Orogun01

I didn't know you where capable of rational, moderate opinions. At least you would hope that a voice of reason would rise in these types of situations, it seems sensationalism has all but killed rationality unless its for an agenda.

I don't think that would sit well with her followers.

If you think that being payed for your trouble while what has been taken from you is never to be returned is a victory, then yeah people do win.

Crazy should be its own alignment.

That's a classic case of an interpretive problem we often run into on these very fora. There is certainly a small vocal minority of feminists that basically support the position you've articulated. But that doesn't therefore mean that the majority of people who consider themselves feminists also think that men are by nature rapists. It would be nigh impossible to generate evidence for that viewpoint without simply generalizing from a small sample size, as you do there in that last sentence. I mean, I can do exactly the opposite, and say that of all the feminists I've met, not one of them has that stereotypical man-hating attitude. And that leaves us right back at square one. Bruce's definition of feminism I think is actually spot on, hewing as it does closely to common sense and not instead to a dismissive wishful generalization. Anita Sarkeesian; who won an ambassador award on GDC, has certainly used the terms rape culture and patriarchy. Terms which seem to originate within that "small"(I have no real knowledge of their numbers) minority. So it has every argument made related to feminism and games its laden with the same tones that belies their origin withing that minority. I'm not generalizing from a small sample, that small sample happens to be some of the leading feminists in what they call Third Wave feminism and it's being taught in Academia. Otherwise things like Patriarchy and Rape Culture wouldn't have come out from the fringe elements and into the mainstream. I have said before that rational feminism should either rebrand or come out against this insanity. In game culture it seems to have taken deep roots among a group of people who for some reason see it as reasonable or advantageous. @Chris: I don't subscribe to the notion can be men are sexualized in the same overt manner as women, it seems to me that the eligibility of a male lies in his competence.(There was actually a study done on that) It just bears to mind that women think and have different tastes than men. Also; I get the feeling that this is turning into its own discussion and we are still on the DA thread. Although feminism and BW seem to go hand in hand nowadays.

One of the argument used to justify how video game violence doesn't translate into real world violence is that people have the ability to tell one from the other. Did we lose that capacity in the last decade? So why should objectifying be an issue since we know that it is not real? Game companies cater to male audiences because male audiences have made the bulk of core gamers for the past 30 something years. Before you quote the now infamous "women make half of gamers" statistic, that is a misinterpretation of the data. The sample included social games played over Facebook, and IOS. If you question is why that demographic hasn't made the jump then there is a number of factors at play that can be summed up as publishers don't want to invest capital on a gamble when they can have a safe bet. Also I hate the use of the word inclusive as if it were a virtue as if somehow it made something better. I frankly don't see how would a period piece be made better by being more inclusive to the point of anachronism and alienating the audience. Of course it might satisfy the SJW who are so far up their own asses that have come to believe that their metaphors are the same thing as real life. On a semi-related note; it seems to me that you have a different idea of what feminism is than what is actually happening. I don't know how you can say feminism doesn't think men are rapists and believe in rape culture without a massive cognitive dissonance. Its a bit concerning because I though you capable of critical thinking. Also, there is a lot of quotes from leading feminists explicitly saying that men are rapists. And dragons, darkspawn and stuff

I think you need to put quotation marks on the "dealt" part, the state seems to not know or care (worse yet if they condone it) and the government is far too big for any man to fight alone. Plus by the time you can take legal action the government will have likely taken hold and made use of the land and will be very unlikely to give it back. Ultimately seems a case of might becoming legal right.

That's how many people see the situation Whereas how I see their argument is "Games made for male audience should cater more to women" Instead of asking more games targeted at them. Partly I believe the problem is that there isn't an idea of what a woman's game is. IMO cause feminist seem incapable of enjoying anything, which if they could they wouldn't be feminists in the first place.

Will it have a fighter ship that doesn't fly at grandma's speed?

I recently remember that I really liked The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, upon rewatch I saw a lot of household names that hadn't made it back then. It was kind of odd.

oh boy, it was originally written by Chris Ryan he's, like, the coolest dude after John McAleese. although, I have reservations about his writing abilities The original Brit Series or the American collaboration?

It's a Bethesda game, the objective is always going from point A to B. Which is made all the more enjoyable if there is something pretty to look at. I like Fallout 3 better than NV even though I will admit to NV being the superior game.

Ah, Lena Headey! How I miss her cheek s Seriously, does anyone know what happened to them?

Yeah, but I think those guns were with that chick.

Actually in honour of the thread I'm trying to invent as many euphemisms as possible for having your rented rowing boat contain one too many passengers. Hey! I own my boat, its the other guy that's renting.

I have that same tendency. The more I'm itching to play a game the longer I generally spend on character creation (assuming the creation tool is robust enough to allow me to spend a lengthy amount of time designing a character), which seems counterintuitive since the longer I spend in the character creator the longer I delay myself from playing the actual game. And, yes, Oblivion was the worst. I'd spend an hour making a character, go through the escape the dungeon sequence, then step outside only to find out my character's skin color was many shades different and the complexion looked completely different than what it looked like in the creation tool. The Oblivion character creator is (fittingly enough) the Horse Armor DLC of character creators. I think we have enough experience with disappointment to realize that the best part of most games is the anticipation, it is good to relish it for while longer. In my case i'm fastidious about making things look a certain way, job hazard I guess.

From what I understand, the reshoots were to add a bunch more Keanu Reeves, because originally he wasn't a major character. So basically the movie is a reshoot?

Priorities, are you sure you got yours right?

"Why are you ignorant? Read the posts I reply to when I post 'no' and your answers will be found."

Maybe, but if a woman calls her rose pissflaps there ain't going to be much sweet.

Based on your examples you could more adequately change wisdom to belief or willpower and avoid misunderstandings.

I don't know what impression we give you but we have a lot of 20 something people here, it's just a very refined and aged 20 something.

I learned a lot Brit slang from that post. I rather that insanity is implemented through a curve having it's ups and downs rather than an incline (or decline) and deterioration only affects the range, meaning that your top level crazy is now even crazier. Also are you guys playing online or doing sessions or what?

Maybe its just me, but if your diety of choice is offering you everlasting life in their realm if you burn your world down, I think it'd be wise from your perspective to do it. That others might find it incredibly unwise lies conflict, but your own faith and understanding of that faith is going to drive you to do bad things. Mind you my experience with D&D, very few of the evil dieties want utter destruction of everything; they want enough destruction to drive the survivors to them. Part of the issue is that wisdom is undefined in most RPGs, so its left to interpretation which is largely colored by the archetype of the wise old man. Largely I find that wisdom in RL comes with a level of introspection that undermines any violent tendencies. I think there is a separation between personal wisdom and personal ethics or beliefs, so I still can contend that a high wis character might not be an adamant supporter of an unwise philosophy. That reminds me, I should do a SJW paladin character that fights for equal rights.

"Makes as much sense as repeating the same tired stuff from the other side of the fence tbh. I know I don't get wound up because of them, for one." No