BruceVC

I thought Bioware's obective was to make fun RPGs not romance games But ok, I see what you mean by demographic then, though I think GD was focusing on the romantic relationships rather than the Bro party member (there's always one) being homosexual. Correct Sir! You can shut the whole messy thing down by just eliminating romances all together. I mean really, do any of them really work or feel organic? I'd say no. Or do what Skyrim did and just minimalize it. If you do either no one feels offended and you can concentrate on making the game story make sense. No THERE is something that could USE a little effort. GD, stop being a naughty boy !!! Your comment may be true but its not really relevant because Bioware games will always have Romance, I would say Romance has become a trademark of Bioware so they will never be removed from Bioware games. Of course that doesn't mean that Romance should be the most important part of an RPG, not at all. They are just a part of the party interaction. An appealing and appreciated part of party interaction but still just a part of party interaction. There are many other components of a RPG that need to be memorable and entertaining and therefore I would say are more important than Romance, like the narrative? The goat in the brothel was something indeed Trying to include the whole fanbase is impossible though, as some groups are mutually exclusive in their likes/dislikes and tolerances/intolerances. Sure I agree, which is why companies like Bioware are clear on what there games contain and if you don't like that or feel uncomfortable with there design decisions then you don't have to play there games?

I thought Bioware's obective was to make fun RPGs not romance games But ok, I see what you mean by demographic then, though I think GD was focusing on the romantic relationships rather than the Bro party member (there's always one) being homosexual. I firmly believe Biowares objective is to make fun RPG's but if you can also be inclusive and appeal to whole fanbase then why not do both? And lets be honest the whole LGBT aspect of Bioware games isn't a massive part of the overall gameplay..its basically optional and is something you can ignore if you want?

Get offended? How could anyone be offended by an internet forum? I mean, it's not like you guys are real right? This is all just a sophisticated computer program. You do cease to exist when I turn my computer off right? This thought made me laugh....imagine if I found out that there are only 5 or so real people active on these forums and all this time I have been having the same debates with people who sometimes agree with me and sometimes don't depending on there sock puppet

You're late with this Bruce! And just from previous input it is amusing. Can you go into more detail, I am not sure what you mean?

Not sure one being a minority group really means your longing for detailed relationships with fake characters any less weird. I can see them getting worked up over things in games, though people are offended by so much we'd need a bevy of examples, heh. Also, what do you mean cater for your romance arcs - isn't that the same as your demographic ? So GD was asking " Does anyone else think there is too much effort made to make interpersonal relationships in video games a little too lifelike" My response basically being no because this thread is really about Bioware games and the way they have endorsed inclusion specifically around the LGBT community The objective from Bioware is to provide Romance and characters that offer heterosexual and homosexual options ( and this includes dialogue and not just Romance dialogue) . But yes the options still need work to make them more realistic for many people but this is a work in progress. So in other words they aren't lifelike yet so work still needs to be done And what I mean by demographics is there are really two angles that the LGBT community is asking for , they want to interact and meet people in the game that come from the LGBT community ( like in real life ) and they want gay Romance options. These are two different but similar objectives. The former applies to your demographic and the latter applies to a Romance arc I hope this makes sense

Most promancers aren't that favorable to the Skyrim way of Romance implementation

You're confusing the point with the manner. Meshugger is a shady fellow. Malc you seem very sensitive about alumin posting etiquette ? I really don't think he is particularly aggressive or dismissive...have you seen how some people talk to me in the GG thread? If you think alumin is rude you would be shocked by there comments I also thought the Internet was a hard place where we need to have thick skins and not get offended....or has that changed?

As far as point 1 is concerned I would say you may not feel like this under the following circumstances You come from a minority gaming group like the LGBT community You enjoy Romance and battle to find games that cater for your demographic and Romance arcs

I see you are still going on about this I am prepared to have this debate with you despite the fact I see you as bigot who hides behind the view " you want to have an open debate " For the record I am proud supporter of the LGBT community and I am committed to gender equality First question, is your overall point about the fact that there are no aesthetically pleasing options around Romance arcs for a heterosexual, white male in DA:I ? Or is this nothing to do with Romance but you feel all the characters within DA:I are just ugly ?

Yeah Blacklist is epic, I love the show

Mothers Day today so I went to my moms place for a nice breakfast and took her flowers, she was thrilled

No, the only thing "socialist" about Obamacare is the mandate. Namutree nailed it when he called it a socialist/capitalist hybrid in that is uses the force of law to compel everyone to participate in a capitalist venture. And that is really the most heinous thing about it. It compels every citizen, as a requirement of citizenship, to enter into a private contract with a third party. It forces you to buy something. I'm not saying it's not something important but that should not matter. It has never been a crime to do nothing until that passed. It really sets a terrible precedent. Especially considering at the time the Federal Government had an ownership interest in GM and a few other companies. It's only another small step to force everyone buying a car to buy a GM car. GD haven't we often lamented the real intelligence or understanding that the average voter has of political issues...don't you think its better we just take away the ability of people like that to vote at all? We leave the voting to the more informed people like you and me ?

Yeah I was read to extensively as a child, that's one of the reasons I am so clever .....

Broad statement that, so is preventing the the genocide of Yazidis in Iraq by ISIS also considered meddling ? http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2014/0808/Obama-intervenes-in-Iraq-lessons-learned-from-Benghazi-and-Rwanda-video I can't decide if fighting ISIS is meddling or just cleaning up our mess. At any rate I'd end all hostilities with Assad. The issue I have with this view is everyone seems to be absolved of responsibility for the creation and impact of ISIS except for the West The Iraq government who marginalized the Iraq Sunni's get a pass Assad the brutal dictator of Syria who is responsible for the protracted civil war in Syria which allowed the actual creation of ISIS gets a pass The Russians and Chinese who also have vested interests in stability in the region get a pass The Middle East themselves gets a pass from having to meaningfully address ISIS But when the USA intervenes to stop genocide its seems to be meddling and or is seen as cleaning up a mess of it own creation...which I dispute So no pass for Western countries, just judgement

Broad statement that, so is preventing the the genocide of Yazidis in Iraq by ISIS also considered meddling ? http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2014/0808/Obama-intervenes-in-Iraq-lessons-learned-from-Benghazi-and-Rwanda-video

Yeah but who wants to live in NZ? Place is full of aggressive sheep the last time I was there

Never underestimate the arrogance and malfeasance of professional politicians and bureaucrats. Prezbident Obongo himself has openly declared his contempt for our founding documents and considers them roadblocks and obstacles to be overcome. Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg and others on the Supreme Court have expressed similar sentiments. They're nothing but Ruling Class vermin and are not to be trusted. So... Where has Obama "openly declared" this? Calax...don't ask relevant questions. Hyperbole is the order of the day when it comes to dismissing political parties and politicians in the USA

Considering this is untrue, definitely not. Unless you only count being involved in new conflicts as having boots on the ground. I mean Libya, Syria, and ISIS weren't one of my awful dreams were they? Come on, lets be serious. You can't possibly compare the massive military campaigns that involved tens of thousands of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to the strategic air strikes in places like Libya and Iraq ( ISIS)? They are not the same thing at all? We are doing more than airstrikes. Are they as huge an endeavor as the Iraq/Afghan invasion? No, but our involvement is still very expensive and self-defeating; just like the last wars. Lets also not forget that he expanded the Afghan war. So yeah, he's like Bush 2. Yet once again its under Obama that the vast majority of American troops will be leaving Afghanistan end of 2016/2017 ?...still no praise for Obama? http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-afghanistan-usa-obama-idUSKBN0MK2F820150324

and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama not take some credit and recognition for this ? Considering this is untrue, definitely not. Unless you only count being involved in new conflicts as having boots on the ground. I mean Libya, Syria, and ISIS weren't one of my awful dreams were they? Come on, lets be serious. You can't possibly compare the massive military campaigns that involved tens of thousands of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to the strategic air strikes in places like Libya and Iraq ( ISIS)? They are not the same thing at all?

No its fine but I have never believed in this concept of the "Rainbow Nation" because the implementation of it is flawed and I think it sets an unrealistic expectation on the new South Africa. We tend to get judged on the criteria of what the "Rainbow Nation" is suppose to mean and not what we have really achieved..like an end to Apartheid without a devastating civil war People will naturally hang around with people they want to, you can't force people to now believe that just because Apartheid ended everyone is now going to be great friends. And that's fine. As long as we have respect for each other and don't discriminate then people will just gravitate to there own social groups that transcend a racial barrier In South Africa you often people lament the fact that we " aren't a Rainbow Nation " but we are just not in the way they expect it to be

Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ? Obama is basically just Bush 2.0 so it's not really a matter of who's better or worse. They're the same on almost everything that matters. Obama might be very slightly better, but that's a tough call. And the impressive recovery of the US economy, the low unemployment rate and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama not take some credit and recognition for this ?

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs. I can agree with that and its amazing how well the USA has done since " SJW" have taken over running the government? Compare the USA under Bush to it now and the last 8 years under Obama...are we really going to say things were the same or better overall under Bush? So SJ influence is not always a bad thing? Yes. Pretending otherwise is folly. All questionable programs that people disliked under Bush have vastly expanded under Obama. The amount of corruption that Obama has presided over has NEVER been seen in the executive and is EXACTLY what I predicted when I heard the dem primary frontrunner was a Chicago pol. Not to mention the idiocy with Iran and his refusal to defend the Marshall Islands flagged ship. It's ****ing disgusting. Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ?

Which is also true of political parties in the first place. They've (re-)inflated a housing bubble, allowed most of our capital city to (continue to) be sold to Russian mobsters, and engendered the creation of a great number of zero-hours jobs. They've cut government services and failed to make savings from it. So no, not really. But no British government has done a good job since the War. We have property in London and when I visit the capital and stay there two things that most local people talk about are Property prices in London are very expensive and only foreigners can afford them There are many Arabs and Russians who are now effectively buying up London My argument to this would be The market determines the price of a particular property based on numerous factors like location. Is it the governments fault that a flat is that expensive in Chelsea? Its a global world, can you really prevent wealthy people from other countries from investing in areas like property? How would you reasonably prevent this? You do what most other countries do and impose a property tax on foreign nationals. Although, Bruce, it's lovely to see you embrace Globalised, low-tax ideology when it turns out your family own a multi-million pound property in one of the most expensive Boroughs in the UK. Like most left-wing SJW types, you've never had an opinion you couldn't afford. Monte thats nasty My family is investing most of our money outside South Africa in property, considering the potential uncertainty with some aspects of the future of South Africa I would say this is prudent? We are all committed to South Africa but that doesn't mean you should have all your eggs in one basket if you are able to. Also my family is from the UK so I see the UK as my second home outside of South Africa, its the only place I would like to immigrate to as I feel the most connection to the UK

Which is also true of political parties in the first place. They've (re-)inflated a housing bubble, allowed most of our capital city to (continue to) be sold to Russian mobsters, and engendered the creation of a great number of zero-hours jobs. They've cut government services and failed to make savings from it. So no, not really. But no British government has done a good job since the War. We have property in London and when I visit the capital and stay there two things that most local people talk about are Property prices in London are very expensive and only foreigners can afford them There are many Arabs and Russians who are now effectively buying up London My argument to this would be The market determines the price of a particular property based on numerous factors like location. Is it the governments fault that a flat is that expensive in Chelsea? Its a global world, can you really prevent wealthy people from other countries from investing in areas like property? How would you reasonably prevent this?