Bartimaeus

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.

I think that's a pretty silly/insulting way to put it, but ignoring that, have teenage/young adult males actually ceased to be AAA gaming's largest demographic? I know that they're no longer the majority in gaming "overall", but "overall" is not really a useful distinction to be making if that one sector, the (probably?) most powerful and lucrative sector because of its audience, continues to dominate gaming. It doesn't have to be that way, I'll agree with you, but the fact that it is, for the most part, continuing to be that way says something about its purchasing power in the industry. I also don't really care for the notion that, in order for other sectors/demographics to become more significant players in the industry, we need to belittle/reduce the currently most powerful: if they are actually distinct and significant, then they should become stronger and better represented in time regardless...and without needing to go on the offensive, so to speak, on the currently most powerful part of the market that some of us happen to consider "inferior". I like the things I like, and other people like the things they like: why should any of us be less for that, regardless of our preferences? It's not like game development is a monopoly, after all: if those other demographics really want to support a different variety of works than what is currently being supported by the AAA industry, then it will(/should?) happen on its own, and they will(/should?) become significant forces in the industry and continue to satisfy that demographic. I'm afraid we'll have to differ here, based on what we consider to be a part of those adolescent "tastes": I would consider what the AAA gaming industry considers to be "romance" in games to absolutely fall into this...in fact, I'd go a step further and say it comes across as practically infantile to me. Nevertheless, such so-called "romance" implementations definitely have their proponents even here on these forums...and personally, I think that's O.K., because I don't typically concern myself with games that have it, and as a result, I have no desire to rail against it or the people who enjoy its current implementations. Instead, I am usually content to let people like what they like. Just as I'd prefer everyone else to do as well.

I think his point was that the sort of people that make/inhabit websites/subreddits for targeting/criticizing a specific type of people in a very particular way such as that subreddit does don't usually adhere to the highest of ethical/moral standards themselves, and often engage in behavior identical or at least similar to that which they supposedly abhor in the people they're targeting/criticizing. In my experience of these kinds of subreddits (regardless of who they're actually about), I couldn't say that would seem completely baseless...

I'm going to ignore everything but the initial post that started this: she is not a moderator of that subreddit.

The "easiest" difficulty is, IMO, the hardest. Everyone - yourself, enemies - can take like 10x as much damage compared to if you're playing on the hardest. So you don't die in a few bullets like you would on the hardest difficulty, but the same goes for enemies. The result is that gun battles are way, way too long and drawn out for no real reason. Playing on hard, whether ranger or not, is much, much preferable, IMO. Weirdly, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had a semi-similar difficulty system...is it a coincidence that both games are from Ukraine? Hmm... Out of a few playthroughs, I think I've died on that section maybe once.

Why do some of you keep acting as though reddit has "free speech"? It doesn't: every subreddit is moderated by a different team of moderators who set rules and guidelines for their subreddits, and if you don't follow them, either the users downvote you to oblivion or the moderators delete your posts. That's about as much free speech as you can get here: less, in fact, because people can downvote posts they just don't care for, even if they're perfectly within the rules. If we were discussing the topics we have on Reddit instead of here, I would pretty much guarantee that some posters would never see the light of day: people like Volourn (among others) would never be able to post the posts they do without their posts disappearing from everyone's sight because of the downvotes. Based on what you're saying, I would think you would prefer that over the virtual free for all here, Bruce: these forums are probably some of the most "free speech"-y I've ever seen, where the moderators don't seem to give a hoot about most anything anyone says outside of a very few subjects: never mind if people are going off on rants with personal attacks and trolling and whatever else - just don't try to circumvent the swearing filters, . It's certainly "better" in that regard than Reddit, anyways. Keyword: should.

Depends on what you mean by "big deal". Lots of things are big deals...doesn't necessarily mean they're worth bothering with, though.