A Good Bundle offering 151 games for cheapo

The bohemian sewer of neon lights and indie games known as Itch.io has posted a huge bundle of games from over 100 different creators, pointedly called A Good Bundle. It’s got a lot in it. Gone Home is in there, Catacomb Kids is in there, Proteus is there, The Novelist is there, Killing Time At Lightspeed is there. And a bunch of smaller games of note too: NORTH, Windosill, Raik, FJORDS, The Old Man Club, Depression Quest, Capsule… jeepers. The asking price for the whole stash – a potentially overwhelming 151 games – is 20 United States dollars. There’s another motive behind this videogame Voltron though. All of the proceeds are going to the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.

“This is A Good Bundle,” says the store page. “A bunch of creators are sharing their works to combat some of the ugliness in our world.” Without getting into said ugliness (because no thank you I have things to do) this is still a pretty solid bunch of games. A Good Snowman Is Hard To Build, Read Only Memories, Dr. Langeskov. Okay, I’m bored with creating hyperlinks now.

I can’t speak for the entire list – you’re probably getting some stinky garbage in the mix – and some of them are usually free anyway, but there’s enough good in there to make me nod with quiet approval, like an old man surveying his orchard. Yes, I nod. Yes, it is a good bundle. And if you were planning to donate to either of the above charities anyway, now you can get a gallon of games while you do it.

From this site

111 Comments

  1. Ooops says:

    The $20 tier also contains Sokobond, an excellent and devious mix of Sokoban and Spacechem.

  2. minijedimaster says:

    151 games for $20? Ok. Money goes to Charity? Ok. Charities in question are two of the furthest radical left wing organizations in the US? NOPE

    • Nanth says:

      Because supporting women’s healthcare has apparently become an extremist position these days.

    • theslap says:

      Planned Parenthood is so scary. They offer free women’s healthcare to the uninsured and condoms. Free $%&^ing condoms!!!!

    • Synesthesia says:

      How on earth is Planned Parenthood a radical left organization? What the fuck is wrong with you?

    • Deano2099 says:

      Is Planned Parenthood really considered that radical in the US?

      • TychoCelchuuu says:

        bro we just elected Trump; white supremacy is normal and anything to the left of it starts to count as “radical leftist.”

        • Baines says:

          Meh, North Carolina is trying to make the national election look sane. If McCrory pulls off his attempt to steal the election, then that is the Republican party officially burying even the pretense of democracy. The stuff they are debating pulling to regain a majority on the state Supreme Court is almost as bad.

      • Phasma Felis says:

        No. They’re trolling. Please ignore the troll.

      • MajorLag says:

        By a ridiculously vocal and more-numerous-than-we’d-like-to-admit minority of wackjobs, yes. To these people only the second amendment deserves protection and women should be barefoot and pregnant.

    • Premium User Badge

      FhnuZoag says:

      If Planned Parenthood and the ACLU represent two of the furthest radical left wing organizations in the US, then no wonder America is so fucked up.

      • Viral Frog says:

        Yep. A good number of Americans view the ACLU and Planned Parenthood as being the furthest left, most radical organizations in the world. Primarily because the ACLU protects the rights of everyone in the USA, regardless of race or creed. The right-wing cannot stand the fact that non-Caucasians, women, and anyone of any other creed should be protected by our law.

        Creed especially being a big no go to our right-wing loons that think Christianity is the only religion eligible for our right to freedom of (and from) religion. These organizations stand for the two things that the American right hates with a passion: equality and women.

        This is why I wish I could have been born in almost any other first world country instead. But alas, I’m stuck in a land of idiots.

        • Samuel Erikson says:

          Hilariously (and/or depressingly, depending on how you look at it), a lot of actual left wing types don’t particularly care for the ACLU, either. See, they defend (nearly) ALL speech, regardless of who likes it. Look to their involvement in the Skokie case and various prayer-in-public-school cases.

          “This is why I wish I could have been born in almost any other first world country instead. But alas, I’m stuck in a land of idiots.”
          Personally, I’d be happy to live somewhere with remotely sane health care.
          And no cheeto-Nazis.

          • KDR_11k says:

            I think that’s proof enough that the ACLU isn’t left or right. Just a thorn in either side’s ambition to take their direction beyond what the constitution allows.

          • MajorLag says:

            We should make our own country! With blackjack, and hookers, and single-payer healthcare!

    • ChatterLumps says:

      Come on… It doesn’t matter where they fall on any “spectrum”, both organisations are doing good work for the people who need it and now they need the donations to keep doing that.

    • Viral Frog says:

      The ACLU exists for the sole purpose of protecting the rights and civil liberties of every man, woman, and child in the USA. Planned Parenthood exists to provide easily accessible healthcare to women, along with family planning, and numerous other services that our government should (but refuses to) provide to every woman and/or family in America.

      I’m not sure I understand your complaint, other than that you either A) hate the thought of our citizens’ rights being protected, and healthcare being easily accessible, B) you’re living under the incorrect assumption that right-wing (by American standards) politics are anything other than absolute trash, or C) A+B. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      • baud001 says:

        “Planned Parenthood exists to provide easily accessible healthcare to women”

        Well they mostly provide an abortion service, which is pretty bad.

        • gwop_the_derailer says:

          I know math is hard, but abortion makes up for about 3% of their services.

          • Serapis says:

            Just my opinion here, but I won’t support an organization that has ever 1% of abortion services. It doesn’t matter how large their service is, it is immoral and disgusting to kill future humans.

    • Chockster says:

      I’ve just bought one for $30. 20 for me and 10 on your behalf, so they ACLU can defend your right to post your idiocy all over the web free speech.

      Yay!

      • mechavolt says:

        You are my hero right now.

      • Premium User Badge

        DelrueOfDetroit says:

      • CaptainFtang says:

        Just done the same. Come on everybody, if you can afford to, chip in an extra $1 on behalf of minijedimaster, they could raise hundreds for the ACLU and PP!

        • Shushununu says:

          Done! Can’t wait until Planned Parenthood uses these funds to open brand new Abortionplexes across the country.

          I probably wouldn’t have donated, but a reminder of the alt-right vision for America is a sobering wake up call.

      • Premium User Badge

        keefybabe says:

        I also bought this cos of this guy. He’s done a lot for these charities.

      • Leidan Wing says:

        I got the same idea xD. I’m going to buy the bundle as soon as I arrive home

      • RedMattis says:

        This is brilliant. I’ll donate on his behalf as well. :D

      • nindustrial says:

        Great idea! Done. Wasn’t really considering picking this up until that asshole rolled along. Thanks minijedimaster for inspiring a whole extra set of donations to those “radical” scary pinko commie blah blah blah… Sorry, I fell asleep typing out the usual right wing reactionary talking points.

    • robodojo says:

      Troll vs. Echo Chamber: whoever wins, we lose.

    • ephesus64 says:

      Abortion and race politics are issues which attract polarized internet comments, that’s not surprising. However, being dismissive toward people who consider abortion to be an act which ends a life and who don’t want to support any organization that is involved with it, that dismissive attitude is what creates social divides. Should that be surprising to anyone?

      You want an equivalent of president Trump in your country, that’s how you do it: willfully dismiss other’s views as irrelevant without trying to understand their perspective.

      • malkav11 says:

        Abortion is a tiny, tiny fraction of what Planned Parenthood does. And yet somehow it’s the only thing that comes up when the right wing talks about it.

        • skeletortoise says:

          Because it’s what they have an issue with. No point for a politician to talk up the 99% objectively good stuff as an opening to your argument that the 1% makes everything else unacceptable. And if they consider abortion murder you can hardly blame them for viewing it as an unacceptable trade off. I wouldn’t donate to a charity that had murders as a tiny, tiny fraction of what they did.

      • Premium User Badge

        Nauallis says:

        Oh, not this fucking argument again, for Christ’s sake.

        Supporting abortion and turning the other cheek are not the same thing, and that’s the thing that American Christians seem to fail to understand every time this is addressed. Otherwise, might as well argue about drone strikes and fair trade as well. But not the same thing, right?

      • Ashabel says:

        What mostly surprises me is that you genuinely consider the life of a pile of organic matter that has no nervous system (let alone a brain to think with) and only the most basic semblance of organs at the time of abortion to be more important than the physical and emotional health of an actual thinking, feeling woman who had to make the rough decision of being cut open by a knife in order to escape potentially catastrophic consequences to her health and everyday life, all because above-mentioned pile of organic matter might turn into a baby several months down the line if everything goes well (except seeing that that the woman chose to make an abortion, it most likely won’t).

        • icarussc says:

          But this is the essential difference between a materialist position (like the one you describe) and a non-materialist position. If the “pile of organic matter” is the bearer of an eternal soul and is stamped with the image of its almighty creator, of course it’s a big deal to destroy it.

          • Ashabel says:

            It is not a materialist position to recognize that women go through extreme emotional and physical stress during abortion, and most of them do it because continuing with the pregnancy is likely to subject them to severe health problems.

            It is a position of someone who is not a misogynistic psychopath.

          • icarussc says:

            I agree with your statement, but you’re not addressing my point. The point is that you describe the unborn child as “a pile of organic matter that has no nervous system (let alone a brain to think with) and only the most basic semblance of organs at the time of abortion” only because you are taking a materialist position; that is, you regard all existence as matter and only matter. A supernaturalist view of human existence (like that of the Christian theist) can view the unborn child and the mother as of equal value, without one outweighing the other, because there are nonmaterial components to the child.

            I’m not saying you’re greedy. I’m saying you don’t believe in the sanctity of all human life. That’s why you object. You and the pro-life theist are judging by totally different criteria.

          • gwop_the_derailer says:

            Every time I… stimulate myself to completion to gentlemen’s relaxation videos, am I performing millions of abortions?

          • klops says:

            No, Gwop. Even the fundamental christians don’t consider sperm as millions of human beings. Despite Trumps and all those, I still think that bad arguments just harm the cause the users are trying to defend, in this case a woman’s right to abortion. That’s why I wish people stopped using “Hehee, should I stop wanking since you guys think I kill people?”.

          • gwop_the_derailer says:

            I was appealing to icarussc’s non-materialist point of view. What arbitrates when the ‘ensoulment’ takes place?

          • icarussc says:

            The Bible describes human beings as “made in God’s image”; this is the distinction which makes human life uniquely sacred. Sperm is not human life — only cells from a man’s body. Cutting your hair isn’t the death of human life; nor is masturbation. But once a sperm and egg combine, a new human life has been brought into being. Although the Bible does not define the start of life with any medical precision, there are clear statements establishing that unborn children are living human beings (and so image-bearers of God), so for this reason Christians have always regarded conception as the start of life.

          • wu wei says:

            But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

            ;)

          • Turkey says:

            Man, the bible needs an addendum. It’s almost like it was written by a bunch of desert dudes who had no idea what issues we would be facing in the 21st century.

          • icarussc says:

            My Taoist friend here has overlooked the context of the passage he quotes. God wasn’t angry with Onan because he was masturbating (which he wasn’t; he was just pulling out at the last minute), but because he was refusing to honor his dead brother by fathering a son that would bear his name — and yet, was willing to enjoy himself with Tamar (the woman in question).

            That is to say, the problem with Oman is that he’s a selfish, family-ruining jerk, not that he’s a sexual deviant.

            And to Turkey’s point, abortion has always been an issue in human society. It has merely taken different forms.

          • gwop_the_derailer says:

            But once a sperm and egg combine, a new human life has been brought into being.

            Then would you argue that it’s our moral imperative to collect the over 60% of embryos flushed out naturally during menstrual cycles (not miscarriages) and have them implanted artificially so that they can grow into healthy babies?

          • icarussc says:

            Setting aside the fact that what you propose is not even remotely practical, we’re losing the thread of the discussion: why do some people view elective abortion as the moral equivalent of trimming one’s nails, and others as tantamount to murder? The issue at hand is one of volitional actions, not one of automatic processes.

          • GeoX says:

            …except, the thing is, they DON’T view it as equivalent to murder. If they did, they wouldn’t hem and haw and act embarrassed and try to change the subject when you ask them, okay, so in that case presumably woman who have abortions should be tried and punished as MURDERERS, right? It’s a purely rhetorical stance.

          • Hieronymusgoa says:

            I like that you, icarussc, just state the two sides and the reasons for their respective arguments without being judgemental of either.

            I for example am religious and find abortion “sad” (I couldn’t find a better word) because I believe in some kind of soul, but the health of women and their freedom of will to have children or not is above that in my opinion. And that is how religion may influence you, by changing how you think and act but surely not to proselytize and tell others how to live their life. I would always defend the rights of women regarding something like abortion. Everyone who thinks he is Christian and can’t value the mother a bit more as the unborn (and therefore find abortion “okay”) is odd for me.

            I bought the bundle for 20€, by the way.

          • gwop_the_derailer says:

            Setting aside the fact that what you propose is not even remotely practical

            Well, if you are letting practicality get in the way of saving human souls, perhaps you should also consider whether a woman finds the prospect of carrying a baby to term and raising it to be practical, too.

          • theblazeuk says:

            I like Hieronymusgoa.

          • Ashabel says:

            Nobody is losing thread of any discussion, icarussc. The point people are making that the supposedly non-materialistic act of soul-creation relies ridiculously heavily on semantics in order to be distinguished from every other action taken by the woman’s body that is in every way identical.

            The reason why it’s that way is because the view of “life begins at conception” is 100% materialistic and in fact merely a codeword for “hurf durf how dare womans imply she deserves more agency over her own life, here is me misinterpreting a single sentence from the Bible in hopes that it will somehow reassert the superiority of my masculine self”.

          • icarussc says:

            Hey, this is turning into quite the discussion!

            @GeoX: Law is a function of society and reflects its values. There have been times and places when exposing one’s infants was legally regarded as perfectly acceptable (if unfortunate). There have been other times and places when elective abortion was regarded as murder, legally. There is currently a significant gap between the state of laws in Western countries and the historic beliefs of the Christian church. Just to be perfectly clear, whatever your friends have said, the church has historically regarded abortion as murder.

            @gwop: The reason I set aside the point is that, even though what you suggest is literally impossible, it doesn’t matter. The key part of elective abortion is the elective part. There is a huge difference between losing an unborn child and destroying it.

            @ashabel: Friend, I really think you’re misunderstanding what I mean by materialist. I can’t include the links, but I am referring to philosophical materialism, not to economic materialism. To your point, everything that the Bible (and thus, the Church) says about the value of human life derives from the same point. If human beings are made in God’s image, then economic oppression, social injustice, rampant violence, and murder are all wrong on the same grounds. If human beings are not made in God’s image, then all those things are up for debate. This whole argument started over Planned Parenthood and the ACLU; Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for racial equality and freedom along with the latter organization, and he did so on the basis of Christian teaching. People oppose abortion on the same grounds. The two go together.

          • hotmaildidntwork says:

            There’s little so frustrating, surely, as an argument with someone operating out of a fundamentally different understanding of the universe. I’ve always considered any soul based argument to be unsustainable on the basis that it is not just an undefinable quantity, but typically defined differently by different people using identical but not interchangeable terminology.
            I think the question boils down to how you resolve a difference between someone who believes that their specific reference(i.e. scripture) is authoritative and someone who does not, in a way that allows you to then make policy.

          • icarussc says:

            I’d like to imagine that it’s worth having a discussion in order to try to perceive which of us is perceiving the universe more appropriately, rather than simply continuing to talk to people who already hold our presuppositions.

          • ephesus64 says:

            Thanks all, for keeping this a multi-perspective discussion.

            Materialism (belief that we are matter and nothing more) and theism shouldn’t really have much to argue about here. Outside of the realm of science is the idea that humans have significance. Call that a social or evolutionary adaptation if you like, the effect is the same. Without it we do not have a society.

            Maybe a human is a human at conception, or when her heart beats at five weeks, or maybe at 26 weeks when the structures of the brain are connected enough to theoretically register pain. I’m not actually sure right how to determine that. My friend’s wife delivered her baby prematurely at 26 and a half weeks, and that baby is now a healthy three year old girl. So it’s a bit subjective where the line is, shouldn’t that make us more mindful? I can’t imagine how it could be dismissed as misogynistic against a mother to consider there to be two lives within her body, as though some people’s selfish motivations automatically make the entire argument false. It makes no sense to me. Why aren’t the vegans, the feminists, the civil libertarians out there pushing Christian conservatives to the side so as to be the first in line to protest on behalf of a life which cannot protect herself?

        • GeoX says:

          Law is a function of society and reflects its values. There have been times and places when exposing one’s infants was legally regarded as perfectly acceptable (if unfortunate). There have been other times and places when elective abortion was regarded as murder, legally. There is currently a significant gap between the state of laws in Western countries and the historic beliefs of the Christian church. Just to be perfectly clear, whatever your friends have said, the church has historically regarded abortion as murder.

          How is this responsive to what I said? Sure, religious people CLAIM abortion is murder, but when they shy away from the actual logical conclusions of this belief, it becomes obvious they don’t actually believe it.

          Also, let’s note that it’s simply not true that the church has “historically” viewed abortion as murder.

          • icarussc says:

            Permit me to clarify, speaking from my own Christian position: abortion is murder. American law is not Christian, and so does not permit its prosecution. If the law were restructured to reflect Christian morality, abortion would be an offense like manslaughter or murder. I am against murder, so I would view this change as wonderful. Those who reject the historic Christian view that abortion is murder would doubtless be displeased.

            And don’t be taken in by that line from Patheos — Christians have condemned abortion as far back as the church fathers; Tertullian and Basil the Great both wrote on it. The Synod of Elvira specifically issued a decision on it, 1700 years ago. The ‘new American view’ is the historic church view; its predecessor was the modernist aberration.

          • GeoX says:

            Okay then, point blank: do you think women who have abortions should be prosecuted for murder? If so, I’ll concede that you’re consistent. Monstrous, but consistent. And also wildly out-of-step with the larger anti-abortion movement, which, as I’ve noted but you for some reason refuse to acknowledge, refuses to say that as much.

            And don’t bloody well claim to speak for all Christians; you DON’T.

          • icarussc says:

            I’m not trying to provoke you; I’m only trying to say two things:

            First, the historic position of the Christian church is very firmly anti-abortion, whatever Patheos may tell you. It is what it is. I’m not presuming to speak for you or anyone else, I’m only describing historical reality.

            Second, if abortion is murder, then surely it ought to be prosecuted as such. If it’s not murder, then no big deal, sure, but surely it’s monstrous to permit murders to go on unchecked. That’s the question that must be addressed, not the question of prosecution.

          • GeoX says:

            The historical record is a lot more ambiguous than you want to make out, but never mind that.

            I suppose it’s possible that you’re as much of a psychopath as you desperately want me to think you are, and that you would take pleasure in seeing thousands of desperate women prosecuted–imprisoned forever? Executed? It’s all good, right? Justice? Sounds like something Jesus would approve of, yeah? I seriously DOUBT you’re actually like that, but hey, I don’t know you from Adam.

            Fortunately, however, if you are you’re in a distinct minority, because virtually nobody in public life who opposes abortion will make that claim–mainly because, to circle back to the original claim, they don’t actually believe abortion is murder, self-righteous rhetoric notwithstanding.

          • icarussc says:

            For goodness, sake, no! I wouldn’t take any pleasure in it, nor is that what I am hoping for. The main point of criminalizing murder is to prevent murders, not to punish them.

            Look, let me illustrate it this way: we’re talking about the USA, so let’s take the Civil War, which (in a gross oversimplification) was largely fought over slavery. The northern states said, “We cannot keep creating states where vulnerable people are dehumanized and destroyed by slavery. You’ll leave off, or else.” Now, if the south had said, “Oh, gosh, you’re right! We’ll end slavery now!” that would have been the desired outcome. With the longer perspective of history, I imagine that we agree that even though it would have completely wrecked their economy to end slavery, it was the right thing to do, and they should have done it post-haste, and then there would have been no Civil War. Nobody got pleasure out of the war. Who could? The whole point of the exercise is to make bad things stop, not to execute vengeance.
            The point of criminalizing the murder of the unborn would be to make people stop oppressing and destroying the vulnerable, and not at all to get some sort of patriarchal rush of glee.

          • GeoX says:

            It’s quite a thing that you simply REFUSE to accept the main point here, which is: NO PROMINENT ANTI-ABORTION GROUP IS IN FAVOR OF TRYING WOMEN AS MURDERERS. They’re just not. If I’m wrong, feel free to cite a few. Therefore, no matter what they may claim, THEY DON’T BELIEVE ABORTION IS MURDER. Full stop, end of story.

            Here’s my contribution:

            “Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.”

            “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.” I mean, if you actually believe what you say (which I still don’t really believe), obviously she’s wrong about that, but she’s the head of a prominent anti-abortion group, and you’re not. And if she actually believes abortion is murder, she for some reason doesn’t think murderers should be punished. GO FIGURE.

          • icarussc says:

            Again, I’m not intending to provoke. Let me start by agreeing with most of what you say:
            – No, no major pro-life groups think that women who choose abortion should be tried as murderers. You are correct.
            – “Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby.” Yes, I whole-heartedly agree.
            – “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.” No, nor do I, as I said in my previous post. I don’t want anyone to be punished — I want children to not be killed.

            Perhaps I’ve made things worse by a careless use of terms. Everyone recognizes that there’s a wide spectrum of unethical behaviors that result in the death of a human being; while in casual conversation, we might refer to all such actions as murder, the law draws a clear distinction between ‘manslaughter by gross negligence’ on the one end of the spectrum and ‘first-degree murder’ on the other end, but we all recognize that these terms refer to unethical taking of human life. If unborn children are human beings, then I am simply saying that the taking of their lives, at will and without any justification (as is presently the case in the USA) is unethical killing, and we have a moral imperative to stop it. That is all I intend to say. But again, the key here is whether or not unborn children are human beings. If not, then you’re free to destroy them. If so, then you simply can’t. Surely you’d agree with that, yes? I mean, are there other categories of human beings that we’re cool with snuffing out?

          • GeoX says:

            Well, I’m GLAD to hear that you don’t think women should be punished, although that certainly contradicts what you said earlier. But that’s the thing: I can’t take anti-abortion rhetoric seriously because it’s just incoherent: abortion is a crime, a serious crime, but you don’t think women who have abortions should be punished? What? Are there any OTHER serious crimes you think should have no consequences? The obvious answer that’s staring me in the face but that I’ve heretofore been too polite to suggest is that you don’t think women should be punished because you don’t think women have moral agency. But that won’t quite work either, since you’re not arguing that women similarly shouldn’t be held culpable for murdering post-born people.

            I can state my position simply: I think abortion is a human right and should be available to any woman at any stage for any reason. You may think that’s monstrous, but it’s coherent. Whereas from YOU, I keep getting this “abortion is a crime, it’s murder, well maybe not exactly murder but LIKE murder and it should be treated as a crime only women who get abortions shouldn’t be punished even though they’re engaging in criminal behavior” and on and on and on. What am I supposed to make of any of this?

            Personally, in spite of being entirely pro-choice, I’m also strongly in favor of social policies that would naturally lead to significantly fewer abortions happening: strong infrastructure supporting women so that their choice on whether to have a child isn’t influenced by economic pressure, extensive sex ed to teach people how not to become pregnant and thereby having to make this choice in the first place, free and readily available birth control for all…the fact that anti-abortion groups emphatically DO NOT support any of these things suggests to me that they’re more interested in looking self-righteous and punishing women for having sex than they are in actually achieving their stated goal.

          • icarussc says:

            But look, friend, that is not what I am saying. Abortion is unlawful killing. In common parlance, murder. It must be unlawful. Unlawful deeds must be punished. I do not say this because I want anyone to be punished. I say this because God wants us to defend the vulnerable. Do I support felony prosecution for those who kill the unborn? Yes. Do I enjoy this idea? No. Is it worth punishing killers to protect the innocent? Yes. Is abortion complicated and painful for everyone? Yes. Does that negate everything else in this paragraph? No.

            I hope that clarifies my position? The unborn are people. Let’s treat them that way.

          • GeoX says:

            Ah. So you don’t, in fact, agree with the anti-abortion groups, none of whom think punishing women is the right thing to do (and stop mutilating the word “want.” You’re just confusing everyone for no reason). Well, yes. You HAVE made yourself clear. But–this really can’t be stressed enough–you’re putting yourself at odds with the entire anti-abortion movement. I really encourage you to try to get them to adopt your views, though. Have them make it very, very clear that their goal is for millions of women to be prosecuted for murder or murder-like offenses every year (presumably by means of a draconian security state the oppressiveness of which is unprecedented in human history–dunno how else you’d manage this). For some inexplicable reason, they refuse to say this, but if they did, we’d definitely see what’s what.

    • ts061282 says:

      By the Law of Political Reciprocals, since right wing extremists hate abortions and black people, the organizations that support birth control and people of color must be left wing extreme. That’s just logics.

    • noiseferatu says:

      Chiming in that I originally didn’t plan to purchase this bundle, but I’m doing that just now purely to offset your terrible opinions.

    • Unsheep says:

      Exactly ! Why give women even more choices on how to live their lives ? Isn’t voting rights enough for them ?! Those “crazy” ISIS people have much in common with us white supremacists, we should work together.

      And who needs civil liberties anyway ?! people were so happy living under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Pol Pot. Things turned out great with them, no ?

      [intended as sarcasm, if not obvious]

    • theblazeuk says:

      I have literally only donated to these organisations because of you. I would otherwise give my money to UK charities. But you had to be all vitriolic.

    • sincarne says:

      Leave us your email address, and we’ll get back to you when the Asshats for Hate fundraiser is announced.

      • sincarne says:

        Since I can’t delete or edit for some reason, I’ll just post this as an apology. While I still think the original post is beyond the pale, my post was inappropriate.

        I think I need to not internet for a while. I have a short fuse, and am just generally DONE with people.

    • jmtd says:

      Just to add to the masses, your comment pushed me over the edge and I’ve now gone and bought the bundle at $20 too. Thanks for convincing me!

  3. ezro says:

    Is there anything amazing in the under 2 bucks bracket for those impoverished souls among us?

    • Ooops says:

      After a cursory glance, I’d say no. Most of $2 games are either very obscure or were free to begin with (or both).

    • Sarfrin says:

      Dr Langeskov is great. North and Depression quest have been well reviewed. They’re all free in the PWYW sense, but if you haven’t played DL it’s worth $2 in my opinion.

      • MikoSquiz says:

        DQ doesn’t particularly live up to its reputation. As a depression sufferer myself, I found that slightly-interactive pamphlet almost insultingly reductive. It’s basically “What Is Depression, Anyway? A Guide For Dum-Dums”, plus some piano music, as I recall. It really didn’t deserve any press, but boy did it get plenty.

        • Juan Carlo says:

          Depression Question was very well intentioned, so it’s hard to knock something that’s so well intentioned, but it’s not terribly good, either as an interactive piece of fiction or as a representation of depression. It’s basically overly-earnest-freshman-creative-writing-project.html. But it benefited in notoriety from the fact that there wasn’t much like it when it was released.

          • Ashabel says:

            I’d like to add that its quality as a representation of depression is subjective. A friend of mine took it extremely hard because it mirrored his personal experiences very well, but it took me multiple replays and considering what said friend told me before I finally began to appreciate its content.

            It’s important to remember that Depression Quest is only a single glimpse into what it’s like to have depression, not an all around analysis of the illness. Different people suffer from depression differently and just because it doesn’t match your experiences, doesn’t mean it doesn’t match anyone’s experiences at all.

          • Samuel Erikson says:

            “I’d like to add that its quality as a representation of depression is subjective. A friend of mine took it extremely hard because it mirrored his personal experiences very well, but it took me multiple replays and considering what said friend told me before I finally began to appreciate its content.

            It’s important to remember that Depression Quest is only a single glimpse into what it’s like to have depression, not an all around analysis of the illness. Different people suffer from depression differently and just because it doesn’t match your experiences, doesn’t mean it doesn’t match anyone’s experiences at all.”

            Seconding all of this.

    • BarrySkellern says:

      THRUNT! But I would say that, since I made it. It’s only gone free in the last week or so, was £2 previously.

    • sincarne says:

      Rotodefender is pretty fun. Reminds me of a Colecovision game I can’t quite fully recall.

  4. Greggh says:

    awe is me, I have all the “crème de la crème” ones already – and so much backlog that I would probably not touch the more obscure ones :\

  5. malkav11 says:

    It’s a good cause, for sure, and sorely needed in the face of the imminent presidency of a man that will almost certainly spearhead an intensive campaign against civil rights and women’s healthcare both. But the games list reminds me quite strongly of why I don’t spend a lot of time on itch.io. There’s only a few things on that entire list that I would have any desire to play and I already own most of them.

    • Jalan says:

      Some may see it as going against the intent (and perhaps it ultimately is) but the people behind it should’ve considered a set-up where people could just build their own choice of games instead of bumping the paid total and getting additional wads of games.

    • skeletortoise says:

      If you are “almost certain” of what Trump is going to do, I’d advise you let the entire rest of the planet, including him, know. He exists in a political quantum state.

      On the real, I have serious doubts about either claim, but moreso with respect to women. He has no convictions to speak of, but he does have some issues he seems to care about somewhat. Social conservative issues aren’t them. I imagine Trump has funded an abortion or two in his day. It’s all up to just how little he actually cares and how much sway others (particularly Pence) have over him.

  6. Shinard says:

    Oooh, I’m tempted. But I do have most of the better ones already…

    Oh, if anyone’s in a bundley mood, the new Humble Bundle is pretty decent. Not a ridiculous amount of games, but they look good and I know I never got round to buying them in various sales. The Secret World for £3 sold me on it.

  7. Premium User Badge

    DelrueOfDetroit says:

    Buy this bundle and you’ll be set for the next 2 years of Have You Played….s.

  8. yusefsmith says:

    Do you have to redeem each one individually on Steam?

    • malkav11 says:

      Itch.io is its own platform, so I would bet you’re mostly getting them on Itch.io itself. You might get Steam keys for some of them but I wouldn’t count on it.

      • Premium User Badge

        DelrueOfDetroit says:

        There are no Steam keys.

        • RobF says:

          If anyone’s grabbed it, can they nip to My Purchases and down to Death Ray Manta.

          I’ve uploaded Steam keys but if they’re not there, I’d like to sort something out.

          So I’d be appreciative if anyone can let me know.

          • TychoCelchuuu says:

            I don’t see any Steam key, although perhaps I’m looking in the wrong place.

          • Samuel Erikson says:

            I’m afraid I’m not seeing a key either, though I wasn’t expecting any in the first place.

          • RobF says:

            Thanks, I need a nap now but I’ll have a word later and see if I can make mine accessible.

            Much appreciated, folks.

          • phlebas says:

            Much appreciated yourself, Rob. Those folks who haven’t played DRM yet and get it in the bundle have a treat ahead.

        • ButteringSundays says:

          Even for titles that come with steam keys when buying normally on itch.io? ie Catacomb Kids etc?

          That’s an important caveat…

  9. Juan Carlo says:

    I don’t want any of these games. Still buying, though, because I appreciate the gesture.

  10. InternetBatman says:

    Fair warning, A Night in the Woods is NOT included in the games, a very early, very short prototype is included. The Bundle itself seems just lovely, but that was probably a poor header image for RPS to use.

    • Ashabel says:

      The banner is not from A Night in the Woods. It’s from Lost Constellation, which is a short game set in the universe of A Night in the Woods but is completely separate from the game itself.

    • Brendan Caldwell says:

      As Ashabel says, it’s a screen from Lost Constellation, which is included in the bundle. But it’s also free by itself, for folks who just want to try it: link to finji.itch.io

      It’s pleasant, if a little uneventful. I picked it as an image because the art is :)

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>