random n00b
-
Posts
629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by random n00b
-
-
From what I know, the demographics in the Nordic countries are different from those of the US, UK, and southern and eastern Europe. Immigration for instance is a non-issue there. Perhaps the relation between that and the success of their model isn't simply casual.That's just the trains though, not something important like, say, education I mean, nowhere with fully public schools has ever ended up with results that should embarrass both America AND the first world in gener....oh, wait, hi Finland (and yes yes, you too Ikealand).You're right though, a 99% literacy rate is proof that it just doesn't work, history agrees man, history agrees.
I don't think their level of success could be duplicated anywhere else, so they are probably something of an oddity. Which is why they are the one and only example brought up when defending the effectiveness of socialism...
And that's why generalizing is so fun.Isn't it nice when people use the vast expanses of 'history' as some kind of quantifier to their own agenda. I'd be expecting you to slam people for doing the same, not doing it yourself because while the base point about competition is correct, but you're just coming off as bitter and ignorant. -
This is what you are talking about, right?
I could live with that, but it's not really any more effective a scheme than any other, against piracy. It would perhaps take more time to reverse-engineer, but once the "scene" became proficient at it, it would become a trivial matter.
It's obvious that the industry is fighting a losing war against piracy, and I think it's na
-
Well, rigorously, he's right - we don't know.Yes we do. It is always same thing. Your Average Fan (who is NOT part of message boards) just aren't as rabid as people here.It has been seen over and over again with other games and game franchises.
Your average Kotor fan - as even in message boards there are a lot people who love the idea of MMORPG - just doesn't give a ****. He's propably thrilled by the news (if he has even heard about it)
It's hard to say how fans of the franchise will react to the news of the next installment being a MMO, especially since it's as of yet unknown if this means that a third, single-player episode will not be made. But, if these boards are anything to make an educated guess from (and they are most definitely not), only a minority will really be pissed about it.
And by the way, masses seldom care about anything really...
-
I didn't know NWN features an official GM service, online events in official, Bioware-maintained PWs, etc. I guess you just know better.The exact same stuff that you might get in a single-player game (id est Neverwinter Nights).
Well, now. Then go right ahead and debate them, instead of dropping these holier-than-thou one-liners.As for your other points, well, they are debatable to say the least.
-
And I was making a comment on the opinion you posted. I know you have a story of throwing fits when somebody does that, so if you can't deal with it, perhaps it'd be best if you kept your opinions to yourself.I wasn't even talking to you, nor did I even mention that everyone should conform to my way of thinking. All I did was state my opinion.Stop putting words in my mouth and actually READ what you're replying to, please?
Please mention one comment I have made where I'm actually making the argument that anyone is threatening my enjoyment of MMOs.Please mention one person here who has said you're not allowed to enjoy MMOs.
Such as? Guild wars? Some obscure Korean MMO? I'm really interested btw.Yet, you have all this with free MMO's... And you will have it with the next expansion....
You tell that to the CS and Starcraft crowds. I guess they are doing it wrong, too.It is as simply as this: if I want to play with someone, i'll get out with my friends. A game is singleplayer (or coop, if you push me), not gathering with some random....
There's still plenty of singleplayer games, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Nobody is "forcing" you to anything, unless you fire up a MMO. But in that case, that's the whole point of the game, and complaining about it is like complaining about the lack of submarines in Chessmaster.If I paly a game, it is I who has to complete it, not force me to chat with someone else hoping to find someone willing to party to become even possibly to success in next mission. -
Edited by SteveThaiBinh to remove off-topic comment.
Wow, an actually sensible post. No wonder it's gone unnoticed and ignored for the most part.I play WoW. At $15 a month, that's equivalent to seeing one movie (with refreshments) or maybe one dinner out. I know not everyone can do it and it does seem like a racket that they get to keep squeezing money out of you month after month, but really... compared to the other ways to spend your entertainment budget, MMO's are freaking cheap, especially when you consider how many hours of entertainment you can get out of them. On light weeks, I can log over 10 hours without even thinking about it.So, basically, if KOTOR 3 is an MMO, I will be trying it. If it's entertaining enough, I will continue spending the money on a month by month basis as long as it is still keeping my attention. If it's not, I won't.
I don't *want* K3 to be an MMO, at all. I don't think it can do justice to the story line and I'd really like to see Obsidian finish up the story they were wanting to tell. But I am looking forward to a (hopefully) good Star Wars MMO.
How extensive is your experience with MMOs?Say, isn't MMORPG a contradiction in terms?
I mean, can you even have role-playing in MMOs? Not that I've ever seen or heard of it
And I'm of the thinking that not everything needs to conform to some single person's way of seeing things. It's OK if you don't like MMOs, but understand that some people do and are willing to purchase what that perfectly legitimate service offers. Which means it's just not going to go away.MMOs...ugh, can't stand those things.I hate any game(s) that you have to pay to play after you've already payed just to own it.
I'm of the thinking that as soon as you buy a game, it's yours. No 'extra charges'. No 'monthly fees'. Just bought, payed for and owned.
So no, even if Kotor 3 is a MMO, I won't spend a cent on it. No game is worth the money you'll waste on it just for 'monthly fees'.
No, they are not going to give you stuff for free. They need to make a living too, you know.
-
Nice find.
Thoughts:
- Graphics don't look so hot, especially character models. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, I do realize that's the 360 version.
- Dialogue seems uninspired at best.
- The whole infant business seems interesting... for the first playthrough. It has the potential to be even worse than Chateau Irenicus or the Temple of Trials...
- G.O.A.T.(se?)? Seriously, what?
- Whoever's playing that sure knows how to pick their character names.
- Thinking is already starting to make my head hurt.
- Graphics don't look so hot, especially character models. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, I do realize that's the 360 version.
-
Depending on the state of your health, you may or may not be able to stomach reading through this whole thread, where many mods are discussed (unfortunately, the discussion isn't restricted to that).
As everyone is recommending TuTu, I'm going to go on a limb and recommend BGTrilogy. It adds some stuff you may not agree with, but I liked how it handled the transition.
BG1NPC - It's debatable whether fanfic-quality writing is better than NO writing whatsoever, but it has Jags' seal of approval...
SCS/SCSII - I don't know which version you would need if you go TuTu/BGT. AWESOME mod.
BG2 Fix Pack/Tweak Pack - Take a look at the changes list and decide for yourself which (if any) components you want.
Those are the things I wouldn't play BG/BG2 without.
-
I know you were kidding man... the lololol thing was a wink to the retard part of your post.
Maybe I'm just losing my edge.
-
lololol... but it is. The best things in life are co-op.Co-ops is for retarted idiots thinking lololol gaming with frienz on couch is best thing everThat said... Colonial Marines already features co-op prominently, and I'm not sure how well this game would lend itself to it if at all. So I can live without co-op here (but just barely).
-
I don't know if you're just a cheap ass, or simply naive.
Either way, giving away stuff for free is stupid, so don't expect people to survive in the business to do it.
-
Thought we were done? Think again!
Sure is. So what? It makes sense that the more in-depth you go into any subject, the less people will be able to discuss that subject from an informed position. And again, being informed is the fundamental requirement to form an opinion.And if someone did, isn't that elitist?
What does this have to do with what I said? Did you even read the part where I explained why I'm not using reviews and other means of outsourcing opinions as a valid means of gauging the worth of an idea?Of course, you could then make the argument that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is elitist when handing out oscars, or the Peabody Board when awarding a Peabody, but the difference is that giving out an award is not "right or wrong" - it's just the opinion of a select group of people that anyone is free to disagree with. If someone says "they gave the oscar to the wrong guy - he was robbed", it's not a statement that the Academy was factually wrong, but merely that the person saying it disagrees with their opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to suggest oscars should be given by popular vote. For one thing, the individual vote would probably mean little just on the simple basis that the average person would be unlikely to have seen all the nominated films. But that does mean that this person is wrong if he thinks the Academy awards the Oscar to the wrong guy. His opinion is still valid, because you'd assume he had at least seen the performance he thinks deserves an award.
No, it doesn't. "Good" can mean virtually anything you want, depending on an infinity of factors and circumstances. A Big Mac can be "good". But it's not especially healthy, so in that respect is not "good". <insert any number of similar examples here>Well, if you insist on arguing definitions, "superior" means (1) "higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc." or (2) "above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence" while "good" means (1) "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious", (2) "satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree" or (3) "of high quality; excellent" . Heck, if you look under the American Heritage Dictionary heading, then definition under (e) even describes "good" as "superior to the average", so I would take "superior" as almost synonymous with "good" except to a greater degree. Doesn't "superior" virtually mean "very good" or "highly good" or similar?"Superiority", however, is a meaningless concept when applied to a single element, evaluated in isolation from those which, due to their attributes, would make it superior or not, over a set of well-defined parameters. It is an inherently comparative concept.
It doesn't matter who's making the assessment. It's still based on personal preferences rather than an objective consideration of that game's elements. Your accusing me of an ad hominem argument on that paragraph is way off the mark.If I didn't know better, I'd say you're trying to sidestep the issue with an ad hominem argument, since I believe it obvious that I was not using "I" to indicate a particular preference on my own part as much as to point to that of another person. Unfortunately, I actually don't know any better, so I shall refrain from use "I" in those statements from now on. My sincerest apologies: "And if the Sims don't appeal to someone, then it doesn't, in which case said person is not likely to consider it a classic even if he or she accepts that was a hit among some people. It really is that simple."
I didn't ask for a connection, I asked for an explanation to a statement you made that I think holds no water. The "connection" doesn't go beyond the game being "Sim"-something, something I already noted.It does establish a connection... and your sarcasm is noted.Look up the difference between "explanation" and "connection", in one of those online dictionaries you are so fond of, if in doubt. (how was that for sarcasm?)
-
Ooh, quote war! I can play that game, too.
Yeah, but unfortunately, that's how (constructive) conversations work. If I ask about the weather and you answer that my tie is lovely, we might as well do something else.First, I'm under no obligation to address the points you may choose to,Aside, the fact that you are still struggling over semantics, with online dictionary definitions as the underlying foundations for your arguments proves what I said before - you are constantly sidestepping the point.
That you believe your arguments or the way you convey them is appropriate does not necessarily make them so. Keep your apples and oranges arguments coming if you want... but they don't really add anything relevant to the discussion.and secondly I feel completely justified in arguing in ways that I think are appropriate whether you approve of said arguments or not.
Wow, "incorrect"?Incorrect.Is that your opinion, or is it fact? Nice job at taking a shot at your own discourse.
That's what you say. However, being so categorical when expressing whimsical, uninformed, and otherwise irrational (as you have been defending your right to so far) thoughts, will lead to confusion. Because, you see, people will expect you to explain why this is so, according to you. "I think X sucks", is unequivocally an expression of personal belief, and will not necessarily be put under scrutiny in the same way.There is no inherent requirement to put "I think" before or after such a statement in order to indicate opinion, since it obviously so from the context. If someone says that MMOs suck, then that is not a statement of fact requiring disagreement from other people, but just an opinion, because whether something sucks or rocks is always down to personal taste.A person might stray far from the consensus opinion if he or she claims Rembrant was a crap artist, but that does not make the opinion "wrong" by default. Fewer people saw Battlestar Galactica in its third season, yet it won a Peabody award for that season. Does that mean the Peabody Board is elitist and "wrong" because their opinion of the show differs from the majority of viewers? That would seem to me to be logical consequence of what you suggest, assuming I understand you correctly.
Really. How many times do I have to explain this? It's beginning to leave a bad taste. Consensus has nothing to do with it. Consensus is merely a number of people agreeing on something. People agreeing on something do not define reality. I thought my Beethoven example would have made it clear, but obviously I was mistaken. Rembrandt had a better technique that many artists before or after him. He was self-taught as well. Those two things make him a genius, regardless of whether you feel moved by his paintings or not. Simply because most people (and most artists as well) cannot perform comparably. Therefore, the statement "Rembrandt is a crap artist" is objectively wrong, simply because there aren't many able to outperform him. It's a matter of comparison.
You are wrong. The formal study of music isn't a subjective discipline, and music itself has a deep connection to mathematics. Therefore, it can be proven objectively (to the extent this has any meaning), that his compositions were of superior quality, as well as his superior mastery of music as a system, overall. Again, simply by comparison.Given that empirical aspects are by definition based on experience rather than fact, that does not support your idea that of right or wrong, because that comes down to the experience of the individual which may therefore difffer.
This is wrong on two accounts.That "grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" is fairly important, because it's the difference between valid, perhaps even very certain assumption and fact. Opinion are never factual, and thus there can be no way to "prove" them correct. But it also follows from that, then, that they can neither be "proven" wrong, because if they could, then would be misconceptions, delusions, lies or similar rather than opinions.
First, because you are making the assumption that some expressed opinion is not openly, clearly nonsensical or contradictive of observable truth ("Earth is flat"). So, if a statement is made in that vein, it is not even an opinion, it's nonsense and the defense "it's my opinion!" doesn't apply. That's what I said in my first post in this discussion, in case you have lost track.
Second, because you are abusing the uncertainty aspect of the definition. Being "uncertain" doesn't equal not being subject to scrutiny or discussion. It doesn't mean that a feeble or unsupported argument is valid simply because empirical evidence doesn't exist to disprove it. Keep exploiting the uncertainty idea, and you get to the extreme of epistemological skepticism, where nobody can be sure of anything and everything is potentially a figment of your imagination. Nice loophole, and a potentially unassailable stance in a debate indeed. But rather silly nonetheless.
This contradicts what I said... how? You used Galileo to show how prevalent opinions aren't necessarily correct, a counter to an argument that nobody had made. I remarked that the example works against what you said, because it proves that some opinions are objectively wrong.No, for the above reasons. Scientic theories are opinions only until they are confirmed or denied, and then they become either factual, if correct, or a disproven theory, if incorrect. After a conclusion is reached they obviously are no longer theories or opinions. The trouble is that it can take such a long time to be proven that most people have pretty much accepted then as fact by then, and even after they are proven, there are still people who will deny it and refuse to accept the proof. That's why the Galileo example is appropriate, because, well, is it even ten years since the Vatican accepted that Galileo's observation that the earth moved around the sun might be correct? Maybe it's more than ten years, but not by much IIRC.And now you are saying that some people still don't accept (or didn't until recently) things for which an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence exists, to illustrate... what exactly?
What point are you trying to make by using the Church's cognitive immobilism?
I think you are confused. Too much quote/reply. The Vatican promoting patently wrong beliefs as true only proves they are out of sync with the times.
If anyone is more informed and has a superior understanding and experience in any subject than you, they will probably be better suited to provide more accurate assessments than you are. By more accurate, I mean closer to the truth (as far as can reasonably be desired). That does not mean they will always be right and you will always be wrong. But in those instances, for those people, the credibility of their opinions rests on their baggage. The credibility of yours rests on the strength of the reasons you can come up with that contradict their opinions.Actually, I think your position in the demagogical one, because if opinion (and note opinion, unlike fact) is not decided by the majority, then just whose critical opinion is worthwhile? Who has a sufficiently "valid and experienced" perspective to state the "correct" opinion? -
Why when there's an interesting discussion, somebody always shouts "OMG derailment!". Linear thought is boring.
Not only are you not quite addressing my point, you are also relying increasingly on semantic minutiae to build your arguments - you are effectively grasping at straws.It should be subjected to reason and criticism, yes, but the point that doing so does not invalidate the opinion as an opinion. More people might disagree with it - "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty". But since it rests on insufficient grounds by defintion, who is to say that diverging opinion is "wrong"? The majority may think Rembrant is a great artist, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm allowed to hate it and say his work is crap if that is my opinion. Galileo once argued that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and was accused of heresy and put under house arrest for it. But we know today he was right. Now, obviously that's a pretty extreme example to compare to in this case, but it does tell us that a person does not need to be wrong simply because more people disagree with him. And remember that while Galileo based his conclusions on science, they were still only suspicions and theories.Indeed, opinions are belief. Nowhere have I disputed that. However, belief, when dealing with something related to the physical world, needs to be based on reasons, which are in turn subject to criticism. If those reasons can't withstand the test of peer review, the opinion is baseless and therefore is utter nonsense. The problem is how opinions are expressed. "Rembrandt is a crap artist" is not opinion, it is a statement of fact. That sort of statements are either right or wrong, because they deal with empirical aspects of the physical world. Beethoven's mastery of music alone is objectively superior to that of other musicians, regardless of whether it's your cup of tea or not. "I don't like Beethoven", however, is a perfectly respectable opinion.
Yes, to your shock and dismay, opinions can very well be wrong - scientific theories that lack formal proof are often confined to the realm of opinion, and those opinions are often proven wrong when proof is provided that makes theory into law, or refutes it altogether. That is why your Galileo analogy is not just "extreme", it also works against what you said. It was *proven* that those whose "opinion" was contrary to Galileo's were simply wrong. Sure, you are entitled to thinking that the Sun revolves around Earth... but you are wrong (and irrational).
Again, read what I said before. The worth of an idea is not related in any way to the number of people supporting it. That's why I have not brought up sales numbers, reviews, or supported my arguments with what is "widely considered", so please stop using that as an argument because it's demagogical. Critical thought goes beyond holding fast to an opinion regardless of the amount of reasons or proof provided to dispute it.
The weak point in that is the jump you make between the concepts of "superiority" and "good and bad". "Good and bad" are very vague and circumstantial concepts, and therefore are not used when defining standards. "Superiority", however, is a fairly easy attribute to assess when comparing two similar elements.1. Quality speaks to "native excellence", "superiority" or "accomplishment or attainment" among other things, and as such becomes a measure of whether something is good or bad, which is always subjective.
I thought I had already made it clear we are not discussing your personal tastes? Or are you utterly unable to put those aside and make an objective evaluation of the elements of the game? I already said I HATE The Sims. But that's irrelevant when discussing the game's premises and how those are realized.2. It may be well implemented and executed. I accept that. It would not have sold if it were not. But just because the people who played it didn't know play the "Little Computer People" (because it is really old) doesn't make the Sims any more or less derivative of it or even innovative. And if the Sims don't appeal to me, then it doesn't, in which case I'm not likely to consider it a classic even if I accept that was a hit among some people. It really is that simple.Is that what you think passes for reasoned explanation?
You'd make a great teacher, for sure.
I see your
and raise you a 
-
Translation: LALALA I'm not listening.I don't like EA. I don't like MMOs. I don't see why you seem to take it personally. I wasn't alive to play most of those games, I don't find the Sims appealing, Crysis is an average FPS popular because it will only run on teh Jesus-computer, MoH and Battlefield are meh, I might've liked Populous if I had been alive, and Rock Band is the only game that I think is good on that list. It's my opinion, and I really don't feel like spending the ATP to write a long post defending it.
Nobody's taking it personally. Expect your opinions to be questioned when you make them public, though.
-
No, that was a general introductory statement, I wasn't seeking to apply that this to this particular case. I dealt with particularities later.I disagree with content of that statement, and please note that while you're basically making the same thing yourself by declaring the position as unsound without providing a basis for that position or, indeed, accusing people of hiding behind their opinions as an excuse, I shall take that too as a merely statement of opinion and not hold it against you.Since you are so fond of quoting online dictionaries:
Unsound:4. not well-founded or valid; fallacious: an unsound argument.
For instance, "Rembrandt was a crap painter". Sure, that's an opinion. But it is poorly sustained if at all. Or are you suggesting that opinions don't need to be subject to reason or criticism?
1. Quality is *not* subjective. It is an attribute measured, in this case, against the rest of computer games. It is a standard. A consensually agreed measure (albeit not necessarily expressed in a formal fashion) that is used to establish a hierarchy between the elements of a given set.Since it speaks to quality, which is entirely subjective, it again becomes a matter of opinion. As for innovative, I'm skeptical. It undoutedly looked very different when it came out, but it can also be seen as highly derivative of the various earlier Sim games blended with a hefty dose of inspiration from Activision's "Little Computer People".2. The Sims provides an innovative concept of game that, regardless of your tastes, is well implemented and executed. Again, you are taking refuge behind something that is not numerically measurable to construct your entire discourse. Do try and find something more substantial than semantics.
3. Please explain how The Sims is "highly derivative" of Sim City, Sim Earth, or Sim Copter to name a few. HINT: "Sim" is not a proprietary term. It's an abbreviation of "simulation" - the similarities end there.
Which has nothing to do with the actual quality of the game itself. I may prefer to travel on car, but that does not mean that the materials used in aircraft frame construction are lacking quality. This is the concept you obviously fail to grasp - quality is not defined by you or affected by your preferences in any way.Which is all down to personal taste. I've actually played Battlefield, but it just didn't appeal to me because I don't find FPS that interesting in and of themselves. A good plot helps, but then that is what I'm interested in, and I really just endure the FPS aspect.The Battlefield series offers fast-paced combat combined with simple to learn basic game mechanics which make it easy for new players to get into. But at the same time it allows for complex coordination between players for great effect, which rewards teamplay and effort, giving long-time players something to work for. It also invariably features broad choice of maps which represent different scenarios combined with fairly good graphics and sensible game balance. There aren't many MP-oriented shooters that offer all that.
"But FPS games don't appeal to me!" - Apples and oranges. Please come up with relevant arguments. We aren't discussing your tastes.
Are you misrepresenting what I said out of ignorance, or is it a conscious effort of demagoguery?So for someone's opinion to be valid it must conform to or not stray far from the established norm or consensus? If that's your position, then I doubt I could disagree more.The worth of an opinion only goes as far as one is capable of defending it against others. That's how the strength of ideas is measured and proven.
I'm going to repeat myself here, because you either didn't read it, or just couldn't deal with it. Having different opinions is fine. Holding fast to those opinions regardless of evidence or reason has nothing to do with prevalent opinions.
-
They know how to deal with uncomfortable questions before they even get asked.
-
Yes, taking refuge behind "but it's my opinion!", is always a good defense when making statements that cannot be formally (as in, with mathematical rigour) disproven, but that are otherwise... unsound.To say that all MMOs suck, for example, is still just a statement of opinion, as is saying EA has only released good sports games. You may not agree with that, and in fact I consider Populous and SimCity fairly significant games myself (to name two), but that still doesn't invalidate the opinion that it is so. Frankly, while EA was a good publisher a decade ago, I can't remember liking anything they've published since (no, the Sims didn't appeal to me either).However, some opinions do have more worth than others based simply on things like how well informed its author is, and what is commonly regarded as truth, as well as what objective reality one is referring to (as opposed to the subjective terms in which "opionions" are usually expressed).
Saying that EA is only good for sports games is as close to being an objectively wrong statement as it can get, simply by analysing the games published by EA, and the quality of the games it competes directly with. You may not like The Sims (I hate it myself), but it's an excellent, innovative game. The Battlefield series is also great. I haven't played the MoH series, but it's another critically acclaimed franchise, etc.
It's possible to argue that everyone is wrong and that one's own opinion is the one that counts, and that has some merit. But having radically divergent opinions, by itself and regardless of one's ability to sustain them, only makes you a crank.
-
That, like many of the comments here, is not entirely fair. BIO got to keep a lot of their creative freedom after the takeover, I think, and there's no reason to believe they'll go the way of Origin or Westwood.Translation: Now EA's bitch. Just wait and see
Lol...And since when has EA been good at anything except sports games?You're probably too young to know some of the games in that list, but really, that's one quite clueless comment.
-
True. AvP2 wasn't as dark as one would expect from a game with that sort of theme... AvP1 nailed that aspect, though.
-
Fortunately, Obsidz' clientele extends beyond the handful of jaded regulars here.And it wouldn't interest the persons interested in Obsidian's games, read: target audience. At least it's neither my nor many other's cup of tea as shown by the answers in this thread.
-
The simple fact that it never takes longer than a week or two after release for a functional fix to appear for any given game should be the only argument necessary for publishers to drop DRM. Instead, they come up with genius setups like online activations, which have zero effect on piracy, but greatly inconvenience paying customers. Does it get any more absurd?
I've bought every Obsidz game so far, but then again, I had been a loyal BIO customer until Mass Effect. I don't install malware on my computer or pay full retail price for rental rights.
-
Frankly, I'm not holding my breath. If it was one of the strong points of the game, they'd have given it more screen time.Still really waiting to see dialogues and quests. It might change so much of what we think about the game (or so little). -
It's just another feature. One that tends to become a meme quickly because society is sex-obsessed, simple as that.I can't help but wonder whether, like the 3-JBs comparison that was very prominent only a few months ago, this emphasis on shag-em-all might be retuned as the PR campaign progresses. It all depends on the kind of feedback of course, but I can quite easily imagine people thinking that it seems rather excessive (even if it is, or isn't, or is wonderful, in-game).But from that to think that it's enough of a selling point to warrant focus in the PR campaign... perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like quite a leap to me.
"Sexualisation of the medium"? Because you can bed certain NPCs? It's not like the focus of the game is doing them all, I think you're overreacting. There are games whose focus and only theme IS sex, and thanks to digital distribution, anyone can get those anonymously - but still those only enjoy marginal success if at all. Not all films have gradually become porn flicks either, so I think we're safe from a "sexualisation of the medium".Personally, I wouldn't mind too much, but I am worried about any game that contributes to this kind of sexualisation of the medium. I don't mean in the sense of sex=bad, and I dont' mean that games weren't as sexual as the rest of our culture before... rather I mean the trend where sex and shag-em-all is used as a tool to hype your game, and it works; and for the sake of seemingly valid arguments such as realism and player freedom, it works itself into every RPG. I won't go into a big rant at the moment (yeah, you're so disappointed) but I can't see it being a positive thing.The problem is the glass through which this thing is considered. Try to suppress the "ZOMG SEKS!" knee-jerk response, and suddenly the whole debate seems much much sillier.
and raise you a 
Correcting rumors about Sarah Palin
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Because, while technically it "works" (as in, it hasn't caused the collapse of the state, yet), it's nowhere near the levels of Sweden, Denmark, Finland... and they are the examples used to showcase the effectiveness of public healthcare. Have you ever heard about the awesome Italian health service? The Spanish one? UK?
Right.