alanschu

Hepler has moved on, yes, although I don't know how much the fan outrage affected her decision as opposed to just the usual changes in one's personal life.

Really? That would be sad, the assumption around this would mean a gay writer can't be objective and offer a balanced view of basic human emotional interaction Is this an official policy caused by negative feedback from past experiences or just something you suspect? The point sailed well over your head Padawan. It was a parody of the notion that a gay writer writing gay characters is reflective of it being some sort of agenda, and that there'd be more credibility if it was a heterosexual writer writing the gay characters. Y'know... Drowsy's post.

I'm pretty sure straight writers are only allowed to write gay characters now, lest they just be shoving their agenda down our throats. What's more is the sickening dishonesty of those heterosexual writers.

Is the gaming industry losing money? Even EA has been posting profits (for the last two years, even). As for the actual point of the article, I am slowly learning to be dismissive (rather than vindictive) towards those with those types of attitudes such as the CoD types. Though I still find myself feeling belligerent in response at times. Baby steps. I actually had a thread on this forum discussing stuff like this, because I actually agree that fans undermine their own hobby by behaving that way. I'm far more inclined to respond with "Person is an unreasonable fool" when displaying such vitriolic, and frankly immature, responses, and move on to someone that actually knows how to behave as a human being. I'll admit that, at times, I do find it amazing how some people can display such... fanatical devotion to something to have such a level of fixation (which can seem unhealthy, frankly) that they'd think saying that is in any way reasonable. Doubly so for bringing to light issues for companies they don't like, presumably for schadenfreude. Reminds me a bit of that quip from Private Parts where someone said that haters of Howard Stern listen to him for even longer because they want affirmation that he's an idiot that does stupid stuff. Though I do admit I have to wonder if someone will ever top the PM I got that I should have been aborted as a fetus as it would have helped ensure that DAO actually had competent QA on the team. I think it's a tough act to follow, however. In general, I find those positions unproductive (and even counterproductive) for gaming as a whole, and have started to encourage the idea that people shouldn't sit idly by while people spread vitriol simply because "that's the way the internet is."

Gaider is actually openly gay. I actually didn't know until recently, but he mentioned it at a con panel recently (he and Jessica went to GaymerX recently), though it's actually not hidden (I was able to find a reference to a poster pointing it out in response to DA2's "insulting depiction of gay characters" thread from a couple years ago). Now, it's awfully easy to go all dismissive about the impetus as a result of that (which is probably why he doesn't advertise the fact, since frankly it IS irrelevant and he has no issue not doing homosexual relationships), I am not gay and think that, in general, doing stuff like this isn't a bad idea and it's one I support. Of course, we'll likely disagree on the nature of "shoving it down our throat" because I do get the impression that its existence in any capacity, for some people, is equivalent to "shoving it down one's throat." Although the post itself is bunk so using it as ammo for David's willingness to turn everything into a gay crusade is misplaced. Although it is interesting how frequently you guys bring up the topic (and romances) yourselves, despite your apparent dislike of the discussion.

That certainly wouldn't help.

Eh, I remember it coming up (I think Deraldin and I actually discussed it, even).

Those features only appear if you are logged in to the BSN. If you view the forums without logging in they don't appear. The lack of a thread title might because the "alleged" Gaider post appeared too far down in the thread. It's absence does not disprove the authenticity. I couldn't find it on google either. Here's the link to where it appears: http://www.reddit.com/r/dragonage/comments/1kfz0j/devs_confirmyour_choices_dont_matter_and_in_some/ Based on that reddit post, I'm convinced it's a fake. That reddit post was started today, with Gaider's post being "about a day ago." Gaider has made 3 posts on the BSN in the last 50 hours: First Second Third If it helps, his posts going back the last 5 days don't contain it either, and frankly I find the idea of some sitting on this message for some time before sharing it wholly implausible. Second, "The lack of a thread title might because the "alleged" Gaider post appeared too far down in the thread." is incorrect. There's no post above his, and in fact you can see the subscribe button that appears at the top of the thread, and where you see the two white documents is precisely where the thread title should be, and given that there are no page numbers in the upper right implies that this thread must have been started by Gaider (which I can assure you he wouldn't do). There's a reason why the picture would be posted, and not a link. I can do some poking around with the facts contained in the message, but I'm not convinced on some of them. Without context to what he was responding to (which can't exist since there are no prior posts in this thread), the commentary at the bottom is more just reflective of the creator's impression of David. Which, as I've been noticing, is actually indicative of said poster keeping the topic in the limelight.

I don't actually feel it gets the message across. To me it shifts it to "You should have been more careful in allowing that animation to occur on Leliana" rather than "I think the idea of Leliana coming back is poor." Doubly so if your message intends to be "I would like to see new characters rather than older ones." (Since I didn't pick up on that one at all) People use the deathblow as evidence (a definitely non-trivial amount of time as well) that Leliana should not be alive, which is akin to saying "A mistake was made, but you should be bound to it because it ultimately gets me what I want." People scramble to come up with reasoning because they have this idea that if they can provide further justification for why the game should be a particular way, it will provide an impetus to get the game that I want. Focusing on "Leliana was decapitated and now she's back from the dead!" is a much weaker argument than "I think this is a bad choice because it undermines my player agency, when another character could have fit the role just fine." By focusing on the deathblow, you send an implicit message of "If the deathblow animation couldn't occur with her, I'd be more understanding of Leliana being alive." I find it similar to when people conjure up economic rationalizations for why we should or should not implement a feature that they want. Rather than simply communicating "I would really like feature X" it ends up turning into a semantic discussion over the financial implications, where you can pretty much be assured that the conclusion is "This feature I really want is good for your long term profitability" with often supplementary "supporting a feature opposite of this will undermine your profits and hurt your bottom line."

Co-op campaign would turn this into a buy for me, however. I actually did a double take when I saw they were selling a two-pack. I had to make sure there was no co-op mode.

The issue I have (feel free to slide this into its own thread if you want, Tale) is that there's a rather lengthy sense of internal dissonance that I get, when it's the protagonist being allowed to make these choices. I'll openly acknowledge that it's hypocritical (since I can appreciate the narrative message behind a game like Spec Ops that attempts to be a critique towards modern shooters), but it's more a reflection of how I feel about the act of rape. If you were to give me a choice where the only two options I had were dying or finding myself in a situation where a handful of men forcibly rape me, I don't think it'd be an easier choice. Especially if the situation mandated that there'd be no opportunity for retribution against said rapists. If I am playing Project Eternity and I defeat an antagonist, and one of the dialogue options in the aftermath was an option to rape my victim afterwards, I would certainly be shocked. In part because such options don't typically exist ever. There would be a degree of questions that I have never really faced in a video game before. What motivated providing an option like this? How does one even go about creating an option like this? If it's exactly the way I think it will play out, how will I react? What are the in-game repercussions of performing this act? I won't feel that suddenly I'm a rapist. Many evil options in games do make me feel like an ass. On the one hand, there's that sense of morbid entertainment in that "I can't believe the game let me do this!" And some level of, almost black comedy, because of it. This is the type of reaction I got when I force persuaded Zaalbar to kill Mission. Fit the character and fit the narrative, and was certainly demonstrative of the power and influence I wielded in the game. If the option had been to rape Mission (or Force Persuade Zaalbar to rape her) it'd come across differently. It'd even tingle some internal dissonance if I were just able to Force Persuade Mission (or anyone else) to have sex with me, actually. I'll agree that it's a bit conservative and narrow focused to equate rape as women only being the victims, and yes men are not only victims of domestic abuse, but also rape in a non-domestic setting. Though I think it's a bit of a stretch that because Bruce only pointed out female victims that he cheers when males get raped. A movie equivalent would be more that an NPC gets raped, however. Given that it's disassociated from the protagonist, it's a situation that makes me feel far less uncomfortable. It existed, for example, in Fallout New Vegas. It does a good job of demonstrating, to me, that a particular character is a monster (one of the fiends raped one of the NCR rangers just west of Vegas), and provides a context/emotion that I am familiar with (grrr!) in response to said acts. Now, effectively allowing me to rape that same character on the whim as part of an evil playthrough certainly fits the "that's damned evil" perspective. But it's something I think that would resonate with me differently. And yes, it's very likely a product of where I live and the 32 years of socialization I have had while living on this rock.

Is this their assumption, or your own? How do you define a frail, traumatized, little thing? I know a rape victim too, and if he didn't mention it I'd have never known either. Of course once we did and I realized he was okay discussing it, I wouldn't say it had a net negative experience on his life. Anecdotes are fun like that. People didn't know I was shattered when my brother died in 1994 when I was 13. Heck, even I didn't fully appreciate it, until I had a perfect storm of some crappy events and I realized how much stuff I still had weighing on my shoulders. I had this epiphany while standing on the railing of a bridge at 3 AM in the morning just down the road from my University. When people found out, they had no clue I was struggling with a variety of stresses in my life, including some big ones that were still affecting me 6 years after my brother's death.

Huh. The review sounded pretty positive I thought. A solid game, for a pretty cheap price of $30 with fun multiplayer? The primary reason why I didn't pick it up is because EU4 has consumed me. It is on the wishlist though.

I actually dislike the persistent calling out of the deathblow mechanic, specifically, and it frankly serves as a good reason to ensure that we don't do stuff like that in the future. I think it's a bit of a simplistic assessment. If you want to be upset because Leliana was brought back when the player attacked her, that's fine.. You can think it's hokey or whatever. And you're right, it could have easily been done with a different character. If your principle evidence for why it is lame, however, is an unrelated game system that can be entirely overlooked during the chaos that is game development and the proper checks and balances to ensure said attack animation cannot occur on Leliana in DAO, or that that we failed to recall that deathblow animations could have been applied to Leliana during the conceptualization of bringing Leliana back, then I think you're being unreasonable and potentially just bitter/vindictive (i.e. you're pissy about other stuff, so it's just something else to scrutinize because it grants some schadenfreude that, had people here been giant fans of the game probably wouldn't care so much about since people are human after all). It is what it is: which is a mistake. And once DA2 is shipped, that boat has sailed and there's sweet **** all that can be done about it. It's hard to overlook "The player may have killed Leliana" and then we can respond "We know. We can still work with that, however" (because reasons - and no, I don't know them). It's a lot easier to overlook "the player may have killed Leliana with a special combat animation that was added in purely for flavour and functionally was not tracked in the gamestate in anyway." It's not like there was a plot flag "Leliana decapitated" beside her "Leliana killed" flag. Even so, we actually know the frequency of occurrence of the deathblow. But suddenly everyone that ever fought Leliana there suddenly was pulling off the decapitation deathblow it seems. What are the odds....

When and where did David make that post? I actually can't find it (it wasn't made in the last 3 days anyways). Unfortunately the thread title appears blank for some reason.

If it was rape towards a man I'd still find the scene uncomfortable. Which makes it evident that I find rape to be a more extreme act than murder.

Personally, I consider rape to be something more uncomfortable (same with things like Torture and whatnot). The issue I have is that I am able to mentally caricature killing people. It's a lot easier to do it in a way that makes it silly than something like rape, IMO. It's also simply a reflection of our society being a lot more comfortable with depictions of killing in media, as opposed to sexual violence. I suppose this COULD change if sexual violence was a lot more prevalent in our games, but I don't think that we as a society are as ready for that given that killing people has a much stronger (and clearer) history of actually not being acceptable, whereas the definitions of what is or is not sexual assault is still a lot more in question and debatable. JMO. Though I'm also not sure if something like rape should be included on the basis of "we do other horrible things in the game too" either.

Yeah, Tropico is a good game, so good, in fact, that Tropico 3 and Tropico 4 are basically carbon copies of Tropico 1. Tropico 2 is the only game in the series that's even slightly different. To be honest it seems like, in a lot of cases, that's precisely what many fans want.

I am not sure what you mean? No one is arguing that they aren't good games. My point is that in the last 15 years they represent only 5 % (if not less) of the total number of RPG that have been released where you don't have some sort of end boss fight My point is that it's interesting that the RPG games I think are superior to others do not have mandatory end boss fights.

Interestingly, however, I would consider PST and FO1/2 to be probably pretty close to the top 3 RPGs.

I'm 1/1 Wasteland 2 sounds like it has tons of promise, however!

I tend to leave my contributions to the (three) Kickstarters I have contributed to at "whatever gets me the game." The best laid plans can always come unraveled and more than that is too much risk for me. If I could be assured of their greatness, I would be more willing to contribute more, however.

I hope that this doesn't come across as crass or perhaps contextually inappropriate, but the first thing that came to my mind after reading this was "Tarna luvs ya baby" (Intent is more to bring a smile than pain, since it sounds like in your case it was true!) I more "knew of" Tarna from these boards, so I'm less affected personally, but I do know what loss feels like and I agree with those that say "online friends" are no less our friends through other means. Cheers man. Allan

I'm not too surprised, although I am a bit surprised that Rome: Total War didn't break a million units in the US (since I feel it was probably one of their more popular games). Although it sounds like Rome 2 is doing very, very well with preorders. With franchises like COH and whatnot, it does seem like they have a pretty strong PC following.

Well, it's at least possible.