alanschu

Depending on the forum and your apparent reasoning for not liking what she's doing, I can believe it (since it depends on how you said it). Unnecessary and immoral though? Seems a bit extreme. She asked for funding to do a project. You should see what goes on in Universities across the world if you think that that is bad. The idea that media (not just games) perpetuating stereotypes as having negative effects isn't really new. Damsel in Distress gets critiqued across the boards. Anita is just looking at it in games for this video (and her second one).

Hmmm. I agree there's a group that's very vocal about it. I have mixed feelings about this. I also see people that openly state that they have no issues with MTX under certain conditions. I think there's a big risk if we only take the loudest feedback (since there's always a group that's very loud about every BioWare game. I stopped going to BioWare's forums when Obsidian came online because it was frustrating me back then). This is a fair point. Bold emphasis mine. I find this interesting because it really seems like the general feedback is that stuff like Lair of the Shadow Broker is exactly the type of DLC EA/BioWare should be making. There could be ways that we can do that sort of stuff better in terms of references and the like. I have less issue with the video game tie ins (I actually never played any of ME2's DLC except Zaeed), though I do agree that doing extreme things with comics and Kai Leng and the like is probably not the best idea. Dragon Age seems to go with the idea of "Think of whatever happens in the books as being someone else's story" and to not really look to draw too much in which may be a better solution. I know there are plans to bring in characters that are referenced and even exist in some of the books, but I think as long as any character that doesn't exist in prior games is treated as though they are brand new shouldn't be a huge issue.

Speaking of which, it seems as though Civitas now has secured funding, so it cancelled its Kickstarter. On the topic of Dizzlike, i just can't see myself throwing any money down on any Facebook game. It just always blown my mind when I seen Disney, EA et al spend hundreds of millions of dollars buying out companies that made these free games. Hopefully the game works out for you, Kickstarter or not. I was actually pretty flabbergasted when I heard some of the numbers that the "whales" had done in the DA2 Facebook game (literally to the tune of several thousand dollars). It's definitely a segment where a small few contribute the bulk of the dollars. For some, it seems, their time is much more valuable than their money. Free to play is interesting because it reminds me of an article I read where an analyst told a developer/publisher that they should not worry about pirates using bandwidth (or even Tech Support) in an online game, because the mere presence of more people in a multiplayer game enhances the experience for those that have paid for the game. I can see the logic behind it, though I'm not 100% sure if the reality necessarily reflects that (i.e. I'm sure there are situations where doing so is not a good thing at all).

I was always taught to lead with your second strongest argument to help counter that haha. Though my time on forums is much closer to stream of consciousness where I just respond point by point in the order that it's read (although sometimes I bounce around, and those are the conversations where I suddenly have sentences that But yeah, it's not uncommon for someone to latch on to a single point. In other cases one may just end up glossing over posts as well. I find myself doing this more and more if I am in a discussion I think isn't destined to be all that productive. Alas the days of alanschu the tireless rebutter seem to be in the past hahaha.

I think it's easy to come to that logical conclusion, but that something is logically consistent doesn't actually mean reality reflects it. For instance, I have seen people state that microtransactions will encourage developers to put in some level of grind, in order to make the microtransactions viable. Logically, it makes sense. However, game length is typically regarded as one of the most commonly used metrics for game value. Consumers dislike short games, and have often been very vocal about it. A consequence of this is that game length is often padded by introducing a grind to help extend the length of the game. This is very common (and was overly applied in a game like Dragon Age 2). So the mere presence of microtransactions in a game that has a grind will predispose a gamer that dislikes the idea of microtransactions to figure that the microtransaction is to blame, when it could very well be the developer was concerned about length of the game. Now yes, ideally game length is extended by NOT introducing a grind (or making sure it's damn fun if it exists), though for a variety of reasons that is certainly easier said than done. That that alternative exists for game length leads me to wonder if there's an better way to do microtransactions. I disagree. Planescape: Torment is an ambitious title IMO, and I consider it to be an exceptionally well done, self-contained story. Even Torment 2 has to go from the angle of exploring the themes, which honestly could exist in any manner IMO. The thing about making it a sequel, though, is that it'll illicit memories and an easier association of what the game will deliver. Torment 2 is called Torment 2 not because it needs to be to fully develop, but to help with exposure and to set a level of expectation. I think this becomes a bit of a Chicken-Egg issue. Sequels are more successful because they can focus on the content, while there's an unwillingness to fund and support original properties than sequels. Seems kind of self-fulfilling. Sequels are considered less risky for a variety of reasons. They can certainly be cheaper to produce (although DA3, for example, requires an awful lot of building from scratch from a technical perspective, though not necessarily from a narrative perspective), but they also have a legacy of being good sellers. The big dog, Modern Warfare, is in many ways the same game over and over, and that name has drawing power. Change the name but keep the game the same, and it won't do as well. Also, new IPs can still utilize existing structures (particularly from a tech point of view). Black Isle was familiar with the Infinity Engine due to time spent with Baldur's Gate, and was able to leverage that for two unique non-sequel games.

I'm not convinced microtransactions must be bad. I think there's a potential to iterate and make something that can still help supplement revenues and not be vilified. Kind of like TF2's hats (although we might be running into semantics over whether that's a microtransaction, or some form of lightweight cosmetic DLC). I'll likely never buy clothing packs for a game, but if there's a customer base that wants them and is willing to pay for them, I don't think that's inherently a bad thing. You can include movies in the mix as well. I think people in general like a reboot the same way they like a sequel: it has familiar expectations. I actually dislike the big push for sequels, but everywhere I look it's what people seem to want (whether it be another Call of Duty, another Longest Journey, another Torment, another Fallout, another Alpha Protocol). Does this actually apply to games? I think a good game is a good game, for the most part. I'm typically of the mind that Story DLC is analogous to Expansion Pack (in that you're expanding the content within the game). Heck, even to the point that Tales of the Sword Coast is pretty much entirely comprised of content originally intended for the original release of Baldur's Gate, but was cut in order to ship. Furthermore, units shipped for Awakening is far, far less than Origins, for example. But a lot of people still want that type of content. Should it not be created because not everyone wants them? Or is it more just an issue that making sequels when this exists becomes problematic? I don't know if we have enough data points necessarily to state something like definitively, but I can understand that perspective. The problem with not doing sequels, however, is that it really, really seems like even hardcore gamers really want sequels. They just want sequels of the games they had that provide the same experiences. I'm sure Gorth and Morgoth would love an XCOM sequel that is very similar to the 1993 classic (both were disappointed in the remake). Unless this is a case of consumers not necessarily knowing specifically what they want until they have it.

I mostly have concerns because things could shift in either direction from JR. Best case: It's an eye opening thing and someone comes in and suggests some pretty radical changes to things like DRM, and to push "games as a service" as a genuine service that customers want. (Read: I'm not against the idea of microtransactions nor DLCs. Sorry. I think that they can be done in a way that supplements a product in a way fans enjoy. Note that I don't feel "games as a service" doesn't has to mean DRM, always online, or things like that) And that whatever is done, is more honest. Worst case: Short term becomes a greater focus, and the shift continues to go away from trying something different and the push to something even safer. And yes, something like this could affect my employment which is what I find unsettling. Either because someone new feels the types of games BioWare makes aren't worth the effort and I outright am just let go, or because I end up being assigned to work on games I don't really care for. I love the Kickstarter model for the types of games it makes, and would love a much greater degree of honest transparency with the fanbase. I've been burned enough in my personal life by people lying to me that I have pretty much learned that when I realize I've been lied to, I get pissed. Which means if a game company decides that they want their game to do something, just say so. Preferably, state why you want to do it that way. Then fans can at least make an informed decision. Ideally I'd prefer fans to not get super pissy in response to this honesty (i.e. if SimCity wants to be an online game and they come out and say it and say why, conclude "Isn't a game I'm interested in" move on, and not be petulant about it). Although regardless of how consumers respond (I felt many were quite absurd towards Obsidian's first concept art...), I'd still love it if there was more open discourse from publishers and developers towards consumers. Hopefully things work out :\

Isabela is Rivaini (it's Varric's pet name for her).

I agree rhetoric is missing. I suspect it's mostly a case of, with the internet, it can be the soapbox for the whole world. And as touched on in this thread a few times already, it's the extreme views that are overrepresented, and people have a tendency to paint the whole picture with these extreme views. Admittedly politics was much less on the mind when I was younger, but it certainly seems much more jaded and polarized than it was. Republicans are gun loving tea partiers that hate women and only care about rich white men, while Democrats are basically full on communists, for example. I'm sure people thought this in the past, it was just more difficult for it to be communicated for all to see.

Do you know if the free game can be giftable? I haven't accepted my gift yet as the games don't really interest me (I can get most EA games for free anyways) or I already own them.

SR3 was my first and it was hilariously awesome. Loved playing it co-op to boot.

Yikes, its currently trading at $17.09. How does that work, does that mean they have lost over 2/3 of the value of the company? Stocks are an interesting thing. It means that the valuation of the company is down 2/3 (note, EAs stock performance is not alone in this). Though people overstate its impact. Low stock price is more just an issue that executives will come under heat from the board of directors, as well as an increased likelihood that outside investment coming in and purchasing the company (venture capital groups often do this actually if they feel a company is undervalued). I have seen companies post profits and see their stocks go down, and post losses and see their stocks go up. The value of the stock is about as pure capitalism as you can get: the price is simply determined by what value people have placed on the stock. What effects it has on a company is a much more involved process.

Still some SimCity. I think I'd prefer a mashup of SimCity 4 and this SimCity. I would have loved loved loved SimCity 4 to have a MP mode. I like how many of the social aspects work, and there's definitely some fun gameplay with the new one, but I do think that in general the City building was a bit better done in #4.

Eh, I find that in these games the sci fi elements typically become known towards the end as well.

In the arcade version, once the final boss is defeated Billy and Jimmy fight each other for the girl.

HAHAHA. Although that doesn't exactly paint Mariko in a positive light XD

I actually find it funny how these older games often turn to sci fi haha. Ultima I had it, and I remember fighting robots in technological pyramids that results in launching a space ship to defeat the big bad at the end of Might and Magic III too haha.

That's a good point. In fact, when she references the Double Dragon game and states "regresssive crap" there's an implicit assumption that some level of progress has been taken. I am curious what her follow up will be. She talks about exploring the reversal, which is probably going to come under some level of criticism. Which I think is also symptomatic of the problem. Like the poster on the BSN that dismissed my suggestion that if we were to feature rape in DA3, we should have it happen to a male character. It was dismissed on the notion of "It'd just come across as feminist commentary and it wouldn't work." He's probably correct (at this point, simply swapping Peach and Mario is going to generate some level of criticism on the grounds that it's only done for some less than preferable reason). There was still some level of scorn for the father that flipped Pauline and Jumpman in Donkey Kong (although it didn't seem to come up too much in the brief examination I saw). But I just found it interesting that for this poster, the only depiction of rape he'd consider appropriate for the game is the sexual assault of a woman. We'd need to get to a point where, if the roles are reversed, no one would blink an eye and it wouldn't be newsworthy.

HAHA I had to reply to this, simply to point out how much it made me laugh

Hmmm. I'm not sure if I agree. I think the reason why hypersexualization exists in these mediums is because, on some level, it is desired. Again, it's probably not pertinent to focus on the extremes and apply it across the entire medium. I have seen and read up about some defenses that make me raise an eyeball. One of the articles I linked here was about an author that went comic book shopping with his girlfriend, and his girlfriend made a less than positive comment about Lady Death and Witchblade, to which she was berated by the store owner. The final part of it was: Which is an interesting way to describe someone simply because she didn't find the cover art to be all that appealing. I don't think it's a very positive reaction, and serves to undermine the whole subculture. But the article was an assessment about Nerds and Male Privilege and in it he got the impression that there is some aspect of resistance towards female entrance into nerd culture (The article is here if you're curious). Although I do agree that violence specifically, is outright glorified at times, while (to use the extreme) misogyny likely exists on a less explicitly visible stage. I do feel that watching a scene of someone getting killed in a visceral fashion is more likely to get a response of "Awesome!" from a representative sample population (I'd be lying if I said I didn't do just that from time to time), whereas outright female abuse would be more likely to illicit discomfort and possibly even some level of disdain from the audience. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the clerk in the example above absolutely does not consider himself sexist or a misogynist, and would in fact speak out against explicit acts of either. I think the issue starts to come with "what exactly is a sexist/misogynistic depiction of a woman?" His perspective is different than the author's girlfriend (and the author himself). Why is that? Is it okay for that different perspective to exist? Is there anything good/bad about having that particular perspective? The author obviously isn't the biggest fan, though his experience is immediately soured because whatever transpired happened to upset his girlfriend. What motivates the clerk to have that perspective, and more importantly, the defensive response to a critical comment.

Eh, not too much point in getting bogged down with it IMO.

That is an interesting point. Even if an actress is dressed up implausibly, denying that it's a real person is a bit silly. And to echo that, there IS some level of pushback with the excessive amount of airbrushing and other touch ups that occur with print media of both females and males.

In retrospect, my better judgment has prevailed (i.e. as the day went on I was less interested in going over them). Evidently I don't have the stomach for this type of discussion, and I willingly forfeit my Tireless Rebutter label. Travesty to the Obsidian Forums I am sure. EDIT: Agreed. I think it's a fine line, perhaps because (for whatever reason) it's something that is being more heavily scrutinized in this particular medium (along with comic books IMO) so attempts are examined more thoroughly than say, movies.

Hah! Well, I have often joked with my friends "when I become CEO" so I did get some "Is there more to this story Allan?" comments as jokes hahaha.