Orogun01

"I think its mostly about how you guys define alpha. Ask them if they ever been with a man who experienced man on man sex and if not, if they interested in seeing a movie about it? since they think its hawt. " There is a difference between a gay film and a film about gays, one directly appeals to the culture while the other just happens to be a good story involving one or more gays. Which is why I don't like Sex and the City but liked Milk and I love you Philip Morris.

"by women" Violence between men is a lot more likely, women vs men not so much. Although I do recall the reading a forum post by a someone who claimed that he was a marine that he was suffering from spousal abuse and didn't know what to do, suffice it to say that he ended up without his kids and facing charges despite being the injured party. Kind of ****ed up when the courts determine that the first to take the children during a conflict has more claim since moving them would be too strenuous for them.

I think you're overthinking what could easily be attributed to laziness.

Has Lord British come back from space yet?

While Dragon Age lore is highly derivative (though honestly, what RPG isn't at this stage?) it isn't especially derivative of ASoIaF- which is itself derivative and based on various historical incidences, minus the supernatural stuff. There's a lot of Tolkien and other borrowing going on as well, so stuff like genlocks/ hurlocks being generated from different races is exactly the same as Melkor generating Trolls and Orcs from Ents and Elves. Sames true for TWitchers, lots of real world and standard fantasy tropes there, and TWitchers are thematically a whole lot more similar to ASoIaF/ GoT than Dragon Age is, if only for the decidedly non PG13 approach taken. Then again, I do tend to roll my eyes slightly at the fleurs-de-lys or Polish Crests in Twitchers, while most people simply wouldn't recognise their historical context. Oh, and zee uxcent fransays on the person from Beauclair, maker of fine wines... I think the only instance I kind think of where the classic fantasy races are used in a work that isn't derivative of from Tolkien is the ShadowRun universe, which itself was inspired by the writings of William Gibson, even borrowing a lot of the terminology. I just wanted to say that.

This thread has made me chuckle.

Well considering that DA is a complete rip off...erm I mean "heavily inspired" by GoT I wouldn't be surprised it turns out that the whole thing is just a conflict between Dragons. I actually stopped watching/reading GoT have they revealed that the Lord of Light and The Great Other are ancient dragons?

Has the mandatory "This game is misogynistic" review popped its head yet? Games are not considered misogynistic just because its a popular theme at the moment or because there is some sort of SJ conspiracy by gaming journalists. Why do think the game should be rated as misogynistic? Are there valid reasons for it, I can't see why anyone would suggest that considering the fact its a sniping game where you kill men and women Bruce, thanks to "whatever wave this is, feminism" and in particular to Anita; games as misogynistic is a foregone conclusion. Because that was the central argument of Tropes vs Women, which was not a documentary but a campaign. A documentary might have a theme but it ultimately sticks to what it can prove, just like science might have theories but they ultimately have to be backed by facts. A campaign promotes an idea, it fights for it and supports it, they don't stop because facts prove them wrong. I'm afraid that Anita is less of a scientist and more of a politician and since it was her videos which cemented the incursion of feminism into gaming, and now the majority of gaming media seems to support it with the same zeal she is my example as to why the whole argument is boogers. You can infer intent from an artist's statement but saying that the Mona Lisa is a LGTB friendly painting because it was DaVinci in drag is not only a stretch, but it politicizes the painting. In my mind politics are the dirtiest of human inventions, when you bring them into art (which is about beauty) you're soiling that beauty. If games are art then all that feminism has accomplished is to dirty them. The fact is that a game needs not be really misogynistic it only needs to be that way in order to suit the reviewer's agenda of promoting equality and it helps if its not a major release from one of the publishers who own the gaming press. They get to keep their feminist cred and don't lose their position because they gave a bad review.

@SofaKing I would had just told her to grow a pair and stop giving a fluffing **** about what people think. Guess that's why I'm not going to be published....ever.

Why do you say that? Is like your avatar might turn awfully prophetic.

actually, we had assumed we would be included as a flatulent xvart or somesuch. the fact that we were included as a "paranoid" dictator who were proven ultimately correct, were far better treatment than we expected. HA! Good Fun! ps amentep were a mod from time to time. might be best to ask him if there were a biowarian or black isle directive to stifle openly homosexual posters. I kinda think that Dave was trolling you when he quoted you instead with "HAH! Good Fun!" and making it a half-orc... but again, it turned out better than we expected. dave had emailed to warn us that they were intending on including Gromnir in bg2. our response was, "do your worst." a mini-boss character in tob with voice-over who were tragically given the Cassandra role? far, Far better than expectations. actual, it woulda' been in biowarian best interest to have simple used Gromnir as comic relief. shoulda' realized that boards would react poorly to significant cameos. HA! Good Fun! It was obvious that the brown-nosing fanbots on the Bio boards (as was) would be furious that the disputatious forum contrarian won the honour of a cameo. Personally I think it taught them a lesson. Monte, why do I get the feeling that I will one day read about you on the news?

Has the mandatory "This game is misogynistic" review popped its head yet?

Upon re-reading the thread's title a question emerges; what's so damn progressive about equal representation? Could someone explain why is it that ideas that were penned centuries ago and have no direct benefit towards the advancement of the species (they do have other benefits) are considered progressive? Or is it that progressive has come to mean something different in recent years?

I like it.

That's what you get for putting your name on the Attractive women's thread.

I'm a socially liberal quasi-libertarian pagan / lapsed Jew with a fundamentally Hobbesian perspective on international relations. I occasionally find anarcho-capitalism especially appealing. I hope that clears it up for you. Mazel Tov.

I dislike the concept of "privilege" as defined by crazy SJW/Feminists, it seems to me that the thing that actually matters is inheritance where you directly profited from your ancestor's hard work. That's what I understand as privilege, not the implication that if someone white happens to be great then it must be because of a reason extraneous to him/her. If they want to excuse their failings as the world's fault, that's ok but I would really appreciate if they stopped dragging people in and they stopped shoving it on our faces. Go do something great and become great instead of complaining about how good other people have it because they were born into it.

I agree, I will probably watch it again just to see if I can figure how they pulled some of those shots.

I really want a game set in Evil Slaver Blood Mage Empire, but on a second thought, I can kind of understand why Bioware doesn't want to open the can of worms that portraying the human sacrifice-y-mindrape-y slavers as protagonists would mean. That's probably one of the things that's keeping the medium back, aside from the fact that if they did it would be written as a teenage boy's fantasy. Kinda like everything in gaming right now is.

What would a fake France be without a stereotypical fake French man; from now I dub Dorian sir LePew.

Remember those threads asking if SIS was romanceable? I do; I like this place, is the only forum I visit in large part thanks to the quality of the community. Even the trolls seem to have high class. I rather not risk a mass exodus from the BioBoards to here.

You're right of course and all joking aside I will try to put aside any expectations to truly experience the game as it was meant. Which I will achieve by sniffing enough paint thinner to reach the level of brain cells that a Bio Drone has. No; but seriously, seeing as companions in BW games fall under the same formula and usage I can expect them to be the same yet different. They will of course serve as framing device to point out what choices you have in any given situation; one for the evil one and one for the good one, and they will praise you when you come up(if you're allowed) with an eviler/goodier/all around better option. Its hard to get excited about the next round of special kids whose shoelaces you have to tie up; so I can look forward to the thrill and joy of helping some goon resolve their family issues, after I drill them (metaphorically, although in some cases literally) enough that they reveal what the issue is. Why doesn't BW just skip the whole Dragons and fantasy thing and just makes games where you're a psychotherapist with a loose concept of patient-doctor relationships?

A more pertinent question would be " Can you romance in tactical view?" or "Can you romance the tactical view?"

Of course it was, that's basically what Microsoft wanted. Although, if they did manage to make Crytek pick up part of the development costs A plus for Bill Gates. But I don't really think that there would be anyone dumb enough to think Ryse would sell, I certainly hope not Crytek. Cause if they did they totally deserve to go bankrupt.

When I heard that I thought that they were blowing it out of proportion. I'm pretty sure they can get investors on board, and they will get more support if they change their subscription plan. But if Nintendo has managed to make terrible decisions and stay afloat so can Crytek too; although that's mostly due to competition being dead.While Nintendo has certainly made some bad decisions, they've also hit some massive home runs. Past runaway successes, like the DS, have given Nintendo quite a healthy cash reserve to fall back upon during hard times. I don't know if Crytek has ever had that type of crazy money making success, or if they'd been smart enough to sock some money away for a rainy day.Quite frankly CryTek seems to be one of those companies that you don't hear a lot from, they just seem to disappear for a while.Still, I doubt that one blunder(Ryse) is enough to make them go under. Plus they still have a few major contracts (Ubisoft for example) they don't make enough games that would justify a massive expenditure. Its quite possible that they are able to break even. Did Ryse suck? It was literally the only next gen launch title that looked remotely interesting, so I'm surprised it bombed. You need to remember that we live in the age when not selling 800 million copies is considered bombing.