Orogun01

I doubt that.

I smirked

Tell me what you think. Both ideas are referred to as "time", so both warrant consideration. Is there a relationship between them? How can space and time be the same thing if space allows me to go backward, or forward, but not time? No, what is not allowed is >1 copies of yourself existing simultaneously. How can you know that you haven't travelled to the "past" if your memory only registers events from... the past? But is me from the future the same as me from the past or are they two completely separate entities? Also Slaughterhouse 5 I don't know about this Slaughterhouse 5, but Google indicates it's a novel with time travel themes. Might have to check it out. A notion of different "you" at a different point in "time" only makes sense if you picture time as a linear dimension, in which you have a degree of freedom. Think of yourself at different points in "time" rather as roughly the same entity, with some changes. What is popularly imagined as time travel makes about as much sense as going to the other room while simultaneously remaining exactly where you are before you start moving. The whole experience is still shaped by the way your memory stores a (linear) summary of events and your mind struggles to make sense out of it. You should totally read Slaughterhouse 5 and you will understand why your post is a bit redundant.

Tell me what you think. Both ideas are referred to as "time", so both warrant consideration. Is there a relationship between them? How can space and time be the same thing if space allows me to go backward, or forward, but not time? No, what is not allowed is >1 copies of yourself existing simultaneously. How can you know that you haven't travelled to the "past" if your memory only registers events from... the past? But is me from the future the same as me from the past or are they two completely separate entities? Also Slaughterhouse 5

The problem that I've have with it is that is Flash Gordon with delusions of being the work of Stanley Kubrick.

Denial of Service; think of a massive protest in front of a store that's blocking traffic to it.

Do you think that it would be viable to do the same with a game like Skyrim where following the quest marker was all you did and descriptions where lazy? @Alanschu: I understand what the mechanic is and i'm not against it; although the point brought in the article about the level design are valid, but the amount of information the player has in a game dictates the extent of their strategies. It can be an inane thing as it doesn't affect what the most viable solution is, or it can be a cheat button such as in the latest hitman. It wasn't the same in DX:HR because it came with a cost which balanced its usefulness. Ultimately I don't believe that is a faulty mechanic but that it is being used lazily to "handheld" players and make sure they don't get lost, something that could be solved with good level design, quest objectives and a map.

There is a difference between giving the player information and giving them perfect information, a power that lets you see through walls or tag and track enemies falls on the latter. It is not the same as character skill as it is a game mechanic that deals directly with the player.

I liked this article, I tend to like most of this guy's articles. Not really news but good read, IMO http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/01/31/why-assassins-creed-style-eagle-vision-is-terrible-game-design-and-needs-to-stop/

I've heard some stories about South Africa, particularly the ones about the myth of virgin blood being the cure for aids and what ensued after. Not pleasant tales. I do realize that sexism, discrimination, and aggression towards women exists but there is a world of difference between some third world country village where the chief orders the rape of woman and someone saying that Dragon's Crown is bad cause is sexist. The thing about the changes is that some of those things are part of the visual style of the game, Frazetta created a style that explored sex and fantasy; what if he had compromised his vision to quell malcontents? There is a difference between art and taste which is something that a lot of people have trouble separating. PS; you seem to like a lot of posts from this thread and from both sides of the argument. What gives man, pick a side?

I can't tell but from your tone it seems that I'm getting a rise out of you, I assure that is not my intention and I apologize. If what I understand from your post is right then we should analyze the context of modern feminist philosophy which can be summarized as: Women are being oppressed by a system that devalues them while simultaneously promoting aggression towards them (aka. the Patriarchy, rape Culture). Even if you ignore the fact that those two concepts could be the result of a conspiracy nut delusions, those notions have an effect of radicalizing feminists who take the concept to heart. I can't take someone who presents those concepts as self evident proof of the oppression of women (which they aren't) seriously. The reason why I brought that picture and quote forward is because there is no solid evidence on either side that there is a conspiracy against them. So it amount to nothing more that opinions rather than facts. I have thought of the importance of a re-branding of feminism who don't subscribe to the same philosophy that those fringe elements; which it has somewhat occurred with the Sex Positive Feminists. Otherwise any genuinely rational idea that comes from it would be regarded as fruit of the poisonous tree and dismissed. I am totally OK with that, as I said before I believe that the industry should grow. It is just that I see that particular market heading in no direction since no one seems to know how to approach it, myself included. But as long as the rhetoric remains blaming publishers for targeting male demographics and shaming men for their enjoyment I doubt anyone is going to figure it out. Which is the problem with the whole affair, their rhetoric is confrontational and seeks to antagonize rather than cooperate and contribute to the growth of the industry. IMO this is due to the aformentioned concepts which create a divide between feminists and the systems that are perceived to oppress them. I just see a lot of people throwing that study as concrete proof of a female gaming audience which could turn out to be the new COD crowd; which is a mass of people that just buys a few games a year, or it could possibly be the result of an overlap in demographics. Either way it couldn't be replicated and it spawned a series of COD clones. The case could be that there are women who are active in social sites that enjoy playing those game while browsing but aren't necessarily interested in gaming. I don't require a study just proof that there is a demographic, which is hard to say since there hasn't been a game solely targeting women. Instead publishers opt for the token character as a means of attracting said group. Which is really counterproductive as it is the equivalent of asking for a seat at the table and instead getting scraps. I don't believe that a study that is directed specifically to figuring out the buying habits of female gamers counts as a defensive perpetuity, that's the study I would like to see. It would give a more clear direction on how to tap said market and in turn it would be proof that said market exists.

I'm interested mostly because of the potential terrorist threat (the female suicide bombers, I wonder what they get when they get to heaven) but other than that I never liked winter sports.

I'm pretty sure that the kid isn't allow to drink coffee. Edit: A more pertinent question is " Is Twin Peaks the new Citizen Kane buzzword?" Well, it's the truth in this case, Just cause they copied the red room scene, that doesn't qualify. Everyone copies that scene. Have you watched the show? I've seen a few episodes to see what the buzz was all about but it didn't quite catch me, maybe modern cartoons aren't for me. The reason why i'm dubious of your comparison is that a lot of cartoons have referenced Twin Peaks without ever achieving the same level of quality (they are meant for children after all) but since I've seen a recent rise in popularity in Twin Peaks (myself included) I believe that the show is fresh on some people's mind and as it is a good show there will be some who try to emulate it but will fail as a copy of a copy will always have twice the errors. Of course since I haven't followed the show you may be right for all I know.

I'm pretty sure that the kid isn't allow to drink coffee. Edit: A more pertinent question is " Is Twin Peaks the new Citizen Kane buzzword?" Well, it's the truth in this case, Just cause they copied the red room scene, that doesn't qualify. Everyone copies that scene.

I'm pretty sure that the kid isn't allow to drink coffee. Edit: A more pertinent question is " Is Twin Peaks the new Citizen Kane buzzword?"

To anyone that's further along the story; do you get to play evil? I mean the name of the game is Blackguards, the advertising point was that you were supposed to be bad guys saving the world but so far the "evil" options are just killing a bunch of people and denying water for a delivery (a baby delivery) but so far its all very tame. None of the characters feels like a bad guy, specially the protagonist. I thought I was going to be a bad guy, that is all.

One day we are going to have to tell Woldan what Freud said about liking women with guns.

[Euphoria intensifies]

Can't you understand that until everyone is a feminist all women are oppressed by males? Men designing virtual women for their pleasure is the ultimate form of objectification, it reduces a woman to just a pair of breasts. You should read up on how you have a privilege that you never knew about and how you're raping women without even knowing it.

Idealisation and objectification are, of course, exactly the same thing just with -/+ spin applied by the person using them. Language is much like subatomic physics in that respect. I do joke sometimes. Not all the time but sometimes. For example I am not so narcissistic and delusional to think that I should be the only person who decides what content is acceptable in games. It also would be practically impossible for a single person to somehow monitor and evaluate all images and representations of women in games But I am not joking when I say I feel some games objectify women. Do you feel that objectification is bad thing? Bear in mind that i'm talking about fictitious characters.

Without knowing how they set up the filter, what words it targets, or whether if it blocks some particular networks, is all speculation. Though I wonder if they will release the cause if it makes them look bad.

Technically they don't know if is DRM or the Internet blocks set by the government.

I have played for a few hours, it is a bad game. Unless i'm missing something and RPGs are supposed to be grueling experiences where chance acts as a glass ceiling to turn an otherwise monotone experience into an anger filled one. Which would actually explain why there are so many frustrating RPGs, why the Codex is so angry and why most people prefer hybrids or JRPGs. At any rate, **** it i'm getting a trainer.

Suspension of disbelief in games is a strange thing leading to that weird game logic where we give some things a pass because it is a game. It becomes kind of funny when you apply real world logic too, I kind of enjoy awkwardzombie comics due to that sensibility.

I just read Al Qaeda on the title and immediately knew this was a Wals thread.