Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

About Aurora

  • Rank
    (4) Theurgist
    (4) Theurgist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
  1. Up your's

  2. Okay, but "completely uninspiring" and "crap" are a LOT different from what you were saying about the mods in the straight-5s post. If it's riddled with typos, blatant grammatical errors, and filled with very poor writing, that's one thing - but I've played about 20 mods so far at random, and I haven't seen more than one or two mods with any of those things. (And honestly, that surprised me, given the usual level of writing on the vault - I've played exactly one normal module that had very good writing and only a few others with passable writing). I've played some that started out slow and got better, and some that had promising beginnings but didn't really go anywhere, and some that didn't have the best dialogue but good evenly spread out writing, etc. Either way, I don't believe it's fair to vote without playing the entire module - moving on and ignoring it, fine, but there's no way you can seriously evaluate a module without playing it all the way through. Something might surprise you and make you up your score a bit, or something might make you drop it even further - but telling someone that you gave their mod a 2 because they didn't draw you in within 30 seconds is just going to make them write you off as someone who's trying to screw up the competition. Bioware has assured the community that they'll be looking over the votes as well, and I'm almost certain that they'll discount that kind of vote.
  3. I think that playing through enough mods per day that it becomes a chore to you is going to mess things up as well, though. Bioware says they'll go through them all, but they're getting paid for it and you're not. "Writers I'd definitely want to see at Bioware" isn't too bad a criteria, but if you want to be consistent, you really should play the mods for longer than 30 seconds - that's not fair at all. Yes, Bioware said that it's important for the first character/dialogue to be engaging, but they didn't say that that should determine everything - I played several mods that didn't have brilliant beginnings but became much better. Really, aim for playing half of the mods all the way through, and you'll be doing a much fairer job all-around. I'm also troubled by the inconsistency I've seen in the votes so far - lots of people judging as if these were meant to be full modules and not writing contest entries and complaining that the mod is too short or even "confined", some people outright lying about the module content and giving them low rankings, people consistently giving higher votes to well-known mod-makers or popular folks on the Bio boards, and people giving higher votes for scripting.
  4. I'd like to mention here that I hope everyone who votes for writing contest mods does so by followingthe contest rules fairly closely. So far, I've seen a LOT of high scores given out due to scripting for mods with mediocre or okay writing, and several lower scores given by players who were sad about the mods being "too short," and that is not fair to anyone in the contest. Knocking off points for typos & scripting errors that leave you unable to finish the mod or certain quests is one thing, but judging a contest entry as if it were the same as any other mod is another, significantly more sucky thing. Thx bye.
  5. Excellent. Now I can finally ask WHY WON'T YOU RETURN MY PHONE CALLS, OBSIDIAN? Oh. Filtered chat. Crap.
  6. Oh, my god. That is far too tasteful for me to find fault with.
  7. I think people are getting hurt, but that is a quite more complex topic than this and would just branch out into insanity if pursued here. I have a problem with sex being marketed to sell most anything, but I think it's definitely effective in certain cases where it's not in computer games because they're totally different products, and also often because those products tend to be cheaper and/or necessary in a way that computer games are not. For simpler products like deodorant, clothing, recordable DVDs, whatever, brand recognition matters a lot more than the quality of the actual product. If a brand name is stuck in your head because of a memorable commercial, whether because the commercial was full of half-naked women & that turned you on or because it was actually well-written doesn't matter - what matters is that the brand name & possibly brand claims are in your head. Most people need deodorant to function in society, deodorant is cheap, and you're familiar with this brand, plus on the label it claims to be the most effective sweat-killer ever. You might read reviews of deodorant, but they won't necessarily help you, as different human bodies respond differently to chemicals and you don't know if the reviewers have the same biological makeup as you do - plus it's going to be pretty hard to find a variety of reviews on deodorant. Most deodorants are basically going to have the same effect. When choosing a game, though, half-naked commercial women might make the game title stick in your head and make you curious enough to pick up the box, but if you have no interest in the genre or game in particular, you're probably not going to shell out $55 for that game. After all, you're going to be devoting 10-100 hours to a game you buy, you have plenty of choices and if you have the internet you have access to reviews (from a variety of viewpoints, generally from reviewers whose past reviews you can check out to see if their tastes match up with yours) about every single one of those, and playing a game is a recreational activity - basically, you can judge the quality in many, many ways that you cannot judge the quality of something like deodorant. I think genre & company recognition beat out brand recognition in computer games.
  8. So how many people in this thread have bought games solely or largely because of hot siliconed bikini chicks (Playboy Mansion & Leisure Suit Larry excepted)? How many have even bought games they otherwise hadn't heard of because of hot siliconed bikini chicks? I buy that "sex sells" sometimes, though I'm repulsed by the idea that that makes it okay, given that only one narrow, vicious idea of sex is generally used in the mass media. I don't buy that "sex sells" for computer games the same way it does for foul-smelling deodorant. Computer games are a larger investment of time and money and more dependent on particular interests than most products out there. If someone is considering buying a game because of sex, they have to know (Sims & Singles excepted) that it'd be a much wiser investment to simply hand over 5 bucks for Playboy. Or 30 bucks more for the Playboy game, I suppose. Or paying nothing, just googling for pictures of the hot siliconed bikini chicks. Additionally, as I've never heard anyone complain about the lack of scantily-cladness in a game (though I have heard people complain about the lack of explicit sex scenes or such) but plenty complaining when it is in, I think that companies that adopt "sex sells" as their motto actually drive off more customers than they bring in.
  9. They aren't guidelines, they are rules, and you get a hefty fine for not following them. I think there are better ways to change the whole booth babe standard. This is more of a threat to behave, perhaps they should try and spin the fact that a more child friendly and less sexist E3 will help greatly with PR. They need to open up the Boys Club of video games, but attacking the door with an axe is not the smoothest way to do so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's a rule, yes, but it's still a private event, so it's not censorship. "Child friendliness" is also irrelevant since you have to be 18 to get in. And yes, I agree that it's probably not the best way to go about making the show female-friendly (probably not the reason, as pointed out, it's likely due to people freaking the hell out over Hot Coffee), but I'm just having trouble <i>caring.</i> Am just too amused, I suppose.
  10. New guidelines for a private event = censorship?
  11. I'm suspicious of the reasoning behind the new rule, but somehow I can't think that anything but good will come of it. Except the chorus of whines from kidlets who haven't figured out yet how to use the internet to find porn any time they want it - but it's such sweet music! Mmmm.
  12. And I posted before you edited, and it certainly is a good point. I just think it's amusing that you picked one of the few Hollywood actresses who happened to secretly transform into a semi-Olympian when you weren't looking.
  13. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/...vis_archery_ap/
  14. I just read an entire article in Reader's Digest about Geena Davis today, and an entire section was specifically about what great shape she was in, largely focusing on how she made it to the Olympic archery semifinals. Relevance. Look, I don't read Reader's Digest, it was just there. I'm going now.
  • Create New...