Orogun01

Religion and mythology; the monomyth in general, they tell the story of humanity. We empathize with the struggles of the hero as we have gone or are going through similar feelings. Still, my struggles at my new job hold nothing to killing monsters but I'd like to think that I would handle an angry customer better than Perseus.

You're making me want to geek out and start talking about all those movies, like Jason and the Argonauts...or Hercules...or Gulliver's travels...heck even the flash Gordon remake. Great, now I need to make some friends that are up for an evening of watching old movies.

I think the problem to my mind is that if we're talking a historical position, words like "outdated" and "timeless" are ultimately useless in understanding the context of the game. Its trying to play the game as if it was a modern game which is always going to be outdated (unless you played the game and have fond memories of it back in the day, in which case it is timeless). In a larger context, though, what is being lost is the...er...larger context. It bugs me to no end to see someone talking about fantasy/sci-fi film history who starts talking about unbelievable rubber masks, blue screen halos etc. Yes we all know that there are actors who couldn't turn the wheel to match the backscreen projection to save their lives - that's why it was mocked in Airplane! But ultimately that has nothing to do with the history. Yes, you could argue that Jack Pierce's makeup effects in FRANKENSTEIN is subpar to what's been done today, or that Kenneth Strickfadden's machines don't make any sense. But it fails to understand the context of the time. If you're going to talk about a game in a historical context it needs to be compared to other games in its historical context. Read an eviscerating review of Sega's ETERNAL CHAMPIONS - a really fun game at the time IMO [Timeless! ] that was a knock off of Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter II in the Genesis era. The review was hung up on how poorly the game looked against the arcade versions of MK and SFII (instead of their Sega ports). The context of the game was lost - so it was understandable why the reviewer was mystified about the game's popularity at the time of its release. Oh yes I agree that detail in reviews should be paramount and thus I reiterate that if someone is going to criticise a game then they should have first hand experience of it, and not simply parrot (as you say) a useless term. Though I'd argue that certain games such as Tetris are timeless, along with a good few fighting games of the period such as the original Streets of Rage. There are games so well crafted that they become timeless and there are games which have a generic appeal. I would compare it to film were you can see old movies and are still great because of the cinematography and the story or are entertaining because of the style. I do like all those old Ben Hur and Sinbad movies.

The universe has conspired to prevent you from playing a horrible game. God exists and he is a PC gamer.

"A man who speaks the truth will be chased out of nine villages."----Turkish proverb. Why just nine?

Because culture, a sense of belonging and a national identity? I'm pretty sure give the trend of globalizing cultures and wiping out any identifiable traits has rendered those things worthless to many but a man must know where he comes from.

Stealth is useless in combat and makes rogues a one use card, I rather they would give them more freedom within the battlefield to turn them into either a skirmisher or a scout. Both being good at ambushes but with the former fighting in close quarters and sowing chaos among enemies and the latter hidden from a distance taking out targets of value. With the disadvantage of being vulnerable once discovered.

I'm describing one aspect of USSR life. And only suggesting that nothing is completely black or white. Was life better? For me and anyone in my family. No. Very much no. But for a great many people who have no basic stability and are struggling for basic living standards, yes it was. I used to hear stories of how life was better for my people back when the USSR existed, of how you could buy lunch with a coin and get some change back. The trade is the freedom of expression, ideology and choice. Now it seems like those things are going to be taken away for political correctness and because the wealthy will tolerate no competition.

Never saw more than a few.

The truest sign of totalitarianism is that everything is political.

For everything else, there is MasterCard.

I think they can pull off a flamboyant mutant that keeps acting like he's a dandy and not a mutant.

I agree with the fact that it is necessary to learn programmer speak, my background is on character modelling and I absolutely resented learning programming. Yet I now see how it is useful both in communicating ideas and in translating mechanics and designs into logical programming and further breaking it down into each function. I would also recommend a bit of specialization, it is true that a lot of companies (specially lower end ones) require you to wear multiple hats but you should excel at some aspect of game development.

I had a friend who believed he didn't like Ben Stiller movies, then I asked about each of his movie individually. Turns out he does like his movies, I'm only remembering this because it was The Secret Life of Walter Mitty that prompted that conversation.

Well its starting to backfire now. The SVU episode has caused a backlash against the gaming press amongst major developers now, with high ups in Blizzard and Ubisoft coming out in favor now. It just seems like just a matter of time before the support leads to a spillover into the mainstream media. Plus, a lot of people won't know that the episode was loosely based on an internet controversy and the mainstream's memory has a short half life. Also if the mainstream is willing to believe that we talk in gaming puns who needs them? We can win without co-op.

I think elitism exist within plenty of artistic endeavors; art itself its elitist, but there is the matter of taste and widening it. There are people who are tired of the mainstream and want something with more depth, so they go back and look over to games that had a lot more to offer than graphics. Or they do so because you don't need to be an academic to have an academic interest on some things.

Philately is a passion and a hobby for many and they don't deserve to be put down because someone thinks it frivolous. Games are the same, their importance lies not on their intrinsic value but their subjective one.

I beg to differ, avid players who find themselves without current games to play will often delve into older titles which are exalted by communities. It is that way with RPGs, said consumers are the game equivalent of cinemaphiles (gamephiles?) whose wide range of taste strays from the mainstream and isn't common. This may be the reason why HD remakes have become so prevalent on current times; as players that are interested by older games but are put off by them or lack the know how on how to get them and make them function, have a new option.

Gender bias does exist, what I'm questioning is how damaging it actually is. This whole conversation is biased in favor of women, should we stop because of it? BTW, your article didn't even mention what the suggestions were so we can't outright dismiss the possibility that the suggestions those women made were so utterly ridiculous that it became their own ridicule. It is another thing in workplace culture when you have someone who is a drag that has been forced upon the rest because of institutionalized norms, like forcing companies to have a ratio of women hired. It is certainly not fair to everyone else to have to work with an incompetent individual that is just there because of a quota. When I said self reinforcing I meant people interpreting their own experiences as harassment. Also; "feels there is real evidence of this?" well I feel like there isn't, let's try a tug of war and see whose feelings matter more and who is the gender that has learnt to whine until all problems are solved by others.

My company is 60% women (most are programmers or in marketing). I didn't notice any difference in how everyone is treated or paid or anything. Heck, half the women in my company have a better salary than me. As to how you are percieved. Various studies have shown that women are far more easily offended than men. they are quicker to take offense and generally have a thinner skin. Which is why as more women come to the internet and join social media, they start feeling as if people are unnecessarily crucial, condesending or whatever because they are women. Nah. It's just that women really haven't gotten used to being treated exactly like men (and many don't want to, despite all the cries for equality). This is a good example where in your experience you don't see any gender bias in your workplace. Of course this will vary but your feedback is important when we look at the overall degree of how pervasive gender bias is or isn't. At which point does gender bias becomes justified, do we accept that both gender are equal despite clear cultural and biological differences? and why do we assume bias when it could be a bad workplace that bears down on both men and women? If women have it worse in such workplace then it should be able to be measured and demonstrated, yet all I've seen are confessionals and anecdotes from a personal perspective that could be eschewed by perspective. For all we know there is a man blending into the background that has had it ten times worse, while these women speak about their tribulations. It just seems to me that exposure to these issues will just becomes self reinforcing as women become convinced that they are being harassed or exploited over what could just be the workplace culture. I question the necessity of making this a gendered issue when harassment and abuse on the workplace are not. These issues are distorted by politics and political correctness which bring a whole other set of dynamics and problems to them. It becomes hard or near impossible to resolve them in a fair manner or without any backlash.

Men are competitive and that drives them to be aggressive against each other and that drives many industries. Unless you're capable of directing aggression and beating someone on an interpersonal level you're not going to do well in a competitive environment. It seems that the women on your article chose to submit rather than to challenge and fight, and now they passive aggressively vent their failure to excel. Yes, when you don't speak up for yourself because you're afraid of the backlash that is your failure. But as usual, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the roles were reversed. Does feminism gets tired of coddling women and telling them all their failings are men's fault? Interesting points raised, yes I agree men tend to be more aggressive in a competitive environment and that probably applies to how we treat other men as well. But I wonder if there is an additional bias around how we can treat women in the workplace? Women tend to be more conciliatory so this may work against them in certain environments But I don't want to bring the feminists element into this discussion, lets keep focus on just how women are perceived to be treated in the workplace. And there is no judgement here, if for example in your experience men and women are given the same "airtime " in the workplace then I want to hear about it In my experience whenever we have large meetings where we have to ask questions its generally the men who provide the most feedback in the public arena, and its normally the same people, but this just may be about the fact some people don't mind asking questions in a public space. So in other words there are also some men who never ask questions or add new ideas because they prefer to give ideas through emails or one on one meetings? Fine by me, I could really speak less about feminism. Experience isn't really a factors as workplaces tend to be diverse, there is however the concept of workplace culture. Which through careful selection creates a good working environment. But like I said men focus their aggression so that they become more driven, more extrovert and more focused on success than women, this is the point where people who disregard the value of biology over behavior and believe societal and cultural norms are the bigger factors, will say that women and men are raised differently. BTW, your dad sounds smart.

Men are competitive and that drives them to be aggressive against each other and that drives many industries. Unless you're capable of directing aggression and beating someone on an interpersonal level you're not going to do well in a competitive environment. It seems that the women on your article chose to submit rather than to challenge and fight, and now they passive aggressively vent their failure to excel. Yes, when you don't speak up for yourself because you're afraid of the backlash that is your failure. But as usual, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the roles were reversed. Does feminism gets tired of coddling women and telling them all their failings are men's fault?

Hopefully her health will continue to improve, best of wishes to both of you.

I've got to admit that i've always wondered why this is so? In other creative or artistic mediums the artists or creators usually retain at least shared rights to their own content, and yet i'm led to believe that one may well not recieve a penny in royalties unless the title is phenomenally successful. To draw a parallel it seems like a singing/songwriting sensation or an author having no creative rights over their product, with only the music producer/publisher reaping a profit and owning it, which seems strange. Of course one has to give the producer or publisher respect and a share of the profit for the risk of funding such a venture, but the current model seems a little broken and one sided. I wonder why it has come to be, and why it is hardly spoken of, a pity that we do not have game journalists who are fit for the purpose of investigating this model. One can see why the indie and Kickstarter scene is thriving under these conditions. Edit: Best of luck Osvir. Film and music have star power and companies know the importance of a good reputation as they can always go elsewhere, so if they start ripping off small time artists the big ones might not want to work with them. But the dynamic of power is always in favor of the guy with the money.