Orogun01

In that context, a sexual assault or a physical assault against a woman can simply seen as the choice of which tool the perpetrator uses to achieve the goal of establishing power over his victim. I know I said I wasn't going to say anything more on this topic but you have eloquently posted what I was trying to explain through several posts, good one And why couldn't you just have said that without posting so many links?

Conversely, let's look at it from the sense of what the desired goal is. I can define a goal - let's say house demolition. Then I select a tool to accomplish that. I can use dynamite, a wrecking ball, an M1 Abrams, a horde of termites, some really hungry beavers, or a demolition crew. No matter what tool I choose the goal is the same. Destroy the house. The tool I choose is simply the means to that end. In that context, a sexual assault or a physical assault against a woman can simply seen as the choice of which tool the perpetrator uses to achieve the goal of establishing power over his victim. The tool does not define the goal; rather the goal establishes which tools are suitable to achieve that goal. The goal remains the same, only the tool changes. But we don't prosecute for what an individual hoped to achieve but for what they did. Having a goal is not incompatible with favoring a means to achieve that goal, that's the difference between those who hope to achieve a peaceful revolution and those who clamor for blood under the guise of change. There is probably a reason why they chose to commit the act that's less related to their goals and more to their character.

I guess they're retconning a lot of the stuff from the first 2 games.

A knife is a versatile tool, it's a weapon, a kitchen utensil, a handyman's tool...ect,ect. But what it does its to cut and pierce, in that same way that rape is a sexual act which can be used for a variety of purposes. Yet the intended use does not change the nature of the act, which depending on the context requires some degree of appeal to the perpetrator. Whether it be physical attraction, power play or hatred, it doesn't change the fact that rape can only be sexual (unless you ask some feminists what they think) So motives for sex violence appear to me as mere excuses for performing or understanding what its a sexual act.

Does the game follows the exploits of Big Boss after the original MG?

Humans are social creatures with a penchant for categorization and because we tend to look to ourselves as the ultimate guiding principle; morally speaking that we are good, then evil arises from a necessity to separate ourselves from some external element. If you simplify all human motives as derivatives from our survival instinct and their clashing with social constructs then it becomes easier to understand fringe elements such as cases of extreme evil. As such you can look at evil as merely a rejection of philosophies which are incompatible with existing schema.

Basically yeah. GTA basically created a genre, GTA3 specifically, and that genre became synonymous with with GTA, and thus GTA became a well known brand name and achieved mythical status. A status not necessarily undeserved, mind you, as I thought all their games were quite good with the exception of GTA4 (can't speak for GTA5 since I haven't played it). It's the same thing with CoD or Halo. Once the franchise gains enough mainstream popularity, it reaches critical mass, then it become a self-sustaining hype machine. At that point, it almost doesn't matter if future titles are good or not, as once the hype machine is in full effect it's very difficult to derail, whether from external or internal forces. Usually once a game series catches fire like that and becomes a popular trend, the franchise will keep raking it in until the trend burns itself out and people move on to the next thing. I would say that Shenmue created the genre and GTA3 just made it about violence. Still I guess the GTA, the COD, and the Halos can be proof of separation between discerning gamers and casual ones, so I'm not so angry about them being successful (though I do get a bit mad when someone credits them with innovation, as is the case in point ) In the end its just evidence of the industry's growth and of how badly managed it is, capitalist nowadays expect opportunities to come to their door, knock, wait for them to answer and then do all the work. My mistake, but GTA3 popularized the genre anyway. Point is GTA was the franchise that became synonymous with the genre, to the point where other games in the genre are commonly known as GTA clones. Once a franchise becomes synonymous with a genre, such as GTA with sandbox, or CoD with modern military FPS, or Diablo with loot em' ups, it's nearly impossible for another franchise in the same genre to take over the top spot, regardless of which franchise is actually better (which is subjective anyway). It would take a massively terrible game to derail the hype machine, and even then, the hype machine may keep functioning on pure hype and brand recognition. I don't think that's its so cut an clear, advertisement for games have taken the route of brand association. One recent example was for Farcry, it was a quote "it's like Skyrim with guns". If you can associate your brand with another more successful one you have a greater chance of both getting your game financed and selling afterward. Sad really.

Yes those are all ways that people exert power over someone but those don't apply to power over women in the context of this discussion and why men rape women. I'm having a radical thought here, what if men rape women cause they're horny?

You're probably the only one that noticed.

GTA 3 was for the XBox and PS2, Shemue was a Dreamcast game about 2 years before. It would be hard to tell how much or if it had any influence on the development of GTA, but as it does have precedence I tend to give it the credit; even though what you say is true. I could however see it as both having simultaneously defined two different approaches to open world gameplay, both having inspired many successor. Of course GTA successors seem more uninspired, repetitive and violent, worthy of the title of GTA clone. Whereas Shenmue legacy has gone understated even though it had a deeper level of interaction within it's "sandbox" which has now become commonplace.

Basically yeah. GTA basically created a genre, GTA3 specifically, and that genre became synonymous with with GTA, and thus GTA became a well known brand name and achieved mythical status. A status not necessarily undeserved, mind you, as I thought all their games were quite good with the exception of GTA4 (can't speak for GTA5 since I haven't played it). It's the same thing with CoD or Halo. Once the franchise gains enough mainstream popularity, it reaches critical mass, then it become a self-sustaining hype machine. At that point, it almost doesn't matter if future titles are good or not, as once the hype machine is in full effect it's very difficult to derail, whether from external or internal forces. Usually once a game series catches fire like that and becomes a popular trend, the franchise will keep raking it in until the trend burns itself out and people move on to the next thing. I would say that Shenmue created the genre and GTA3 just made it about violence. Still I guess the GTA, the COD, and the Halos can be proof of separation between discerning gamers and casual ones, so I'm not so angry about them being successful (though I do get a bit mad when someone credits them with innovation, as is the case in point ) In the end its just evidence of the industry's growth and of how badly managed it is, capitalist nowadays expect opportunities to come to their door, knock, wait for them to answer and then do all the work.

Right, because all those women fantasies of half naked men have them wearing a shirt and no pants, not the other way around. It is not taboo but it not polite to stare, however when the girl fails to wear a bra (see pic at the top) I believe its fair game.

He's probably tired of the "it was all brilliant and then EA came and DESTROYED EVERYTHING" attitude. As he obviously knows better where decisions have come from and what has been the pressure of lack of it placed on the studio. If you ever need evidence to support this just refer people to ME and JE, BW's game releases prior to joining with EA. They were already making hybrid RPGs and trying to have a more cinematic experience. Well I'm talking specifically about the decision to make a game in 11 months. Ok, that one could have gone three different ways: 1-"EA sends word from up high that they want a next year release to fill in some quarterly goal" 2-"EA ask BW if they can deliver the next game within a year, maybe they offer a bonus as an incentive and BW says yes" 3-"BW told EA they would have the game done in a year"

He's probably tired of the "it was all brilliant and then EA came and DESTROYED EVERYTHING" attitude. As he obviously knows better where decisions have come from and what has been the pressure of lack of it placed on the studio. If you ever need evidence to support this just refer people to ME and JE, BW's game releases prior to joining with EA. They were already making hybrid RPGs and trying to have a more cinematic experience.

Which means that in the coming years they will produce a cult classic with no patch support or sequel

There's also no proof that either of those decisions was objectively bad. The implementation let a lot to be desired in my book, so I just decided that BW's games weren't targeted at myself anymore and didn't get ME3. I am cautiously looking forward to DA:I though.

Your evidence doesn't support your conclusion, maybe BW is just are bad at making games or maybe they just chew more than they could handle. I see no proof of EA stranglehold on game companies, don't get me wrong there are still plenty of reasons to hate them. From changing established IP to fit more popular genres to wantonly buying and closing studios. But so far there is no evidence that word came from up high that ME was going to be transformed into a shooter and that DA was going to have more action, those decisions rest on BW's shoulders.

We have some lawyers here in the forum, I have a question: Can we prosecute the President?

Weird, I just finished reading that article before checking the forums. I'd say Gabe is going to find it difficult to convert developer to Linux, although I this comes as no surprise as he has in the past criticized Microsoft because of Direct and praised OpenGL. I think he just likes the idea of open source.

Today I began my holiday week in between school terms by getting drunk on Scotch, I burned myself cooking and I'm doing the Monster Mash. I will do the Macarena when I'm stone cold drunk.

Well, yeah. If the person expects a game to be garbage and hears, reads, or sees nothing to the contrary, then it does indeed make no sense whatsoever to go ahead and buy the game then suffer all the way through it. When trying to understand games as a product in an economics sense I find that they are much alike drugs. A junkie that needs a fix will switch to a lower quality product, same with games. Both are goods that while not indispensable their demand matches that of essential goods. Sure, but that analogy only works if there's a shortage of the higher quality product, or if the lower quality product is significantly cheaper than the higher quality product. At the moment I see no shortage of good games and I don't see them being more expensive, in fact, they sometimes tend to be less expensive. Once you consider that we are talking about "hardcore" (addicts) gamers, they are likely to burn through releases fairly fast. I wonder if their complaints isn't so much about quality but rather about quantity and replay value?

Well, yeah. If the person expects a game to be garbage and hears, reads, or sees nothing to the contrary, then it does indeed make no sense whatsoever to go ahead and buy the game then suffer all the way through it. When trying to understand games as a product in an economics sense I find that they are much alike drugs. A junkie that needs a fix will switch to a lower quality product, same with games. Both are goods that while not indispensable their demand matches that of essential goods. That's an interesting perspective but I'm not sure I agree with the analogy around drugs. Are you suggesting gaming can be as addictive as drugs? I know there are some gaming addicts but we are talking about "normal" gamers like the people who frequent these forums Anything that causes dopamine to release is potentially addictive, I find the analogy apt when trying to explain inconsistent behavior such as hating a game and playing it to completion. I also realize that its insufficient to explain the entirety of the behavior of games as goods, ultimately games have a limited field of distribution and even more limited of interaction. By which I mean that so far you can only get games in 2 formats, via 3 options (renting, buying, pirating) and that they cannot be just played as background noise as one would a TV since games require all of your senses. There are movies that are more enjoyable to watch on TV and there are those that are made for the big screen but lose their appeal when played on TV. Which affects the opinions on said films, games on the other hand can only be experienced one way and said limitation might affect how the buyer perceives the game. To put in an example; if I'm forced to see an M. Night Shyamalan movie on the silver screen I will probably be very pissed. Whereas if I just play it as background noise on the TV whilst i'm multitasking I might enjoy it more since my attention is divided and I have lower expectations.

Well, yeah. If the person expects a game to be garbage and hears, reads, or sees nothing to the contrary, then it does indeed make no sense whatsoever to go ahead and buy the game then suffer all the way through it. When trying to understand games as a product in an economics sense I find that they are much alike drugs. A junkie that needs a fix will switch to a lower quality product, same with games. Both are goods that while not indispensable their demand matches that of essential goods.

If everything is art, then nothing is art. I actually agree with Volourn on this. The quickest way through the semantics is to say everything can be art. But then you have good and bad art. That way you're knocking the distinction off a pedestal where it shouldn't be. The distinction of good art and bad art is one matter in the discussion, more relevant is the difference between fine arts and applied arts. Also, not everything is art because of verisimilitude. Art is representative of something, it can be as abstract as a concept or shape or as definite as a photograph. Things that don't emulate, that lack similitude are not art.

So Big Rigs Over the Road Racing is art? Putting in the minimum, phoned-in effort masquerading as "art" for the sake of pursuing profit is significantly different from something made specifically with an artistic vision and purpose (i.e. Journey.) Movies can be art, that does not by default make all films works of art. Games can be art, that does not by default make all games works of art. If you're going to stoop to the level of saying Uwe Boll is a misunderstood artiste, then Michael Bay is the Picasso of our times. Since you brought it up, what do you consider to be the requisites to qualify a medium as art?