BruceVC

Yeah, and now imagine that the same couple wanted to host their wedding in your own home too. If the bakers are not free to operate their property according to their will, then how is their home any different? Where do you draw the line? You can't--not without being hypocritical and illogical. Bigotry is undesirable, but codifying in law that one must be compelled to interaction is slavery. Attempting to correct bigotry with slavery is an outrageous proposition. Property rights are an extension of self ownership. If the law can compel a baker to offer one service, then they can be legally compelled to provide any service. It actually ceases being a service, because the act is not consensual--it's compelled labor. That's slavery. So just to be clear by your logic you are fine with a restaurant refusing to serve lets say African American people or Jewish people ?

Yeah that bar was a good example

@ GD Something else about that bakery story that upsets me that I want to add Imagine when you and Stef were about to get married, you are in love and want to spend the rest of your life together. And you are making all the wedding plans, you have breakfast at your local restaurant and while you are walking down the street hand in hand Stef says " Look GD at that adorable bakery, lets go and choose our wedding cake "...you can see how excited she is and of course you say "okay " You walk in the shop and say to the owner, with your fiancé brimming with excitement, " we are planning our wedding and would love to see your catalogue" The owner takes one look at your and says "sorry we don't serve your kind, we don't serve straight couples in here " How would you feel? How would Stef feel? What about the embarrassment and hurt from being treated like there is something wrong with you when in fact there is NOTHING you can do about your sexual orientation....

When you run a business, you are subject to non-discrimination laws. Religious organizations can get around this, but I fail to see how a for profit business deserves a free pass here. Would it be fair for your local bar to only serve white people? This is really the point GD, substitute the word gay for African American and ask how you or society would feel about a bakery not making cakes for an African American couple ? Bigotry is bigotry and it doesn't matter how you try to sugar coat it

I use reviews more as an high level overview of a games potential, but if all gaming websites I follow give a particular game an 8/10 or so score then that generally increases the odds of the game being very good But I place more credence in user reviews

Bruce, I'm breaking my own rule here about not engaging you in the context of this thread to tell you something very simple: Do your research before just repeating something you heard. Seriously. This "controversy" was entirely made up for clickbait and absolutely none of it holds water. Since people seem to be confused about this, I'll explain this supposed controversy: Precisely because Daniel Vavra and his team wanted to add an inclusivity option for women, the Kingdom Come Kickstarter included a stretch goal for a smaller female character based mini-campaign because the basic campaign dealt with facets of historical medievel society that only applied to males. The controversy was not that they did not want to give fans the ability to play a female character, the controversy was that they asked for extra money to do so. The arguments were that an inclusivty option should be "a given" (despite the fact an extra campaign would cost a significant amount of money that the company did not have) and should not be a seperate campaign but included in the main campaign as a character customization option (regardless of the fact that this made no sense whatsoever). All in all, it's the most non-controversy horse**** that gender politics in games has come up with and if anything is the clearest argument that gender politics in the context of games needs to be reigned in because it is out of control, damaging to developers reputations (such as by the fact that you think they refused to give players the option when that is simply a lie) and artistic freedom via entitlement, misinformation and basically just making **** up and this is exactly why Daniel Vavra is one of the developers at the forefront of #GamerGate. It should be pointed out that the stretch goal was achieved and the female character campaign will be in the game. Here's an interview where he discusses it back in Febuary of this year, far before either that controversy or #GamerGate: Source: http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/19/kingdom-come-deliverance-promises-the-world-and-looks-set-to-deliver/ Does this seem like a man who refuses to add female characters? Or is this a man who worked hard to add an extra section to his game for women even though it made no sense in the context of his base game because adding this option was important to him when he could have just as easily have decided to just say "screw it" and left it a sausage fest like so many other games, and was then dogpiled, hounded and suffered irreversible reputation damage for his efforts? This is exactly what I mean when I say the internet outrage machine fed by these gender politics is consistently harming inclusivity in games by showing developers that it's not worth the effort to add them. The reason why this developer is "steeped in controversy" is because games journalists made a controversy up and now the developer is a major face of a movement that calls for journalistic ethics because it's already been on the receiving end. It's as simple as that. EDIT: Removed giant quote tunnel. I am surprised you broke your rule and decided to speak to me again in this thread but I'm glad you did because I learnt something new about this particular development I was wrong about Kingdom Come, thanks for setting the record straight

Are you joking? Out of the question. I must be the leader for my group and I cant allow myself that weakness. Also, if there was romance between me and another of the group, it would break the group apart. Not good. Integrity of the group is going to translate to better chances of surviving, which is important as you mentioned, and far more important in a situation like that than a little love. No, I'm not joking at all I'm surprised you think its usual for people to seek succour through an emotional or physical connection with someone else in times of hardship...or when they know tomorrow may be there last day on this earth? If the romantic partner in question is an equal to you in your adventuring party...the 3rd, 4th and 5th person in the party are going to be put under psychological stress by the development of this romance and thereby the group becomes less integral. Yes, it is good for you and your romantic partner emotionally. But not for the rest of the group. Threesome ? Or group orgies

It says they are making a game striving for historical accuracy and taking place in a time period when gender roles were very strongly defined and extremely difficult to defy. It's not the same as in a fantasy game where the world and the gender roles (or lack there of) can be anything you want them to be. Early 15th century Europe was a very real place with a very real and very strict social system divided by gender and blood. If you're striving for historical accuracy in a game like that it's not a trivial matter to allow the player to choose gender. It's not as simple as making a female character model and changing a few lines of dialogue here and there to reflect the player's gender roles. Almost everything would have to be written multiple times to reflect gender differences. Entire quest lines would have to be completely different or unavailable to one character or the other. It would be almost like creating a whole second game just to add the gender choice. While this may sound good to the consumer, it does to me, and I would welcome a game with such complexity and it would certainly add replay value, this would be a mammoth undertaking for the developer, even a publisher funded developer working with a budget in the hundreds of millions. For a small upstart studio working off a budget a fraction of that, it would be sheer folly. This is why so many of us gamers hate social justice warriors, this is why so many of us hate people just like you, Bruce. It's because developers are not free to express their art as they see fit, they are not free to act on their vision, not without harassment from zealots trying to cram a social engineering agenda into everything. Not every game has to be all inclusive. Not every game has to represent genders equally (guess what Bruce, the genders are different, this is a biological fact, men and women are not the same). Not every game has to include someone with every shade of skin color under the sun and make sure they're all shown in an equally positive light. Sometimes developers want to tackle specific subjects from a specific point of view. Sometimes these subjects may be difficult for some people to swallow. Developers should be free to create their games according to their vision, free from the oppressive noose of totalitarian control freaks tightening around their necks and sapping their creativity. It's called freedom of expression. This is one of the things we are fighting for. Okay, that's not a bad explanation. I sort of agree, but my comment about Kingdom Come wasn't suppose to become such a big deal. I just used this to reinforce my point that very few developers have publically aligned with GG and the one that has is steeped in controversy around there commitment to inclusivity That's the point, that's what you guys should be focusing on. But no I get several posts telling me how wrong I was about Kingdom Come, that game is not really relevant to my main point. That's the issue with GG, some of you guys keep focusing on really irrelevant twitter comments and blogs from nameless and unknown people " where there opinion is very important in highlighting how badly you gamers are treated and how SJW are just evil incarnate " All this energy spent seems so misplaced to me And I can guarantee you in another 3 months where we mark the 6 month anniversary of GG there still won't be any substantive changes that GG endeavours to achieve.

Are you joking? Out of the question. I must be the leader for my group and I cant allow myself that weakness. Also, if there was romance between me and another of the group, it would break the group apart. Not good. Integrity of the group is going to translate to better chances of surviving, which is important as you mentioned, and far more important in a situation like that than a little love. No, I'm not joking at all I'm surprised you think its usual for people to seek succour through an emotional or physical connection with someone else in times of hardship...or when they know tomorrow may be there last day on this earth?

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/dragon-age-inquisition-review/1900-6415949/ Another good review

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-advocates-victories-kansas-south-carolina-010308837.html Some good news, I see both Kansas and South Carolina will be allowing same sex marriage. This means there are now 33 states that recognise this type of civil union. This is a progressive step. Well done USA

"Best game ever. The romances were so well done I even kissed my monitor ?" -BruceVC "Too much romance and not enough fighting in tunnels" - Monte Carlo "Better than Twitcher3" - Hoon Ding Talking about Monte where has he been? Probably in a fallout shelter, expecting western civilization to collapse with the release of DAI... Funny enough Monte has said he is impressed so far with DA:I and has given Bioware recognition around the fact they do seem to be wanting to address the grievances in previous games

Its not the same thing, there was a huge controversy when Kingdom Come was first KS I haven't seen anyone complain about Tomb Raider because the main character has always been female and that's part of the accepted narrative of the game Or maybe is because guys aren't supposed to complain, nagging is a female trait that I would hope equality will do away with. Also, developers are allowed to have a vision for what their game will be that doesn't agree with everybody's taste. Why is that cause for complaint? Every argument for female representation on video games is as easily refuted now as it was when Tropes vs. Women first came out. Why you think that criticizing apples for not being oranges is a good thing is beyond me. Okay fair enough, I agree with the whole vision concept that developers should be able to have The only consideration that I would expect you guys to ask yourself is how come it seems that the only prominent development company that has openly supported GG is one that is linked to controversy? I am not going to suggest why that is, I'll leave that with you to ponder

Its not the same thing, there was a huge controversy when Kingdom Come was first KS I haven't seen anyone complain about Tomb Raider because the main character has always been female and that's part of the accepted narrative of the game

Of course not, but Warhorse Studios has a controversial history when it comes to inclusivity in games?

Yes that's a valid point and may be the reason

I've had some really exciting news. Next year in January I have been invited to a technical conference in London around the software I support. And my work said its fine I go because we have to pay for the flights and accommodation. So I'll be taking 3 days leave after the conference and staying in our family flat in London. So I'm off to London again next year

Nah, this post has totally unconvinced me My question was a simple one and just requires a simple answer. What prominent Development companies have publically aligned with GG. And please provide links to substantiate your point Daniel Vavra from Warhorse Studios (Kingdom Come) has been very outspoken about his position in support of GG. There aren't any corporate statements but there are some devs that have come forward. Ultimately, Volo is right; developers are going to err on the side of the consumer. Yes that is one example that I know about But that studio is the same one that didn't want to give fans the ability to play a female character because it " was unrealistic " due to the historical accuracy of how they wanted game to be portrayed Says something about them don't you think?

You make some good points that ultimately this is a consumer revolt. But end of the day wouldn't the entire movement achieve more if the actual developers were behind these changes that the consumers say need to happen? Aren't the developers and gamers inextricably linked when it comes to these types of campaigns? Obsidian, Bioware, Ubisoft, Bethesda or any developer that you know about that is part of the industry and has created games. Like Sid Meier?

AGAIN, that is only true if the dev team is void of writing talent and are unable to explore the vast, vast pool of interpersonal communication...and, you know, other human emotions. I hate to repeatedly cite Bioware (because they're hardly the only guilty party) but, again, they have evolved to the point where they must use Romance as a crutch, because they are not able to create deep, engaging NPCs without it. And Exhibit A of this is Dragon Age 2. the 4 party members that aren't romances are: 1) Your Sibling, 2)Aveline, 3)Varric, and 4) Sebastion. All 4 of them have remarkably dull plotlines, and despite the fact that their occasional one-liners can be humorous and flavor-full, there's simply nothing to those NPCs. On the other hand, the Romanceable NPCs are far deeper and much more engaging. This is not a coincidence, and DA2 is hardly an exception to the rule. I hear you and I don't think you are completely wrong with your criticism of DA2 Romance But that's why I am very keen to see how Romance is done in DA:I, be honest Stun you can't tell me you aren't just a little excited to see the Romance arcs in DA:I ?

Nah, this post has totally unconvinced me My question was a simple one and just requires a simple answer. What prominent Development companies have publically aligned with GG. And please provide links to substantiate your point

It was free for a limited time. How would I describe it? I get to fulfill my dream of world domination. Mount and Blade was still free as of 10pm EST. It's in my library right now. I've also just added it, thanks for the reminder. I was wondering how I would get it for free

I have to say this begs a very important consideration, why haven't any serious Devs or Development companies publically aligned with GG? It leads directly to the credibility of the movement and whether people want to be associated with it ?

More precisely, it can do so. Whether or not it does depends on how you do it, as with anything. 100 %, whether Romance enhances your party interaction will always be a subjective question Like every feature in every RPG

Okay I relented and bought the Mount & Blade series on GOG, its an excellent price