pmp10

Not really, they were getting consistently (though incompetently) DDOSed such that some people could not access the site for some time, and that will have cost them money. I imagine it's worse than that. Their whole brand might be irrevocably damaged. I wouldn't be surprised if they shut-down or rename before gamergate does.

It doesn't matter what the non-gaming public gets because this doesn't concern them. This isn't an attempt to get the public to support us. It matters a great deal for the business side of gaming as investing is driven by public perception.Both sides poisoning the well does us no favors.

It's exactly the same as gamergate. There simply isn't any. People are fighting for the sake of identity.

I wouldn't believe anything Lockheed-Martin has to say about fusion. The whole reactor project has almost all appearances of a scam. While I do believe fusion reactors have a future, I sometimes wonder if the safety of their operation isn't idealised a bit? Last time I checked, plasma is usually something hot and unpleasant that you don't want to lose control of, say one of the supermagnetic containment fields breaks? It may not leave a legacy with a generation spanning halflife, but I'm sure it's still unpleasant to experience up close Fusion reactors contain just a few grams of fuel at any given time. That's not enough to irradiate much of anything.

Because it wouldn't change anything. Gamergate is only concerned by corruption and ethics when it comes to pushing specific agendas. In fact most journalistic organizations have some form of working guidelines and it didn't stop them from ignoring this whole mess. Anita is being at least somewhat moderate (at least she keeps her mouth closed) but I bet this guy puts into plain words what she really thinks. That's just a sad sign of the times. People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate.

Escapist finally posted second part of "Developers on #gamergate".

But isn't half of gamergate opposition exactly against this? It seems to me that since journalists chose solidarity over competition then they would naturally reject any attempts of outside control.

You make it sound as if they boycotted the official trailer of the game. This is just update number 8. I doubt they covered previous 7 so why should anything be different this time?

That's because warrior players take much bigger risks than mages do. They may not run out of spells but healing items get used up much more quickly.

They are adding a playable female character for the prologue. At least that's what one of the achieved stretch-goals said.

It's odd that Intel would change their policy just now. Sponsor mailing has been going on for weeks. I wonder if they will stand by this when the backlash hits.

Is WL2 doing well? Wasteland is one of the best games I've played in a long time. I hope it's selling well enough to make it worth it. There were early reports that it made 1.5 million $ in four days. But it lasted only about a week in top 10 bestsellers on steam. Chances are it will just break even.

That's the price you pay for having magic be actually usable for boss-fights. You can't expect a strong ranged attack without a drawback. Kiting is just way too easy.

Dark Souls games are the embodiment of Japanese-grind approach to design. Just get yourself a trainer. It's not worth it otherwise.

So you consider yourself a moderate but keep calling your opponents fascists. Also 'just a few trolls' excuse works for your side but not for the enemy. I'm scared to think what hardcore supporters look like.

I certainly don't. Both sides in this war have embraced extremist views and resorted to disgusting behaviors.

In Far Cry 3 the whole girlfriend/seductress plot would require complete rework. Otherwise it wouldn't be inclusive of heterosexual women. I'd say it's not that easy. I'm all for cutting down on the male power-fantasy aspect of gaming but you are not providing much of a alternative.

So we obviously have a disagreement of what inclusivity means, appealing to the fanbase is about inclusivity where you can play as a male or female. So we may be debating the same point? Also female characters in a game mustn't be objectified. This does not mean now the games will become "watered down gray tasteless mass" But if a large AAA gaming studio like Ubisoft doesn't offer fans the chance to play as a female then this is a problem that they need to address. This objective is relevant in most cases and of course there are exceptions If a game has a set protagonist, with a plot based on that protagonist, with a lot of thought put into that protagonist, why should there be an arbritrary version of that protagonist with or without boobs to make people who are strongly attached to their gender happy at the cost of any gameplay related to gender? Let's look at Pplanescape Torment, if it had added an arbitrary Nameless One w boobs Ravel, Falls From Grace, and Annah need to be stripped off all flavor, something else will have to replace Ravels main motivation for helping you out and later not being happy about you leaving, something else with have to replace Annahs reason for following you as well. Now, our new Planescape Torment could keep the content for males and make a barebone senseless Ravel for females, not give Annah any reason for hanging around you, but it'd mean extra work that a decent portion of the playerbase (men play chicks too) will never see, and anyone playing a female char would complain that the game massively lacks flavor. You gotta either remove all gender references from the game, build new just as good gender references for females, or just scrap the idea of a nameless one with boobs. Some games are built with multiple potential genders in mind, some with multiple possible protagonists in mind, some aren't, and it is good that some aren't, because those games are capable of adding much more gender specific flavor. I'm naturally biased here as I'm a guy, like most protagonists, and as I have extremely little internal gender association, if I woke up a woman, besides being very freaked out I wouldn't really care one way or another, but despite such bias I still feel it is a very valid argument that the more you try to push for everyone being able to fullfill their deepest desires in one game, the more bland that game becomes, or the more work has to go into that game for the same content per gameplay. You make some good points As I mentioned there are exceptions, for example I don't expect Lara Croft to have a male protagonist. Planescape is another example where you can't really change the main character and I don't expect that change My point about inclusivity is more for a new RPG like the latest Dragon Age, in this case there is no issue around inclusivity as Bioware has addressed this. But Ubisoft and there new Unity sequel in the AC saga. This needs to change because its not like its not technically possible to have a female character Have you played any Assassin's Creed games? The nature of the Animus prevents a choice in character options because you're replaying a figure's memories within a single bloodline. The only way they could have a male and female playable character would be if they were in different time periods. Unity you're reliving Arno's memories, offering another character option means writing an entirely separate game. Sure I hear you. And I played all the AC games except for Black Flag. My issue is more with Unity and the four optional characters, all men. No women Why were you ok with watch dogs then? Or for that matter why are any ubisoft/open-world games acceptable? The drop-in multiplayer is a recent gimmick and it will force you to play the protagonist of single-player. Seems to me you have issues with design of many open-world games. I just can't tell why you attack only specific titles for natural outcome of this approach.

I'm a bit out of the loop here. Why was there a hate thread for The Cynical Brit? What did Mr. Biscuit do to raise people's ire? He criticized journalists for being anti-consumer. On the whole he would take a pro-gamersgate stance if he dared.

I'm pretty sure that they care very little for the average consumer. Both sides have been driven by extremists for a while now.

Why would I even want to free roam with all that horrible level scaling and bad gameplay/combat anyway ? (post Morrowind ES games, that is) To have replayability. Every game of Original Sin is meant to follow the same path. With the nonsensical hit-chance/damage scaling it's stupidly hard to combat any mob two levels higher.

I don't see why the social-justice/anti-gg side would be concerned. The whole 'gamersgate' movement accomplished little and has no idea where to go next.

Thoughts after releasing Divinity:Original Sin and what comes next. Turns out that the game sold over half a million.

I have literally never met anyone who primarily cared about the campaign for any RTS; except for Total War. Every RTS player I know cares about multiplayer 10x more than the single player campaign. Some time ago Blizzard admitted that about half of Starcraft 2 players never tried to play the game online. You can imagine what the numbers would look for a less multiplayer-oriented title.

Quite a few got adapted for consoles and still didn't do well. The genre is dying simply because the production values no longer make sense for a PC exclusive and singleplayer focused game. MOBAs sidestepped the problem by being made for multiplayer and microtransactions from the get-go. Halo Wars did well. Almost all RTS games are made with multiplayer in mind. With a strapped-on multiplayer? Sure. But majority of the player-base just wants the campaign. That's why trying to move classic RTS model into F2P territory simply didn't work.