BruceVC

Whenever someone says that all I can think of is this. This is a serious game. This is my go-to gamer ridiculousness. I watched this video and I found it sad that the message seems to be that its okay to live life in a virtual world and not seem to want to interact in reality

Maybe...but I doubt it

Oh you guys live to find offensive and annoying comments from Anita...what would motivate you in a world where she didn't exist ?

Cats are so damn cute

By those definitions there already is romance in the game: I think the issue is that when people say romance they are usually talking about the conversation tracks with NPC companions that lead to jiggle time. Honestly, unless the PC is a predefined character and not a custom made one then those ones just can't work, it requires the companion to be basically open to a relationship and fall in love with such a wide range of possible characters even if you restrict it to just one gender and orientation that it just cannot be well defined by definition. Yes the definition and what is expected from Romance is a Romance arc with people in your party. You want to get to know them and develop the friendship to a point where you have a non-platonic relationship Anything else is window dressing as far as I concerned and is not Romance

I imagine the idea behind that is to get you to find ways to generate revenue so you are " forced " to explore and do side quests I think its clever ?

Yes that was more my question, its not so much the fact that body is unclaimed but the family have no money In South Africa this is not uncommon, people have no money and cannot afford funeral costs so then the state pays for the funeral costs but of course its a simple affair

I like that sentiment and there is some truth to that. I have been forced to accept certain characterizations because people go on and on about it For example I do care about many SJ causes but I only started accepting the whole " SJW " label because people kept on calling me that...so good post Hurlshot

Yes I agree on that point and recognize it, of course not everyone who supports GG has the same objectives...some people are more extreme than others

That's very generous of you, nice one Namutree What happens to a body if the family can't pay any funeral costs?

Doesn't a 3D movie cost more to produce ?

Excellent question Volo, I'm really glad you asked I see the W3 as a realistic portrayal of a fantasy setting that is based on the books. We cannot deviate too much from the books for a number of reasons that include the IP and also the fact you don't to lose the authenticity of the fantasy world of the Witcher So I don't see the need to change anything about the game? Remember not all SJW have the same objectives or motives. SJ is a varied movement that does mean different things to some people so we wouldn't all agree on criticisms directed towards Witcher

That's what I like to see, a positive spirit and real sense of commitment to the KS. Well done Hiro, I share your sentiments on this one

This is good news and I concur, the positive reception this game is receiving makes a nice change I hope Volo doesn't read this ...he will get so mad that W3 is really been well received

Volo you just have to trust me on this, that is the best answer you will understand

Trust me on this one Amentep, this is a day 1 KS pledge for sure. I will take full responsibility if this game isn't as entertaining as I know it will be

Other than the fact of this being common knowledge for a multitutde of years? Consider Jeff Gerstmann. Fired from his editorial position at Gamespot in late 2007 because he gave a low rating to Kane & Lynch: Dead Men while Eidos, publisher of said game, was heavily advertising said game on Gamespot. This was solely rumor for many years because Gerstmann was legally banned from speaking about it due to a non-disparagement agreement but that was nullified in 2012, when Gerstmann came out and confirmed that this was indeed the reason he was fired. There's many more examples, but that is the most egregious one I can think of right now. However, the fact that game review websites and even magazines when they were still relevant would give favorable scores to publishers paying for advertisement has been common knowledge for well over two decades and is the reason why games journalism was regarded as a joke since far before #GamerGate. You can even tell historically simply from looking at these threads, the most often used argument against #GamerGate so far has been "games journalism was always worthless, why do you care now?" I have never denied that there are a incidents of irregular conduct by some gaming websites or some isolated articles that subjectively attacked gamers ( like the Leigh Alexander article ) Most gaming websites stay open through marketing revenues that the publishers are responsible for. Considering the fact that gaming websites don't actually sell product this is perfectly normal and to be expected. Gaming websites also have costs that somehow have to be paid for. We cannot have an issue with the fact that there is relationship between gaming websites and publisher. I am very interested in how you expect, for example, a website like Gamasutra to pay for its costs without getting money through marketing budgets from various publishers? I have a major issue with the fact that somehow GG is going to change this business model or the suggestion that this now means that this relationship is corrupt or unethical. Yes there will be some examples of a publisher paying for a good score but I would need to see data that suggests this is wide spread. And yes I know you cannot produce this data so how can anyone make this statement if it is not fact ? So this is a subjective accusation Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article? That article and the industry wide reaction to this entire thing is why GG keeps going. The fact that the customers were demonized in linked articles showed that not only was there something going on behind the scenes to control the narrative, Most of the major news websites within the industry were involved in adjusting that narrative. And these aren't people who are just "reviewing" games anymore. The longer and more polarizing this is, the more that you end up examining a review and finding that the review is more about how the reviewer's social values were offended by the portrayal of women. And the sad part is, until gaming becomes TRUELY mainstream, with GTA being discussed on morning talk shows at the same level as Transformers or Avengers, and the reviews begin to move to a non-gaming centric platform, there won't be change because it's a self feeding system. The sad part of it is that Kotaku probably won't go under because it's parent company (Gawker media) owns several other sites. Those other sites do pretty well, although the car site doesn't have the reviewers saying "Don't drive this car because it's not a hybrid" or "I don't feel right about driving this car because it's ad had a woman in a bikini 'washing' it". Kotaku, Polygon, et al don't just want to tell us their impressions of the game, they want to tell us how we feel about the game and how we should be OUTRAGED that Yennifer and Tris in Witcher 3 happen to have their breasts pop out during the course of the game. The thing is, even if we don't use the reviews to buy the game, it's a good way to get a feel for the game's general quality, AND it also pays the bills for the developers to have that higher score. Last I'd heard, a lot of bonuses etc on games moving units were tied not just to those units being moved, but also to the metacritic score of the game itself. This means that a reviewer who whines about "But it has titties in it! BAD GAME!" and gets pandered to, will ultimately put a paycheck in the pocket of the guy who made the game. At the same time, these news sites don't just run reviews, they also do previews and are part of the overall hype machine for various products. So a smaller developer with a smaller publisher backing them probably wouldn't move nearly as many units on their own with their own marketing over having one of these companies hyping up how awesome it's going to be to be a Hacker in Chicago or an Assassin in France... Or a Rainbow Operative... (sorry, Ubi's been disappointing me lately). And unlike movies, you don't have a press junket for your stars, or a series of previews that play before a competitors product to ensure that people know your game even exists. If the industry and the GameJournoPro's mailing list don't like you, you could hit shelves and have the employees of your gamestop/bestbuy/whatever wondering wtf it is that they're selling now. Calax I appreciate the way you can have this debate without feeling the need to insult me. You also spend time making your points in way that make sense, you seem to leave the emotion and hyperbole out of it and make your perspective based on your understanding of the reality Anyway I will comment on this later, I am at a customer at the moment so I don't have sufficient time now

Firstly there were 12 "gamers are dead" articles. That's a dozen not "a few". Those were the second major thing what made GamerGate. The feedback from those articles was so negative even SJWs understood it is bad idea to attack your core demographic and they have tried to downplay those articles ever since, like, "there weren't that many of them", "they weren't that bad", and "you're simply misunderstanding what they meant". The attack on gamers still continues. It isn't a daily occurence, but it is weekly. They have simply changed from directly attacking gamers to attacking games instead. Here's a good example. Frankly, after all this time and people repeatedly telling what GamerGate is about if it still doesn't make sense to you, I think it is a good sign that GamerGate is on a right track. I think the Polygon article was misplaced, Arthur Gies is clearly more interested in a SJ soapbox than reviewing Witcher 3 on the merits of the game But as you acknowledge this is an attack on the game itself and not an attack on gamers so how does this support the narrative that gaming journalists demonize gamers? The two are not related. Also there will always be gaming journalists who review games from the lens of SJ. Sometimes its valid and sometimes its not Can you guys not see that this does not mean that all gaming journalists review games this way which is biased and unhelpful. For example Kotaku ( another enemy of GG)also had a review of Witcher 3 http://kotaku.com/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-the-kotaku-review-1703766283 How did you find it? So once again how does Arthur Gies views support the GG message that " gaming journalists demonize and insult gamers" You need to ask yourselves this because this is something most of you have convinced yourselves is a valid campaign for GG?

Other than the fact of this being common knowledge for a multitutde of years? Consider Jeff Gerstmann. Fired from his editorial position at Gamespot in late 2007 because he gave a low rating to Kane & Lynch: Dead Men while Eidos, publisher of said game, was heavily advertising said game on Gamespot. This was solely rumor for many years because Gerstmann was legally banned from speaking about it due to a non-disparagement agreement but that was nullified in 2012, when Gerstmann came out and confirmed that this was indeed the reason he was fired. There's many more examples, but that is the most egregious one I can think of right now. However, the fact that game review websites and even magazines when they were still relevant would give favorable scores to publishers paying for advertisement has been common knowledge for well over two decades and is the reason why games journalism was regarded as a joke since far before #GamerGate. You can even tell historically simply from looking at these threads, the most often used argument against #GamerGate so far has been "games journalism was always worthless, why do you care now?" I have never denied that there are a incidents of irregular conduct by some gaming websites or some isolated articles that subjectively attacked gamers ( like the Leigh Alexander article ) Most gaming websites stay open through marketing revenues that the publishers are responsible for. Considering the fact that gaming websites don't actually sell product this is perfectly normal and to be expected. Gaming websites also have costs that somehow have to be paid for. We cannot have an issue with the fact that there is relationship between gaming websites and publisher. I am very interested in how you expect, for example, a website like Gamasutra to pay for its costs without getting money through marketing budgets from various publishers? I have a major issue with the fact that somehow GG is going to change this business model or the suggestion that this now means that this relationship is corrupt or unethical. Yes there will be some examples of a publisher paying for a good score but I would need to see data that suggests this is wide spread. And yes I know you cannot produce this data so how can anyone make this statement if it is not fact ? So this is a subjective accusation Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article? So I try to leave the emotion out of this debate when I assess the validity of the GG movement. We are talking about a business model that won't change, unless you can give me solid suggestions on how gaming websites generate revenue, and a few articles that are rare that have "insulted " gamers Also as KP mentioned from his own personal experience I doubt anyone on this forum actually uses the reviews on gaming websites as a benchmark to determine if a game is worthwhile or not. We all use other methods. So now we have a situation where none of us even look at the reviews on gaming websites and this existed long before GG ...yet this seems to be a core foundation of GG..." we object to the fact that reviews are biased and are influenced by publishers " So what is the real purpose and objective of GG? It still doesn't make logical sense to me

Good thinking, yeah that should be effective

Lexx take Monte up on his offer, he is very knowledgeable on writing and he will add value to the overall Mod

He is probably referring to the original Supermen movies and Star Wars?

This is a very interesting post, I learnt something from it

We spent the day at a gourmet Farmers Market, as to be expected it had many delicious food stalls and we gouged ourselves. Also they have a Jam Jar stall which means you can drink awesome ****tails while listening to live music...oh they also have a band that's really good http://www.taste.com.au/recipes/32053/jam+jar+****tails