Bartimaeus

And you have to admit I was right about his view on Greece....its weird to see an American, especially a Texan, supporting and justifying the Greeks failure to implement austerity. Only some people from the PIGS countries and people who are anti-Western would look at the Greek situation and seriously defend there lack of good governance No...no, I really don't. Your argument against Kaine was, "The people you're agreeing with are biased, the people I'm agreeing with aren't: won't you reconsider, now that I've brought this to light?". I mean...what is that? That's ridiculous, that's what it is. Even if you were correct, saying stuff like that - and reframing the discussion like you just did with your latest post, something I've complained about more than a few times now - undermines your credibility so much that it's hard to treat you seriously. I don't know what to do with ya', Bruce.

The difference is in approach: in LL, he's actively dictating you what to do while not providing any reasoning behind what he's telling you to do. He's also very active in making sure you do what he thinks you should do. In Metro 2033, he's alluding to what he thinks he should do, but doesn't pass judgement either way, and he lets you reach your own conclusions about the Dark Ones, and lets you make your own choices. His behavior in LL is so overwrought and so hyperactive: the very opposite of how he acts in 2033, where he's mostly content to let things play out. If he really was so sure of the Dark Ones being worth fighting for by the time of the end of 2033, then he should've already been interjecting himself into the plot like he was doing in LL. He doesn't...so they seem like two entirely different characters to me.

Sure, but when you format your "criticism" in a specific way time after time... You just told Kaine Parker recently, in this topic or one on a similar subject, to not be influenced by a select few posters you disagreed with and instead come to his own conclusions by looking at what a few other posters you agree with have to say... It's so insulting, as if we're not capable of rational thought that could possibly disagree with yours...so you have to remind people that yes, they should use their brains to consider all points of view and whatever pieces evidence there are. You've done the same thing to me at least twice that I can think of, so I'm speaking from (anecdotal) experience here, Mr. "No I speak from fact, I'll mention some words now that I guarantee you wont know...don't look them up just be honest".

Its weird my girlfriend called me condescending...in fact I have been called that by people before. I don't think its true ? What do you think ? You are, by far, the most condescending person I can think of on these forums, Bruce. So many of your posts just ooze an "I know better than you" tone, or a "lol, do you REALLY think that? (smirk)" tone, or the patronizing "you shouldn't let anyone else (that I disagree with) determine your thinking instead of coming to your own conclusions yourself, because apparently I don't think that you're capable of already doing so unless I tell you to do it...and as I'm telling you what to think myself" posts...or the silly "congratulating" posts you give people who you agree with without adding any additional content yourself, where most other people would just like their post instead... There're reasons people have problems with your particular style of posting, Bruce, that they don't have with other people they disagree with. Do I hate ya' for it? No, particularly considering I don't think it's intentional...but it does tend to get annoying in some of these topics...

No, that's kind of what I liked about him: he never directly said it either way. He tells you to look at things as clearly as you can, to examine things from a different point of view...to see the true nature of things, instead of the assumptions we have a tendency to immediately come to about them, regardless of what they are. He never says, "don't kill the Dark Ones": he just alludes to that being a possible choice to make. If the Dark Ones had turned out to actually be evil, then what Khan said still would've held meaning that you could've looked to: his character and the things he said were not so one-dimensional and one-note as they were in Last Light, where he's actively telling you what and what not to do with little wisdom behind it.

I've heard of all but the third one, though specious is the only one I actually know the meaning of. Your condescension does you no favors, Bruce.

Well, shooters should be arcade-y in that twitch is all you need for the most part, at least for MP anyway which is probably the main reason anyone plays CoD or BF games. I mainly like ones such as R6 or GR1. Was being a bit facetious, but I do always wonder a bit at why people always look down at shooters and want 'better' in some nebulous terms (I assume this will be 'experience' games ). For some, you do need a fair amount of skill to be good, though for some reason they keep wrapping them with unlocks. Because, as aluminiumtrioxid and I were discussing earlier, people have a tendency to smugly look down on which they don't understand/enjoy. The only "arcade-y" shooter I've really ever liked is TF2...and they ruined that for me by throwing in so much crap I didn't want via updates after release that I couldn't much enjoy that anymore, either.

I didn't say it's a common word: just not that rare, particularly if logic is being debated. Also, your experience is entirely anecdotal...my old high school English teacher loved to use it whenever he could to point out people's inability to logically reason (or when they're trying to "logically" - in their mind - reason when, in reality, logic has little to do with their reasoning). Nomenclature varies from place to place, from setting to setting.

My issue with Khan's character may have been more one of presentation than actual substance, I suppose: he just didn't feel like the same character to me at all. In Metro 2033, he felt like he was supposed to be a wise teacher...odd, but full of different experiences and strange ideas. He was also more serious, reserved, and, IMO, respectable. In Last Light, he didn't seem like any of that: just some loudmouthed guy who seemed as equally small-minded as his opponents, just in a different way. In M2033, he didn't even seem to be in direct opposition to the Rangers: his character was just alluding to the idea that their approach may not always be the correct one - he never told you upfront "hey, save the dark ones", and didn't really seem to be the type to pass judgement on others because he recognized that people will make the choices that they'll make, and unless it's something he would feel the need to actively work against, que sera, sera. I don't know: none of that felt like it carried over to LL, so his character seemed pretty radically different to me.

90%? That seems kind of low to me, regardless of creative outlet...I would expect something closer to the 97-98% range. Of course, "crap" is at least partially subjective...

Something about not celebrating the 4th of July anymore because this isn't the same country he grew up in, nor the same one that servicemen died for...to which my reply was duh, I'm sure your parents and grandparents thought the same thing anytime there was change they didn't like as they were getting older.

Eh, it's not that rare of a word...although I'll admit that I've only used it a handful of times in real life. Not too uncommon on forum boards where people are constantly arguing, as at least a few people are bound to have taken a class or two on logical fallacies.

Hey, I like shooters...just usually not arcade-y ones like Call of Duty. If someone wants to resurrect/make a clone of Stalker (and keep it similar to Stalker in gameplay and tone: it can change in other ways, what do I care), I'm more than happy to support that. Just don't make it unbearably awful like the Fallout resurrection (which switched primary genres, IMO, for no apparent reason, and did it horribly). Like I said before, we all have our tastes...the industry should be able to satisfy us all.

Yeah, I brought this up three pages ago, but nobody seemed to much care and instead everyone got sidetracked by how Pao was a moderator on an anti-MRAs subreddit...that she actually wasn't. I thought the approach of encouraging diversity by removing wage negotiation was just an excuse to pay workers less, which is the issue I had with her. Though I don't really use reddit and don't intend to for the foreseeable future. Yes...I thought that was laughable at the time, too...though I will say, upon further reflection (that I'm having right now), that it really depends on how she went about it, which I don't think we were ever given the details of. If by "removing wage negotiation", she meant "bring up everyone to at least a certain standard and don't 'overpay' anyone in the future unless we're going to bring up everyone else, too", then I could see an argument for it being a good thing. Of course, I think wage negotiations serve a use beyond just that, but I could at least see that as a half-decent argument and implementation. But again, I don't think we were actually ever given any real details on how that went down.

Um...it may not be your job, per se, but it wouldn't hurt when you're trying to make fun of them by emulating them...which I think - I'm not sure - was aluminiumtrioxid's point. I'd like to point out now that I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with either of you on what you guys are actually talking about, so don't think I'm arguing about the broader subject.

This sounds like something I've heard before, too...but I'm drawing a blank on who it was as well. Bah. Hopefully somebody remembers.

I don't see why it doesn't happen, really: if this subject (and the smaller specifics within it, of course) really is important to these untapped demographics, then it absolutely should. It's not like we're talking about cable or internet providers, where there is literally only so much room for "competitors": there is no limit in that sense. Is it the fact that developers would have to start out small? That's always a disadvantage regardless of the industry, but usually not a crippling one outside of monopolistic industries (e.g. the aforementioned cable/internet providers). The gaming industry is not monopolistic at all: it's probably one of the least monopolistic, most global and accessible I can think of (at the moment, anyways, ). So why hasn't there been a stronger movement to appeal to those untapped demographics? Furthermore, once those demographics actually established themselves as being important to the AAA gaming industry, you can bet that they'll try and follow suit to seize it in the manner I described in my previous post. But why hasn't it happened, and why does it continue to not happen? (e): Three more posts while I was writing mine...now I actually have to quote you. Bah.

Yeah, I brought this up three pages ago, but nobody seemed to much care and instead everyone got sidetracked by how Pao was a moderator on an anti-MRAs subreddit...that she actually wasn't.

That... wouldn't be much of a progress from an artistic standpoint, would it. Well, that's a different point entirely from what a lot of people are arguing about...

Well, problem is, someone would need to fund the development of those games before their non-adolescent target demographics could throw money at them, and the industry culture has been steeped in this very... strange mindset where they blow impossible amounts of money on developing and marketing a game, so they need to be absolutely sure it's successful and just can't afford to take risks. Any risks. At all. Of course it's likely to backfire spectacularly sooner or later, and maybe something more balanced will come out in the end when the current model becomes unsustainable, but "oh the industry will just fix itself, given time" isn't really reassuring when we've had about a decade of the industry doing the same thing over and over again, expecting something to change. I don't disagree with any of what you said here...but nevertheless, I don't think it's of much use to try and get developers to "take more risks" in their games: from their perspective, they're just continuing to make the games that they've always made for the audience that has kept them afloat thus far. Publishers I can see more of an argument for, in taking risks on newer developers/ideas that they haven't already...but I don't think that's really their responsibility, either. I would prefer a more grassroots-like growth: developers that start out small and then become bigger as they utilize more and more of those currently "untapped" demographics, and become giants in their own right. They would be actual different sides of the same industry, then, instead of the current conglomerates merely trying to seize a new market to increase their power and profits. But I have an irrational hatred for gigantic corporations, particularly multi-media ones, so that's probably just me. I'm also not sure how realistic this approach is, particularly considering nothing much of note seems to have happened yet...

Did it? I never actually learned how Last Light ends: the absolutely pants-on-head-ridiculous love plot line was enough to put me off of that game for forever. The complete revamp of Khan's character from an old, wise sage type character (with possible hints of not being totally correct?), to a crack-smoking hippie type character didn't sit well with me, either: throw that in with the LSD tunnel or river or whatever it was as well as Anna, and you've got yourself a nigh insufferable game.

I'm not sure about all, but it does seem we, as humans, have a tendency for that kind of behavior, yes. I'm no exception, for sure...but occasionally I remember that it's a pretty stupid and judgemental way of thinking and try not to do it. Occasionally. No disagreement from me here...I just don't agree with the idea that the general strategy the article you gave me implies is the way to fix the situation. I don't think there really is a "fix" in the normal sense: the industry should realign/fix itself with or without anyone trying to actively intervene. Money, more now than ever before, drives the industry...and more than just teenage/young adult males have money. Um...I'll be honest in saying that I'm not completely sure. I thought there were multiple different factions in such communities: people who just flat-out hate and ridiculize romance or at least the current, silly/shallow implementations of it, and the likely fact that it will continue to be that way in AAA gaming...those who accept it/like it, who're happy to see it in more games where they feel it's appropriate...and those who are serious about it and take it to an entirely different level. There are probably more, and yes, I'm sure there's a lot of fighting about it.

I dunno, in my experience, the kind of people whose favored pastimes include a mockery of MRAs generally tend towards more of the "point and laugh" variety instead of the "torches and pitchforks" crowd. (And make no mistake, MRAs richly deserve being mocked.) Well, like I said, I don't think it really matters who the target is: I visit KotakuInAction (basically the pro-GG subreddit for GG's stated intents and purposes, and not for any of the negative fringe elements of GG) and TumblrInAction (basically the anti Tumblr/super SJW subreddit) and PCMasterRace (super pro-PC and anti-console subreddit, as you might expect) once in a while, and though there are often topics of interest that I think are worth discussing there, the subreddits are also often bogged down with hyper-overreactions, hypocrisy, and general stupidity: large crowds of people often seem to have the tendency to not exercise much in the way of critical thinking regardless of what they're all collected there for.