alanschu

I'm going to have to assume Poe's Law, since I figured it was quite obvious I don't equate file size with game quality. And no, I would NOT expect a game that is 3 GB to "easily own" (in any way aside from perhaps graphics) a 19 year old 10 MB DOS game. I won't go on about math, however, Mr. "Modern astronomy is a lie, the sun is God's Light and here's some woefully incorrect math that supports my incorrect assumptions"

Ah. Yeah, as the article states, it's definitely a "casual piracy" prevention measure. It's funny because, for me, install off the disc is 10000x more appealing that running off the disc (both as a dev and a player!), but it'd be trivially easy to not pay for games simply by mass installing it everywhere (just like PCs back in the day). End up with the "communal" pool where everyone chips in to buy a game haha. This likely doesn't affect me (mostly because I'm unlikely to buy the console in general), but I'm curious if they come up with solutions for people in the military and the like. I do think that MS has an opportunity to leverage this restriction into other benefits (stuff like online reselling of games/license transfer and so forth), which I think would be a positive for the system. For myself, I'm curious how they'll do for games. If there's enough exclusives, will people ultimately capitulate? I do agree that this will place innate restrictions on MS's install base. Though if the connectivity leads to excessive use of digital purchasing, it could potentially still be better for their bottom line.

Are you saying you'd like to discuss them (I am), or are you asking for an explanation?

I'm not sure what to think of this... hahahaha. The only poster to express it. For myself, I don't see the big deal (nor did I find it creepy - I thought she was just having fun), nor do I have any issue with her talking up Boone a lot, yet still have an opinion on the matter. I don't think the 50% split is as necessary as a fixed line, although I agree that some level of demand is necessary. However, the depiction of women in video games is not an issue that is solely put forth by women (or even "White Knights"). You have a few posts discussing this, including one where you admit that the project received government funding. This reminds me of a time when I, someone that loved basketball, grabbed a snow shovel for a few lunch breaks at school to clear off the outdoor basketball courts. I, in my foolishness, felt that this would give me some alone time with the hoop. Unsurprisingly, when people saw me shooting around, suddenly more people wanted to take part. I was pissed. With some maturity and hindsight, I also realize that I was wrong. I had no entitlement to exclusive access to the court, reflected in my protestations falling on deaf ears (between teachers and peers). Looking back, I realize I was naive. I didn't actually understand the consequences for my actions. Doubly so as it was a public school. To my point, your facility has received public funds, and by the sounds of it is even a somewhat public facility in general (the government funded hall). That you guys built it 30+ years ago leads me to, quite frankly, simply say "So?" You state that you didn't deny women access. Did you deny other people from making their own clubs? Because for myself, that'd be the issue. If it's in large part a public facility built with public dollars, and I do feel that anyone should be able to create their own club and apply for membership. Now, Sweden saying "50% of it must be for this women's club is probably a bit off." Assuming it was partitioned based on sizes of the clubs, I'd be less averse to Sweden saying "Each club should get proportional access." My point in illustrating my basketball story is that you need to understand the context by which you are making your decisions. First, what you did 30+ years ago, in an initiative that you give the impression of being some sort of "good for the community" type of feel, your position mostly just comes across as selfish. "We built this 30+ years ago, and therefore our club should maintain exclusive access for this facility, even though we didn't exclusively finance this initiative." Looking back at my basketball experience, I would still shovel off the court if I could go back today. I'd just understand that I shouldn't do it if I'm only interested in my own benefit. I can look back now and go "What I did was probably a net positive for the school in general." Or, I could continue to get pissy about it and feel that people took advantage of me, when in reality, I put myself in a position to be taken advantage of by being naive. Granted, your naivety was probably more justified, as the idea that competing clubs may, 20+ years down the line, also want to have access to the facility. But I am not getting the impression that your club *should* be legally entitled to exclusive access, based on public funding. I suppose it would come down to "what level of public funding?" As for the "go make it yourself," this is a pointless endeavour. All people saying is "I will find games more appealing if you change some decisions." From a purely utilitarian perspective, they're just saying "we're a market for your games, should you decide to pursue it more." And it's not a position held exclusively by women (or "white knights") either. It's more a reflection of games pushing for economies of scale, and the fact that there's been HUGE pushes to break down gender barriers for typically more masculine jobs in a lot of places (BioWare does a lot of initiatives for getting women in Math/Engineering/Sciences as well, and never mind "geek girls" are becoming more and more common IMO - or at least more public). As for "go make it yourself," I suppose I could counter that your football club could consider going and making their own new pitch, exclusive of any government funding, if you truly wanted exclusive access. But then, I don't know enough about Sweden's laws to know if it'd even be possible to do such a thing. I don't think "go make it yourself" is a truly beneficial perspective, but at the same time, I suppose I can at least say "I am."

That it has no apparent cause doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause, however. Having said that, this is quite the thread necro.... I had thought this thread was dismissed as a rather obvious troll thread. /shrug

Is it confirmed that you won't need the disc to play?

Kreia was attractive, to me at least, strong, intelligent and motivated. The fact that she remains cloaked and hooded throughout is obviously a thematic element, she is in a sense hiding. Personally one suspects that she would regard revealing clothing and such as rather childish, a blunt and obvious form of manipulation and pandering. By attractive I more meant physically. Sorry I thought that was clear.

The mails have been sent out quite a while ago for backers. Your friend should check his/her spam folder and, in case there's no mail, contact Harebrained Schemes. ERrrr, people are missing the point. I don't know (nor particularly care to be honest) if my friend already received an email. I'm saying why he didn't receive one right now while I did. I made no supposition that my friend was in any way concerned about a lack of an email or anything like that.

Well, I was more asking because my friend (a backer) didn't get the email, while I (I mere preorderer) did. Could be some reason like that. Regardless, I wouldn't be too worried about it. Receipts are typically emailed, so it might just be some level of "hey, here's my receipt" and they hook you up.

My gut check (i.e. completely spitballed hypothesis) would, aside from complaints about not being romanceable, be that she doesn't fit the 'mould' of the mentor type. But that's just my gut feeling.

Did you preorder, or contribute via kickstarter?

Yeah, I agree. I never found Gamebryo to be a strong engine for human characters. Though it does other things quite well. I'm curious how Kreia would have been received if she was virtually the exact same character, by a more ostensibly "attractive" character. Heck, even keep the same voice and every other trait... just make her model an attractive one.

I can't speak on behalf of LadyCrimson, but that someone is chilled and good-natured doesn't mean that they don't still notice these things, and also feel that maintain the status quo is preferred. I'd describe all of the gaming women I know (many of which are co-workers) as being rather good-natured and chilled. It doesn't mean that they are completely satisfied with the way things are, nor does it mean that if things ended up staying where they are that they wouldn't still enjoy gaming. I think the TV/film analogy works to an extent, especially with respect to timing. Gaming is still quite new, and historically the very platform it existed on was marketed as a male thing, so there's some level of "catching up" to do. What I find is a lot of fear that with, say, Anita pointing out (to the point of overstating IMO) damsel in distress, it means that the only solution that is acceptable is to never have a woman being captured be the motivation for a man in a game ever again. Or that, if we increase awareness of the over sexualization of women in games to press change, it means that we can never have sexy/attractive/whatever women ever again. I'm totally in your boat that I don't think it needs to be all or nothing, and that increased variety (in more things than just sex as well) is good. Granted, as I mentioned earlier, there can be additional technical challenges that complicate this, but I think recognizing that it's possible to still have attractive characters with varying body types between games (rather than within games) is still a good thing. A character like the modern Lara Croft, in the recent Tomb Raider, I thought was very well done.

I do think it finds its stride as the seasons go on. Lee and Clem in particular, but also Kenny and some of the other characters that you meet later on.

Boston roflstomped them. Wasn't expecting that!

Ah yes, White Knights! To be clear, I want less overt objectification of women (and men) in games, because I dislike it. It takes away from the game for myself, as I tend to find it distracting. Caricatures can work fine (I laughed my ass off in Saints Row The Third), but there's a place for it and I'd prefer greater representation of a wider array of body types and clothing, because I feel it adds to the experience. It also, however, does have technical limitations (especially from a console perspective) to have a wide variety of body images. If I can only choose one, there's a greater chance that I'll choose an attractive body type for both men and women.

Given that his full line was: I'd disagree. The fallacy that he used, was in the first line: Go to The Mary Sue and start a topic like this, and you'll get more opinion from women. As for the ratio, I don't actually know what the demographics are. Most may not "care" in the same way that I can still playthrough NWN despite Aribeth's armor. I'd agree that most don't care... enough to bother posting about it. Because most don't care to post about anything at all. Does their lack of concern about being active internet users immediately imply that they aren't concerned about anything else? I'd disagree.

Risk overstated. My credit card was automatically canceled one time, because it was compromised due to a theft. A physical theft, of a store where I made a physical purchase. The only way to ensure that no one nefarious can ever get my credit card information is to not have a credit card. Further, my (very basic and elementary) credit card offers 100% fraud protection anyways. If my card is compromised and purchases are made on it, it is up to the vendor to ensure that I am not scamming them when I challenge the charges. My Dad actually was burned by this, as a computer seller, when someone bought a computer from him and had a courier pick it up. Charges were disputed, sweet piss all my Dad could do (this was probably about 15 years ago too). In the only time that I had to challenge a charge on my credit card (when I had canceled service but I continued to get charged), it was effortless. I concede it may be different in other countries, which is a sucky deal for them, but it's not something I am concerned about. In fact, I'm probably more likely to lose my physical credit card. If Steam gets hacked (which they have in the past), I won't freak out because it's not necessary. I was a bit more concerned when the Student Loan board, which has things like my Social Insurance Number, was compromised. Fortunately my Student Loan account was not on one of the physical hard drives that was stolen from a server farm, so I was not at risk.

Sweet jebus. I might need to cut myself off. Preordered EU4 and Rome 2 today. Shadowrun soon. WL2 soon. Still playing CK2 and SR3. And I just saw an interesting expansion for Civ 5. FFFFUUUUU Someone somewhere list all the games coming out this year so I can tell myself if it's safe for me to remove my credit card from steam so I don't bankrupt myself!!!!

Patently false. Their influence is in large part why these changes are happening. I know some here feel that gaming is still a very male thing, and while males are still the majority demographic, the internet has made a stage for minorities to more easily be heard. I met my fair share of FemShep's at Calgary's Comic Con just over a month ago. Part of the reason why FemShep resonates so strongly with them is because they love how strong of a female lead FemShep can be. She has the option to dress in very attractive formal wear and the like, but leads her soldiers as the fans feel would be an appropriate way. You are free to believe that these people just don't care, but I'd say you're wrong. Same goes for places like The Mary Sue which is a geek site dedicated to geek women, and why so many women get behind the Hawkeye initiative.

As a motorcycle rider, as physically attractive as that woman may come across, she loses a near infinite number of points for clearly being stupid. Perhaps I speak too emotionally, as motorcycle accidents strike a bit close to home for me, but I think my uncle put it quite eloquently. People who ride like that are just skin donors.

I hear what you are saying Alan but do you really think that the outfits of characters like Viconia and Isabella are disrespectful to women? You have to look at the reasoning for it. I like Isabela. I think she's a strong character, and the clothes she wears fit her character. Many, MANY people have (incorrectly) dismissed her as nothing more than a sexpot. Part of what makes Isabela's character interesting as a female character is that she's written and created as a sexual creature not specifically to be sexually appealing to males. She's dressed that way because that's the type of character that she is, and it's consistent with her character in that game. If Isabela looked the way that she did, but did not have the character to go along with it in an appropriate way, yes I would have considered it disrespectful and unnecessary. It's would come across as (yet another example of) pandering to a very specific target audience. I don't think this is necessary, and actually think it's a net negative to growing and expanding gaming in general. That said, I do consider Isabela's dimensions to be a bit outlandish. Her dress and attire would still work (and be sexy) even had things been scaled down somewhat. BioWare is hardly exempt of this, and it's something I do hope changes some more. Something like Aribeth, however, is the type of thing that makes me roll my eyes. I didn't mind it much a decade ago, but I think it's pretty stupid now. I have no basis for Viconia's outfit, however. The only one I know of is this:

I think it's less a fear of boobs and more a better grounding in reality and respect. It's likely also symptomatic of gaming demographics changing.

I'm okay with that!

Might need to send ye olde seer to do it the old fashioned way!