alanschu

I recall having a "Parvati falls to hear death shortly after leaving the ship" moment too, though I'm pretty sure mine happened on Phineas' asteroid. Just finished the game and got "Parvati did not survive." I have similar issue with her personal quest being listed as failed. Similar to @lv100shuckle I was still able to complete the date. I actually had completely missed the quest being botched.

This is my take on it. Make it convenient and at a cost that people are okay with, and the transition will happen. Not too dissimilar to things like digital distribution platforms. Could probably argue it's just the next step? Heck steam was effective for combating some of the casual piracy among some of my friends because it was a bit more hassle free to just download and run a game on Steam than to go ISO hunting. I couldn't say how close we are. There's likely a need for pretty intense bandwidth infrastructure (or improvements in compression and delivery) that need to be done though. That said, if it's *just* about sending an image on your screen... it might be mitigated somewhat. But for that to be the case we'd need spectacular latency to mitigate input lag and so forth. I'm not sure it'll happen "soon" (in whatever ambiguity "soon" means though).

GoA, here's a screencap from the challenges as an example of crafting recipe progression.

Re: Story A lot of the early going is just about "surviving as a freelancer after the events of the prologue" Have you reunited yet with Haluk or anything like that (it sounds like you have - but that's where I just got and it feels to me like the main crit path is starting to come into focus - it's possible you just don't like it which is fair too!). The story aspect is different compared to our other games by design as it is a different type of game (we tried to be reasonably open about this, and it's a big reason why we wanted to have a prerelease demo for people to play - I don't want someone to pick up the game if they're looking for a DA or ME type of experience). I'm not sure I grok what you mean by loot is terrible, beyond feeling that the weapon models are too similar. Are you feeling you're not getting decent loot upgrades? Or that they're not interesting? Or that you're not able to do sufficient damage? Loot progression has seemed reasonable enough by my take, but I'm still pretty early in the game (level 11 IIRC). I tend to get a handful of greens every mission though and I don't feel like I'm struggling to get through missions either, so it doesn't feel like loot "sucks" in the sense that I'm not able to be effective in combat, but you're mileage may vary. There's issues with the inscriptions being sometimes oddly matched (all energy gun gets bonus to physical damage) though that was addressed in a patch today. But I'm also early enough that I'm not really worrying yet that much as my gear still tends to be pretty temporary. I have found 2 legendary yellows and 1 blue in my past few missions. Stuff you can craft seems to be based on your own level. You can unlock higher tier recipies by using the weapons and getting kills. I can craft green Sledgehammers (a light machine gun that I dig). Getting the next level recipe looks a fair bit trickier as I'll need to kill Elite level baddies with my sledgehammer. Just checking out the Challenges tab in the journal right now. The load screens for Forge (and just in general) are no arguments here. I've read some have had success putting the game on their SSD, though not everyone is able to do that and we should work on improving it for everyone (I still use a HDD for most of my games)

I haven't played through the narrative itself yet so I'm not sure how long it is. How long did it take you to get through it all? What other stuff did you find missing from the game (lack of content or otherwise)? (I know end game content has been a complaint as seems to be the case for a lot of these games but curious if there was something else)

ROFLMAO! Only wrong in the sense that it is "older gamers." Compared to fresh young pups that are just getting into gaming the last 5 years the context is probably accurate. Only wrong in the sense that it is "older gamers"? That's like saying "Most green bananas are sweeter than yellow ones" - "Wrong" - "Only wrong if sweetness is concerned". I mean that what they consider "older gamers" had a gap that overlooked an even older group of gamers. Perspective of one's audience can be off due to inaccurate assumptions and all (e.g. I often prescribe a pronoun based on one's avatar) and it's not really nefarious; it's just gaps in their assumptions. Someone that is 28 is an "older gamer" compared to Fortnite players of today. And I pick Fortnite specifically because it's one of the first games I've felt an obvious "generational gap" in that This Thing Is Definitely Not For Me But Is Definitely Very For A Demographic I'm Not A Part Of. My wife and I went to a restaurant and when the server asked us what we were up to, we said we were going to go home and play some games and his eyes lit up "Oh you play Fortnite!?" hahaha. The idea, though, that it was "all down hill" from the EA purchase is going to be something some people will definitely not agree with. And if we were able to take a particularly randomized poll of the entire gaming community for BioWare's peak, I wouldn't at all be surprised if it came after EA's purchase of BioWare. With it comes the PC version of the first game, DAO finally being released, and BioWare's best selling games all coming after that period. Of course it's also a bit of an obvious thought, given that gaming itself has grown. EDIT: Even I did it since I bucketed "Fortnite players of today" as being younger players which certainly isn't an entirely accurate generalization hahaha The way I've always looked at it is that a game dev making games that don't interest me anymore is functionally no different than if they had just gone out of business.

ROFLMAO! Only wrong in the sense that it is "older gamers." Compared to fresh young pups that are just getting into gaming the last 5 years the context is probably accurate. This forum (at least when I was active here) leaned towards even OLDER gamers so for many long time here it was BG2 (and for some, KOTOR) that they felt was our peak. Unsurprisingly those that loved ME Trilogy (or even the first 3 DA games) don't care much for a game like BG2. You probably get KOTOR overlapping the most which would probably make sense given when it was released relative to the others. It's also reflective of what people liked about our games. For example, for a lot of people it was BG1/2's tactical combat aspect was what they loved. Unsurprisingly not much since then has made those people happy. I still had people on the old BSN that said they stuck around being a voice for a return ala "BG3" (or whatever spiritual successor as licensing was probably an issue). For myself it was the narrative and specifically companions which I loved, which I think were more ubiquitous across the breadth of BioWare games (subjective preferences aside). It meant BG1 was cool but not really my cup of tea (especially as someone that hated low level AD&D), though BG2 pulled me in heavily. We also have people that literally didn't play one second of single player of ME3, but hundreds of hours of the multiplayer.

I feel compelled to post: I like Fight On from FF7 (I think mostly due to nostalgia now, but it just fit so well with the boss fights). This track is probably a key cog for the scene that converted me back to a PC gamer back in 1999. I think Bloodlines had some catchy ones that seemed to fit the scene so well. There's something about that has some tracks that I for no particular reason! And while many may feel it reminds them too much of something they didn't enjoy, is a great piece IMO. Came across this and it's interesting how much of this is still true to me today :D Also Arkham Bridge B-)

Nooo... I has an identity crisis! Good to see you again Allan and good to hear you not running around with a bullseye painted on you I don't generally share what people on my friends lists do I still remember the time I accidentally called Deraldin Deladrin! And I screwed up Gfted1 by calling him G1fted! D: And I totally took Kaiserslautern from German Div 3 to Champions League Champions! Suck it Bayern!

Anthem

I can try to check. Edit: for what it's worth, social media tells me he is still there. I still have him on my steam friend list, so I know he's online, alive and kicking every now and then. and for the record, Baldurs Gate 1+2 were Biowares best ever games! I'm still around. Time flies and I'm about to complete my 10th year at BioWare - the past few I've been more of a QA programmer than a QA analyst which I enjoy and I get to flex my programming education a bit more. Gorth can probably corroborate that I play an awful lot of strategy games (oh Paradox Studios...) lately. And Football Manager. Because evidently I like spreadsheets! Also recently got married and in general life has been pretty good I think! As for our imminent doom, I mean it's part of the ebb and flow I find of a lot of game development studios? People that are still waiting for Baldur's Gate 3 will think it's been all downhill since then. For some KOTOR was the peak. Others the ME Trilogy. And for still others it's the DA games. Even DA2! Just depends on what it is specifically you're looking for in a game I think? I see similar arguments for studios like Bethesda, Blizzard, or even Obsidian! Daggerfall was the best... or Morrowind... or Skyrim. I loved Doom, but Quake never grabbed me. Commander Keen games were meh while Duke 3D was amazing. Oh the time I spent into Warcraft and Starcraft games, but I suspect far more enjoy Overwatch. And I'm pretty sure Diablo 3 is most popular Diablo, even if a hefty amount wholly prefer Diablo 2 over anything else. Obsidian's highlight for me is Fallout: New Vegas, but I also really enjoyed Alpha Protocol (flawed diamond it was) and wasn't really pulled into Pillars of Eternity but Tyranny had me binge two playthroughs of it pretty much back to back. I'm certainly not impartial but definitely not hoping that we get shuttered. I'm not overly concerned in any case and Anthem's launch not causing me any sort of dread or worry for whatever it's worth. But hey, 15 year veterans of Blizzard felt the same. It could happen... I suppose we shall see. Though I'm enjoying it because my current work has been really interesting and doing loads of Python/C#/C++ work in and around the game code which feels pretty cool. Anyhoo, thanks Pidesco for the link. They had mentioned that a few old timers like G1fted (whom I foolishly mistook for Gorth for a moment... too many floating skull/head avatars!!!) and just wanted to chime in for any that were curious. Cheers. Allan

Found him and it was excellent. :D RIP Mike

If you feel your life is increasingly difficult because of your status as a man, then that is your prerogative and I'm not here to convince you otherwise. Yes, I do think that men face less institutionalized issues and that most of them manifest from men. You asked why it was transmisogyny and I attempted to explain as best I could based on the limited knowledge I have now. If you feel you're better versed on the topic and that the entirety of my post is invalid because of those 8 words then so be it. Cheers.

Transmisogyny is simply the intersectional focus that transgender women tend to, in general, face increased hardship by virtue of being a transgender woman compared to transgender men. Some examples of this can be seen with whom trans exclusive radical feminists target (overwhelmingly male to female trans people compared to female to male). I believe transgender women are also more likely to be murdered and encounter sexual violence, but admittedly I'm still very new to this. I'm still getting over my own transphobia, which typically manifested from a discomfort from the reality that I probably would also freak out if I slept with a woman and she was transgender. Though I think I'm getting better in this regard and it's something for myself to work on. (I want to make the clarification that I do not think that someone must be an -ist or -phobe to do -ist or -phobic things. On this board I once casually used the term "Jap" to describe Japanese people which is a racist slur, and once I accepted that that mistake didn't make me a racist but just a human it was a lot easier for me to accept that type of critique and to respond more appropriately). It relates back to the idea/concept of systemic/institutionalized discrimination. I don't feel misandry is really a thing because while any individual can be a jerk towards a man for being a man, I don't really face wide spread challenges based on being a man. That's not to say there aren't issues that apply to men, but just that those that I do find tend to come from other men (and the supposed accepted ways that a man should behave and the shame for having particular events happen to you, for example). My two cents. In any case I don't see the censorship issue here, especially since trans awareness and sensitivity is still in its infancy meaning even if it wasn't noticed prerelease, doesn't mean Obsidian cannot take the feedback and say "Oh we didn't fully appreciate this." It's complicated because some transgender individuals won't care, while some do. Not really my place to say they should or should not be offended. Undoubtedly there's other contributions that were refused because Obsidian didn't feel they were appropriate.

Was curious to see what the reaction to this would be here. If you believe the contributors should have had carte blanche to write whatever they want with no oversight from Obsidian, then that's fine. It's a position we disagree on. I suspect they didn't let people write anything they wanted and that the submissions were vetted, so I'd need to know what Obsidian did in those cases, because I suspect it was probably a mistake. I'm not seeing the censorship issue since it's not relevant to the content of the game. If it's unfair because of the kickstarter contribution, then they could let the person submit something else in its place. This isn't like depictions of rape in FONV (which I feel Obsidian did well and disagree with the critique levied against FONV for those reasons) which is part of the narrative that Obsidian wishes to create, created specifically by Obsidian. It's also possible they didn't realize it was a mistake until pointed out, and of their own free will agree that it's not something they want. Similar to when I used "gay" as slang for "stupid" until I had a few people point out to me that they really didn't like that. Rather than continue be an ****, I opted to stop using the term. (The same thing happened on this forum when I ignorantly used the term "Jap" actually). And yes, the game is successful so it's going to get a wider range of perspectives on something like this. I also think Obsidian's track record is pretty decent for this sort of stuff, even if not every feminist perspective would agree. (The game is aces and I'm off to return to playing it now)

It's seen all the time. Often on this board too. Often the words being used are just slightly different. It's almost a daily occurrence on the BioWare Forums for there to be a heated discussion over the term "RPG" because to some, referring to anything that doesn't fit their strictly defined view of what an "RPG" is threatens that vision. If RPGs are popular, but popular in the wake of something like Fallout 3 or Skyrim, then those that want more Fallout 1/2 or Baldur's Gate 2 have now become marginalized. Devs will make RPGs not "for them" but "for those other people" instead. I agree that those labels are fluid, but then I also respond to the disagreements I have with people that use the term in ways I find confusing in entirely different ways (it typically involves less hate than some people).

The term's neutrality was already negated when people claimed ownership of it and spoke out with hostility to anyone that tried to use the term in any other way than their narrowly defined application of the term. Although... You literally excuse their usage here. (bonus irony points: gaming journalists stating this were also online!) I take offense to people who fail to recognize which group was being specifically focused on here, complete with the fallback of "people are just **** on the internet." There's cause and effect here. Gaming journalists don't call out "gamers" (quoted specifically, since I'm getting tired of writing "the subset of gamers that these articles refer to") unless "gamers" are being total asshats with respect to their hobby. And those online asshats (who'd never be in real life...) do an excellent job of pushing new gamers (no quotes) away because they attack and bully those that they feel co-opt the term and ruin the purity of gaming. Those same people who are ridiculously outspoken and go through great lengths to harass people and to try to bully/discredit them. Anita isn't a gamer. Game X isn't a "real" game. Toxicity that does a good job of pushing out moderates with, I feel, the hopes that people will simply "leave gaming alone!" so that it remains what these people believe it is. And this is exactly what the articles calling out "gamers" are doing. They're stating "you don't have ownership of the term anymore. And the identity your group ascribes from being a gamer is being eroded." The term gamer is being redefined, and a lot of the recent bull**** going on is providing an impetus for that. Those that want to distance themselves from the asshats are either going to try to take more ownership of the term and increasing the voice of those gamers that aren't "gamers" (which is what I've started doing), or we'll find a new term because honestly... I don't care what specific label is applied to me for my hobby. I am, however, sick vitriolic and hateful component of a hobby I love that gets trivially excused because "there's plenty of people [that] are asshats online. Which is a privileged perspective because simply that YOU don't get harassed in person doesn't mean that people (often women) do. "Fake geek gamer girl" and that nonsense actually does happen in person, and one of my best friends (who avidly wears game themed clothing) has to deal with it pretty much every time she wears said clothing. Yesterday it was getting a coffee and being challenged "do you even know what that is?" (referring to the Tri Force from Zelda). Me inquiring about it: "Yeah it pretty much always happens." Which often comes with the typical victim blaming "well if you don't like those questions why wear stuff like that?" This is a lot like #NotAllMen, where people are failing to realize that the silence towards **** that smear the name of gaming is the tacit acceptance of said perspectives. It's more about "Hey I'm not a bad guy" with the failure to realize that the backlash one's receiving has a very specific cause. Remove that cause and the outrage about "gamers" goes away. If things fall the way I would like, it means people realize that "gamers" mean people that play games, not "**** that attack anyone and anything that threatens the purity of their gaming hobby."

Hate speech is probably the worst possible term you could have used. Especially since we're all being so keen on using proper definitions of words now. Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of e.g. race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. (Source. Note that this doesn't touch on the legal application of the term which the link also discusses). That is sounds the same as "muslims are to blame for 9/11" is a huge problem because the level of significance and relevance of people seeing "attacks on gamers" as being in any way equivalent to real world and institutional discrimination towards (typically) visible groups gives gaming a level of gravitas that isn't there. As people are so common to say when it's convenient: "it's just video games." Which is true, and that doesn't mean one can't be passionate about it and love it. But any level of equivalence towards the two things is false. People aren't going to be scrutinized by the law for being gamers. People aren't going to face systemic levels of discrimination because they play video games. It's co-opting a specific term that means something different and I see it all the time too. LGBT people, for example, have "gotten what they wanted" on the claims of representation. Unsurprisingly, groups and fans of particular ideas (that don't suffer constant erasure from pop culture nor systemic oppression for simply having those ideas) now utilize the term and feel justified in doing so because "well we've given them what they want, so now it's time to give us what we want." Would it have been more palatable if they had colluded to spread out the articles? What you're seeing is a reaction to what some of them, and yes some of them are indeed friends, had to endure in the wake of both Zoe and Anita backlash. When you're facing a plethora of people (and their sockpuppets) harassing the **** out of you and your colleagues/friends online the impetus is going to draft a response. Yes, several articles came up to call out the antiquated notion of "gamer" and the narrow field of view a group of gamers have about what is mandated to be a gamer. But an organized hate speech campaign or several people sharing their experiences with each other and deciding to write about it? Note that there IS a gaming journalism critique here, in that games journalism has a huge tendency to imitate and repost same ideas from other OpEds and the like. But that's not what you've expressed concern about. First off, the bolded. This statement is untrue. Both Mandarin and Spanish are spoken by more people than English. Your perspective is, however, consistent with eurocentricism and ideology that the subset of gamers that these articles refers to. Why do we need more black people in our games? Ugh who cares about LGBT in games? I just want to play games! God damn SJW are ruining gaming!!! As though gaming is some pure thing that should be sheltered from outside influences and untainted by those that just don't understand what it means to be a true gamer! God forbid some article points out that older women now outnumber teenage boys. In fact, lets make sure we point grill them on "what types of games" because if they don't fit a particular idea (which is a moving set of goalposts depending on who you ask) then we can dismiss this and speak out against articles that state this as being bogus for... reasons. I question the intentions of anybody who lectures people on the proper use of words while in the immediately not following their own standards. The same things you bitch about gaming journalism about you exempt yourself from. Gaming Journalism is RIFE (click baiting, link chaining, industry sponsored award shows, etc.) with bad things and I don't, in general, care too much for it. You're absolutely correct in your other paragraph that there's dozens upon dozens of huge issues with gaming journalism. But when someone like Dan Golding states the following: ------------- When, over the last decade, the playing of videogames moved beyond the niche, the gamer identity remained fairly uniformly stagnant and immobile. Gamer identity was simply not fluid enough to apply to a broad spectrum of people. It could not meaningfully contain, for example, Candy Crush players, Proteus players, and Call of Duty players simultaneously. When videogames changed, the gamer identity did not stretch, and so it has been broken. ------------- then you're just being obstinate about the usage of the term gamers. Don't claim to be moderate in this issue. You dislike gaming journalism and you're insistent on this because in your views you want as much as possible against them so much so that you're splitting hairs over the usage of the term because failing to do so would mean conceding a talking point against gaming journalism. For all the ills of gaming journalism, them pointing out that the term "gamer" applies to so much more people than those that are so adamantly defensive about it is hardly an indictment against it compared to other things. But hey, like you, I have my own biases and since I've already been pretty indifferent towards the term being applied more liberally it's hardly a shock that I have less issues with them calling out the old, rigid gamer clique and illustrating that times are indeed changing. If someone were to, however, have a particular agenda against gaming journalism it doesn't surprise me that they'd opt on being wilfully obstinate towards the nuanced use of the term in this case because hey, you have a pile of stuff you want to build up against gaming journalism and the thought of taking something off that pile isn't something you're keen on doing. But that's not a moderate view. If you're going to rag on gaming journalism, I'd consider your argument to have more weight if it wasn't insisting that media telling people that the ownership of the term has evolved beyond what the old school insist it is. The subset of gamers that these articles refer to view the label as so sacred that they actively go on "hate speech" (since you used the term) campaigns to push out and discredit anyone that threatens to change the status quo. Depression Quest isn't a game. Anita isn't even a gamer. Allan you don't understand the gamer identity and the co-opting of our culture capital (yes, this has been said to me, as though I haven't been a gamer for 30 years that even competed in online leagues). The same group that shat all over Tim Schafer for "betraying" them because he simply said "I think everyone who makes games should watch this video from start to finish." I mean, he wasn't even talking to gamers (of any kind) when he said this - he was talking to the developers. But that's the issue the subset of gamers that these articles refer to. Anita is poisoning gaming through lies and all sorts of other scandalous terms. If Tim has now bought in... we have to mobilize and be even louder because otherwise true games won't be made anymore. Especially given that Anita's video basically comes across as "Stop being lazy and use different tropes." As though the subset of gamers that these articles refer to are actually encouraging game developers to be stagnant.

I was curious what you guys are up to regarding all this, and felt compelled enough to log in regarding this: I don't take any offense to an article such as Leigh Alexander's reference to "gamers" (and the quotes is significant) because I know she's not talking about me. She's not talking about a lot of people that do play video games. Plenty of people are against games with more diversity. I've seen them on BioWare's boards. I've seen them on this board. I see them on Youtube. I see them on twitter. The issue here is, as Bruce points out, there's a very loud group that is very, very particular about the title of "Gamer." I literally had an exchange today on Twitter with some asshat that got defensive because I commented that I didn't care if someone that loved Candy Crush or other casual games self-identified as a gamer, and in fact welcomed it. What I got was some exceptionally narrow retort about how it waters down the term and is (his words) "I wouldn't buy a steak from someone who see's beef flavored noodles on the same level as prime rib." For him, the application of the term "Gamer" bestows some level of cultural capital and he is adamantly against those that do not fit his particularly definition applying the term to themselves. There's a group of people that are very, very resistant towards outside influences that it resembles the proto-fascism that existed in Munich 1918. That is, if outsiders join the group and try to assimilate, their credibility is questioned ("Fake geek gamer girls"). If they come in with their own ideas, then they are alien and ruining the purity of gaming as it is. Both cases rely on some mythical, idyllic concept of purity that I question ever actually existed. But they are loud and can be militant. I see it on BioWare's message boards all the time. Heck, with some of the announcements we've made it's all about the "corruption of the SP only experience" and attacking anyone that expresses an enthusiasm or interest in the idea of DAI having multiplayer. The very idea that not only are we deviating from What Gaming is All About™ but that other people have the incredulity to actually support this? Oh my god the sanctity of SP gaming is being eroded and I need to call to arms my brethren to ensure that this doesn't happen! I identify as a gamer. I have no issues with anyone that games, regardless of what they play, identifying as a gamer. I like casual games because I know that some of those casual gamers will end up playing games that I like. And hey, when I'm waiting in a doctor's office it's nice to play something simple that I can stop at any time and not care. There's a symbiosis here that I have no issues with. I like gaming. I like gamers. I want more people to become gamers. But, to me, it was pretty clear whom the media was referring to when they said "gamers" and the particular identity that an insular, don't come into my club group of individuals are. I can't really estimate how many of these people there are... but in my own anecdotal interactions they do appear to be well represented in a lot of online discourse. From videos that go off all about how "why can't we make games that heterosexuals like" (we can) and all sorts of other bizarre points of view that I frankly didn't glean from any of Anita's videos but other people are insistent that she is saying in them. For me, someone like Anita comes across as a pretty tame critique of what I do (and I have literally worked on games she has called out). Basically "Hey guys, you tend to use a rather narrow range of tropes a lot of the time, and those tropes are kind of sketchy towards women... how about we mix it up a bit?" But that certainly isn't the impression a lot of other people get. This isn't even touching on the people that tweet me (or just come right onto the forum) to tell us (and others) how we aren't interested in "just making fun games" anymore and are more interested in pushing a PC agenda or whatever. And it happens all the time. Like almost any topic, the extremists get over represented, and I see someone like Leigh pointing the gun at the "Gamers" who are extremist and insular. The over representation they have IS bad for the image of gamers to the rest of the world. So I can understand the articles as being an explicit distancing from those extremist through alienating dialogue and so forth. The idea of stating to people "these people do not represent us." Whether or not alienating is better than "taking back the term" is up for debate. I lean more towards trying to be more proactive as a relative moderate to add my voice to those other moderates. Though if non-extremists don't join me, I suppose it'll end up being futile. As for this all being about corruption in games journalism and whatnot. Honestly I'm skeptical. There's plenty of ammunition against games journalism already out there, and the arguments that many people make are rooted in aspects that are completely irrelevant to gaming journalism and instead founded upon the idea of discrediting someone like Zoe or Anita in the hopes that the well will be poisoned and people will find them irrelevant and no longer listen. Every time someone mentions that Zoe considers cheating to be rape, they are making an argument that is irrelevant towards game journalism. They're making a personal attack on her character to undermine her character. Zoe sounds like she could be a pretty awful person, but that is pretty irrelevant. And I have no real issue with places like Reddit and the likes shutting down the discussion because (as I know by helping out on BioWare's forums) the idea that people would ONLY discuss the relevant bits and NOT start going into her personal stuff is nil. Unfortunately for those that wanted to discuss the corruption, their reddit forums for discussing were undermined by those that just couldn't wait to stick it to Zoe. And those existed. The idea that Zoe is already polarizing among some, in particular 4chan, isn't new. With the Wizardchan controversy the seeds of animosity were already sown. All it took was an upset ex-boyfriend to deploy the narrative that they wanted to see, and they ran with it. Confirmation bias is easy to manifest, and hardly unique to 4chan or anyone else really. Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable thing and the idea of hearing things that already support our views is pretty powerful and reaffirming. Factor in Anita, a figure that is already quite polarizing in the discussion (hi Chaz!), and you have a group of very outraged individuals that perceive two targets as not only painting gaming as some awful, misogynistic feeding zone (I do not get this impression, but c'est la vie) but that they appear to be profiting off of it as well. Damn skippy you're going to get some irrationally hateful individuals coming up out of that mess. As for her having sex with people. I think that that goes back to the problematic idea that some people have which makes sex a currency. So no, I don't consider it equivalent to giving someone like Grayson actual funds. People focus too much on the sex aspect and I agree with the notion that it's irrelevant and a complete non-sequitur. Unless your goal is to shame and discredit. But that's my 2 pennies on the subject and I'll return from whence I came! It's late so I probably didn't make any sense anyway! EDIT: I have no issues with Jim Sterling either, and he is frequently taking the company I work for to gears as well. I don't really consider him an extreme SJW, and agree with him that the term is overused (same with MRA as a pejorative). That said, in response to his criticism I don't threaten him or harass him online either!

Part of the issue with the old Eclipse engine is that there was no real concept of level streaming (some aspects could be prefetched and streamed in as whatnot), meaning that for the most part every entity in the level needed to be loaded into memory and that places a pretty large burden (especially on the older consoles) in terms of load times and so forth. I can't speak much to the overall length of the game (I'd expect that Mike's estimate includes some degree of additional buffer for exploring, given that aspects of exploration feed into the critical path - and that it's also a best guess "average" among the entire gamer base rather than an absolute hardline minimum amount of time required). I can say that the amount of traversable space is higher than DAO because of the Frostbite engine. Granted, many (most?) people will probably be taking a "straight line" approach and won't traverse every single square foot, but the levels are pretty big. Mounts aren't going to be a particularly huge part of the game. They can be a rabbit hole (they've been explored for virtually all of the games) and exist more for a degree of fantasy fulfillment and a way to quickly travel. Don't expect things like mounted combat and stuff like that. There are some small snippets of the Tactical Camera/Pause and Play system in various E3 videos. It likely won't look too different on the different platforms, but yes it will be available on all platforms. The only place I might see differences is in how high/low the camera can go on older consoles, although this would be scene specific (i.e. would happen on places that are a perfect storm of potential performance issues) and while paused performance thresholds can be higher so it may not be an issue. The system involves the usual "give orders" though it doesn't have a queue (wanted it, but opted to focus on getting the base implementation working. Could be expanded on in future games), although your character will move to targets for melee abilities. It differs from DA2 in that you can use an "engage" mode which has the time move forward, but keeps the camera detached from any particular party member. It has pretty decent range, though is tethered to the party (for level streaming reasons).

Then by all means help me gain some perspective by explaining it to me. What you write here doesn't give me much to go on aside from you disagree with me, which would hardly be the first time. So I imagine there's more to it than that. Ideally, if I may, I'd prefer you give your response in prose because I find the character provides an unnecessary layer of obfuscation that wouldn't be necessary and would increase the likelihood of me missing your point.

Because human beings do a better job of displaying that they don't let violent media make them violent, while they don't seem to do as well with not taking ideas and imagery and disassociating them. I also feel that violence is better socialized against in other ways. Because you don't understand the terms. Rape culture is NOT "all men are rapists." Rape culture is a term to describe a culture in which prevalent attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, and even condone rape. This is from the very first line in the wikipedia article. The second sentence is this: "Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing rape." For instance, someone suggesting "rape victims should just not make a big deal out of it because it gives power to the rapist" is an example of victim blaming, as well as rape trivialization. IIRC, this is what you actually said to me. It's not up to you, or me, or anyone else to tell someone how they should or should not deal with an assault like that. So yes, I consider a statement like that to be one that contributes to rape culture. No, I do not consider you a rapist. Some extra reading from a place like here. One thing they point out is how rape culture is a culture that feels rape is inevitable. Think about some people getting upset because what a woman was wearing and where she was walking was focused on during a rape, and how she shouldn't be there and certainly not wearing that? How many people go "well yeah, of course she's taking a risk." Soon it becomes her fault that she was raped. As for other examples of rape culture: Look up Stubenville. Some high school boys raped a girl. Adults obstruct justice to protect the boys and the school's football program, and there's a healthy degree of focus on how this is tragic for the boys because they had promising football careers and how they may not even get into college now if a conviction is made. There's another case of Raeteah Parsons from Nova Scotia. Very similar to Stubenville in that boys raped a girl and took videos/photos, and the girl was the one ostracized for it by her peers (she tried NOT coming out with an accusation to start too). She was bullied out of school and harassed by other boys that wanted to have sex with her. The family tried moving, but the bullying eventually caught up with them again thanks to social media... and the girl was driven to suicide. Saratoga High School had a similar thing, which some consider worse than Stubenville, where again guys took advantage of a drunk woman, took dozens of pictures of her being abused, and would share it with the student body. There's an article here in Rolling Stone. Harvard's Crimson posted an editorial from a Havard Student (kudos to the Crimson doing this... I consider that a positive thing). Until 1983, in Canada it wasn't possible for a husband to rape his wife. That doesn't mean that all husbands raped their wife. It did mean that society's codified laws meant that it was not something seen as possible (which is absurd as far as I'm concerned. If a spouse isn't interested in having sex, forcing that spouse, man or woman, same sex or otherwise, it's absolutely rape). That's rape culture. (rectifying this by altering the laws is an example of eroding that culture, which is something that I support) But there's still issues: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-canadas-sex-assault-laws-violate-rape-victims/article14705289/?page=all * Most judges now attend courses to become more sensitive, but still hand out sentences, Prof. Boyle of UBC says, that suggest victims invited trouble by how they acted or dressed while out on a date, or with those closest to them. * For example, in October, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal imposed a 10-year sentence on a man convicted of assaulting a woman who was working a night shift at a convenience store. The same month, it ruled on a man who had tied his wife to a bed, covered her mouth with duct tape, punched her in the face, cut off her underwear with a knife and threatening to slash her vagina before trying to rape her. Only on appeal was his sentencing increased to 21 months – and even then the sentence was conditional, so the man, by this time out of jail, didn’t have to go back. The man fitting the "typical" image of a rapist: 10 years. The atypical rapist... 21 month conditional sentence. I don't believe this is endemic to only Canada, however. Here's a cartoonist's take on the discussions regarding sexual harassment I was going to go into your misunderstanding of the term patriarchy too, but I've been writing this for a while and have to go soon. I did point out a study in a different thread of the male and female researchers BOTH critiquing an equivalently qualified woman candidate in a study (only the name was changed) more aggressively than a man. There's *some* reason for this type of assessment, and the idea that society (somehow) has us believe that women are less capable at the physical sciences is one possible assessment. This is the idea of "the patriarchy," which is more of a nebulous, abstract concept of institutionalized ways to reinforce a specific set of gender roles. It's important to note that men can be affected by the patriarchy too, in that they are ostracized if not displaying a suitably masculine image. Men are biased against in custody battles. They are biased against in adoption. I don't know this for certain, but I certainly perceive that they are more likely to be ostracized for being homosexual. (despite Volo's declarations, feminism has nothing to do with acting feminine - although feminism is more of an umbrella that has a variety of perspectives now). I find it troubling that you call out someone for "having a different idea of what feminism is than what is actuallly happening" because it doesn't seem like you actually understand the terms being used. But I'm not sure if it's the other people that suffer from cognitive dissonance on this topic. How many people on this forum point out that the extreme people are just that, extreme? How many people on this forum actually espouse those extreme views? Yet in a thread that I was taking part in, not long after I let it be known that I was a feminist, you post some hateful diatribe of what feminism is. I think you're mistaken about what feminism is. I think there may be some bias in your sampling if you think that feminism is as extreme that you think it is. I actually enjoyed reading a comment from a developer on a RPS talk regarding Manveer's talk at GDC. In response to all the people crying out against compromising artistic integrity, he shared how he knows all too well how much that's affected, as character designs he makes are white washed and altered to appeal to specific demographics. Artistic integrity indeed! But fans don't typically see that sort of stuff so it doesn't happen I guess. Perhaps they should stop compromising their artistic vision based on what the marketing department tells them. As a lead on a AAA game (Sudeki) who was forced to make a black character whiter, for “sales in target demographics (Japan)” I can promise you, the words “compromised artistic vision” ring loud and clear across the whole industry. If it’s made for profit, the artistic vision has already been compromised. Fact. (In response to someone asking why designers should compromise their artistic vision to appease sexual minorities). Super Smash Bros had an example of the designer literally NOT doing what was concepted, at all yet this is what was delivered. Artistic integrity! As for bull**** trivialization and fundamental misunderstandings: Magnificently put! I think for a lot of people, it's mere existence comes across as forced. In ME3, Steve made a casual reference to his husband that passed on. My reaction: "WHOA! He's gay!" I make that reaction because, well, it's not something I'm used to see. But I'll remember that... Makes a casual reference to his wife passing on? Do I even blink an eye? (I actually love Shepard's response to that line, given that it unphases Shepard in the slightest). I'll take this as preemptive support of this post. Thanks!

Addendum (since I missed it): A third good point to actually bring up is that the site's marketing "ban bossy" is misleading and leads to confusion. Malcador did point this out though, IIRC. And it's a good thing to say and it's a debating point whether or not exposure like that is useful because it gets people thinking, or it just makes people assume the wrong things.

I honestly cannot say that I have ever seen someone so thoroughly fail to grasp what comes across as such a straight forward and simple assertion. You're right that bossy and leader aren't the same... so tick one on failure at critical thinking. The thesis provided is that boys will do a particular act (whatever that act is) and be called a leader for it, while a girl doing that exact same act will more likely be called bossy. You're right that people you would consider bossy aren't always leaders. So tick two on failure for understanding the message being presented. As stated, the argument being presented in the link is that the girls are more likely to be called bossy while a boy doing the exact same behaviour will be called a leader. What you think is a good leader (or bossy) is actually not relevant to the discussion. Tick three. What you should be asking is "what are the actions being described?" Because what Hiro Protagonist considers to be bossy/leader is irrelevant. Because, and I'll peel away those evil words since you seem to be struggling with them: when little boys behave in a particular way they are being presented with a more positive label than when little girls behave in the same way. I hope you're still with me here? I'm feeling generous, so I'm going to list "things you shouldn't do" (they weaken your argument and typically waste people's time) coupled with "things you should do" (they demonstrate sound criticisms and things to keep in mind that can be applied more universally than just these topic even!) Things you shouldn't do because they're irrelevant and demonstrate a failure of understanding what is being presented, coupled with utterly abysmal debating skills: 1) Say that you know boys that are bossy, and question why they aren't brought up. The thesis (argument, if you will, or some other synonym since you used the word synonym I can have a reasonable assurance that you know what that word means...) put forward is that FOR THE SAME BEHAVIOUR (hint: applying what you THINK they are referring to is irrelevant. I recognize based on past experience that you have fundamental deficiencies in recognizing this reality, but in the hopes of educating you here's what you need to do: find out specifically what behaviours they are referring to, so you can have an actual informed opinion on the topic, rather than stumbling around rambling irrelevant anecdotes). TL;DR "Cool story, bro" 2) Share an anecdote and assume that it means anything. Because they typically don't, because few things like this speak in absolutes. No one is asserting that ALL people call ALL girls bossy when they would ALL call ALL boys leaders. That you think this is *wrong.* Please be less wrong in the future. Now granted, most people here are just like everywhere else and will overemphasize their own life experience. But since you had "no idea" about what was going on on the site, hopefully this helps! TL;DR "Cool story, bro" (again) 3) When you have no idea about something (which you've made exceptionally clear), you invalidate your assertions. Given that you have no idea why bossy and female are linked on the site (and I believe you when you say that), I *strongly* encourage you take the time to get SOME sort of idea before commenting, lest you do what you did in this thread and post several posts that demonstrate that you don't actually understand what's going on. Here's a helpful reminder: "if you ever use the phrase 'no idea' when assessing your understanding of something... don't chime in." TL;DR "Best to not share your thoughts on something that you have no idea about." Now for some meaningful questions that are actually related to the site at hand. First, and a pretty strong argument to open up with right out of the gate: "Are little girls actually more likely to be called bossy for the same actions that little boys do?" Here's the biggest, most blatant issue with the link in the OP: Is the reality it is asserting actually a problem? Now there's a degree of critical thinking here: Is the issue *really* the use of a particular word (it's not). 37 seconds on the site makes it clear that it's referring to issues that young girls have in terms of self-esteem/confidence, and being willing to put themselves out there to be leaders and vision holders. Now I understand the simple, lazy thing to do is to just look at "Ban Bossy." But, as we've established earlier... best to have some idea, rather than no idea, about the discussion before talking about it! So to give you some live ammunition, rather than the blanks/duds you've been using: point out that they actually don't provide any support that their assertion is true. That's super useful! I tried looking for some, but unfortunately all I really came up with is more references to this movement... which isn't very helpful. Without evidence, the thesis is actually just a hypothesis! Supplemental: by framing the statement they way they did, they exercised the "begging the question" logical fallacy, which is where the conclusion of the thesis is assumed to be true by the statement. It's completely valid to question whether the thesis is correct. TL;DR "It's useful to simply ask, is the thesis put forward accurate? Is there any empirical study that (dis)proves the hypothesis. (WARNING: always remember that a single study is useful, but it's possible that unanticipated variables things. So always be open that the study's conclusion *may* be not be accurate) Another very important thing to do, if you are still stuck on the use of the words bossy and leader: Find out what behaviours the study is talking about. Some more live ammo for you: they don't really talk about this... the site more talks about various strategies for helping young girls build confidence... which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't really help us understand what behaviours they are talking about. Are they talking about being loud? Telling other people what to do? Coaching people? I don't know what the answer is to this question, and that is a major failing of the idea! These are the knockout punches you have available to you. Not "well I know some boys and they were bossy" or "bossy isn't the same as leader" with further explanations that reinforce that you have no idea what's going on. TL;DR "Clarify what actions the group is talking about. Words like 'bossy' and 'leader' are not entirely clear. They may be misusing the word and it's immeasureably useful to know that so that you can have better than no idea what is going on." Take these and practice them. Forget about using points 1-3 of the stuff you shouldn't do. It undermines your position and shows you're not prepared to actually discuss the topic. Anecdotes, while interesting, are often meaningless. If you do have to use an anecdote, it's useful to acknowledge that it's an anecdote because by doing so, you're making it clear that you understand that your experiences may not actually be applied more generally.