. Again, and I stress: just don't take all of this too seriously.

Also, it all boils down to humor being relative. Something that is funny to one may not be so funny to someone else and, equally, the former may not find humor in what makes the latter laugh. But that doesn't mean that the subject of laughter and/or the person who finds it funny is idiotic or perhaps just shallow as how could it be if it's all tossed in relative appreciation. That's just how comedy works and at the same time fails.

@bdiddytampa: LOL. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

First, I gave a well-intended response to your comment (which by the way is reviving a dead thread) and you come up with a sh**ty reply (????); second, if you can't come back with proper argument then shut up; and lastly, if anyone's bugging someone here, it's you--my response to your initial comment was 3 months old for crying out loud. If you seriously don't wanna read from me anymore, then don't reply to my 3-month-old comment in an already dead thread. It's just common sense.

Look, I haven't visited this site in a looong while (see my latest posts) and the only reason I came back was the email notification I got saying you responded to an old comment I made which struck me as weird. But it looks like you're the kind who doesn't like not having the last word and/or being wrong when the talk is over hence this rebuttal of yours to a 3-month-old comment from what you thought was an inactive user (got you, didn't I? LOL). Sad, really just sad. But since you seem to be that kind of guy, I'll be the better person and let you have the last word. Go on. Anyone who reads this can tell there's something wrong with you anyway.

@bdiddytampa: Still, you're missing the point. There are two things to be reported here: one, is the event itself (in this case there's someone pursuing a claim against Hello Games; and the other is the official comment of Hello Games about it (which, at the time of the article's posting, was not yet available). You can always cover the first one even without the second if the latter is not yet available. You can always do a follow up on it. And to show my point: look at the Story Update. They included Murray's comment on this when it came up.

If we go by your reasoning, every politician could just refrain from making any comments regarding any controversies they get tangled in, however grave and scandalous it may be, and the media would not report it for fear of being tagged as biased. It's a free pass.

And i stress: there's no bias if you're just reporting a fact. And the fact in this case was there was a claim against Hello Games and that was what was reported here. Simple. Anyways, this is way too old to reply on but whatever.