BruceVC

That's not possible and its not something we actually want from a Western perspective because despite the fact that some countries criticize the USA for imperialism and "interfering in there sovereignty " the world expects the USA to get involved when it comes to perceived military action. Just look at how "weak " Obama has been accused of for not attacking Iran and Syria IMO its important that the USA continues to provide the military capability to intervene militarily in various conflicts because there are valid cases for it. The world expects us to intervene all the time because we do. If we didn't; that expectation would disappear. Some people have accused Obama of being weak, but they're fools. It's not true, and even if Obama was "weak" I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I'd rather be weak than broke. The level of military spending we do isn't sustainable, and I'd rather we get out of this terrible business of intervention sooner rather than later. Good point raised about being "weak " rather than broke But here is a consideration and its more about the humanitarian imperative. If you go back to the Rwanda genocide and a way through intervention that the USA could have intervened militarily to prevent that would you say they should have ? And I don't mean boots on the ground, nowadays military intervention can be about airstrikes, drones and special forces like we have seen in Libya and the campaign against ISIS So in other words the financial cost for the USA to prevent that type of genocide is relatively negligible

Okay look I am trying to be more understanding towards the offense you guys feel around how you feel gaming journalists have treated you But I'll be honest I am battling with it for two main reasons You guys have never cared about gaming journalists before and what they thought. You guys have always basically felt that gaming journalist are corrupt and there opinions don't matter. In the past I have used various gaming websites as a source of information and been told " LOL...why would you take that website seriously " I have been told numerous times that words don't matter on the Internet and people musn't get offended and people must grow think skins. How many times have I posted links about bigotry on the Internet and expected people to be horrified and the normal response is "its the Internet, deal with it" So I see a weird inconsistency with how some of you apply this feeling of being outraged, and I don't understand it. Maybe you can explain to me now why there is such discussion about what gaming journalists have said...surly they are just words that can be ignored? It bothers me because I could have never imagined the extend of their influence, it bothers me because every reputable website is printing their side of the story. Even though by the own admission there was no story and only ran after they became the target. It bothers me because on the face of so much corruption there are still people nitpicking about the matter, saying that this isn't like Dorito-Gate or that this is just how things get done. It bothers me because this has actual repercussions that are clearly visible and everyone is ignoring it. For me this is something from a conspiracy movie, because I've seen how most of the events went down. I've shown interest since day one and now I'm seeing how they get to write the story and keep on doing the same ****. If there was a moment to oust them and to bring some measure of dignity to the field it is now. So you might say that i'm a bit more emotionally invested than usual as I consider this to be important. I'm sure you know how that's like. Good post, and I do understand what its like to be emotionally invested in a particular topic. That's how I feel about almost all the topics I discuss or raise, for me its almost impossible to separate the emotion from the facts when you want to discuss something

Okay look I am trying to be more understanding towards the offense you guys feel around how you feel gaming journalists have treated you But I'll be honest I am battling with it for two main reasons You guys have never cared about gaming journalists before and what they thought. You guys have always basically felt that gaming journalist are corrupt and there opinions don't matter. In the past I have used various gaming websites as a source of information and been told " LOL...why would you take that website seriously " I have been told numerous times that words don't matter on the Internet and people musn't get offended and people must grow think skins. How many times have I posted links about bigotry on the Internet and expected people to be horrified and the normal response is "its the Internet, deal with it" So I see a weird inconsistency with how some of you apply this feeling of being outraged, and I don't understand it. Maybe you can explain to me now why there is such discussion about what gaming journalists have said...surly they are just words that can be ignored?Comprehension isn't your strong suit. 1. There has always been a distrust of gamnng journalists, see doritopope. The difference between doritopope and catching a journalist having a personal relationship with a developer is that there wasn't a concentrated effort by the whole of gaming press to deny corruption and silence/discredit detractors after one of those instances. 2. There is a difference between "I0wnZU" the anonymous douchebag making empty threats and harassing someone than game journalists using their press as a means to attack people. One is an anonymous being that you can not stop or even identify, the other is in a position of authority to ok influence and inform. Reading about what a terrible misogynist dinosaur gamers are from a gaming website is going to carry a little more weight and authority than some anon in a CoD match calling me a **** bitch and informing me that he would like to **** my fat pimply ass after he uses up my dirty whore mother. Well I am trying to comprehend your perspective but as I said I am finding it inconsistent. But thanks for responding. In response That's a fallacy, no gaming journalist is saying there isn't an issue with the gaming journalist industry. Even the cracked article you posted mentions this. But once again the point is that the focus around this corruption is on Zoe Quinn and her sex life instead of the real issues, see this link from 2012http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/26/all-the-pretty-doritos-how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/ There was very little said about this type of issue in the gaming industry, in fact it went under the radar without you guys giving it a second glance Okay the whole "gamers are white, male misogynists " insult from gaming journalists was a badly conceived marketing strategy which seems to have done more harm than good in the greater cause of gender equality. I don't see it like that but I accept that you guys see it like that. Point taken

I appreciate your honesty, so you aren't really offended. This whole event is more a source of amusement? I can understand that, it has been entertaining. But for me I still take bigotry in the gaming industry and RL seriously. But I understand we all have different perspectives around what bigotry is and how we address it

That's not possible and its not something we actually want from a Western perspective because despite the fact that some countries criticize the USA for imperialism and "interfering in there sovereignty " the world expects the USA to get involved when it comes to perceived military action. Just look at how "weak " Obama has been accused of for not attacking Iran and Syria IMO its important that the USA continues to provide the military capability to intervene militarily in various conflicts because there are valid cases for it.

Okay look I am trying to be more understanding towards the offense you guys feel around how you feel gaming journalists have treated you But I'll be honest I am battling with it for two main reasons You guys have never cared about gaming journalists before and what they thought. You guys have always basically felt that gaming journalist are corrupt and there opinions don't matter. In the past I have used various gaming websites as a source of information and been told " LOL...why would you take that website seriously " I have been told numerous times that words don't matter on the Internet and people musn't get offended and people must grow think skins. How many times have I posted links about bigotry on the Internet and expected people to be horrified and the normal response is "its the Internet, deal with it" So I see a weird inconsistency with how some of you apply this feeling of being outraged, and I don't understand it. Maybe you can explain to me now why there is such discussion about what gaming journalists have said...surly they are just words that can be ignored?

Well that is the concern actually, there are many people in Scotland who question the military involvement of the UK in various areas. So it would have been highly unlikely an independent Scotland would have been involved in any UK military missions. And obviously this would have weakened the overall UK military mission going forward

When a bunch of SJWs decided that "gamer" meant "sub-human mostly white males" instead of "someone who plays games". And if you really need someone to explain to you why an op-ed that uses ED articles and anon tweets as proof is bad, you're either being obtuse or a troll. Of course I am gamer, by definition a gamer is someone who plays games. That's me But we aren't really talking about that now, does that article even mention the whole "gamer " furore ? He is just saying some gamers as a way to describe basically everyone in this debate and that's the good and the bad amongst all gamers, I don't think he is playing the old " all gamers are white, male misogynists "

No what idea what you mean? Can you explain further Lets discuss the article, another good quote from it "But for women and men who are less selfish than I am, the continued harassment of women is obviously a bigger concern than an indie gaming sex "scandal." And there's another weird logical disconnect, because the same people who harassed Quinn think they're helping women" For me one of my points has always been that you guys are focusing on the wrong issue, the apparent sex scandal is not as serious as the abuse that women face in the gaming industry. Honestly what is more important to you? The fact that thousands of people felt that crude sexual insults are appropriate or the whole " sex scandal" Orog read the article, you are reasonable person, I would like your input?

The issue being if Scotland had really gone independent then I see Wales and Northern Ireland were discussing this as well and then suddenly you have England by itself. Of course this would have been unlikely but its more the "lets go independent" sentiment that concerns me And the West isn't really divided on key issues, like Russia's interference in Ukraine. Its just typically the same countries that are prepared to send troops to most conflict areas. And these countries are normally the USA, UK and France

No chance, it never ceases to amaze me the types of ridiculous threads you guys will post in support of your perspective. Trust me you will post worst links than this KP, I have confidence in you I'm just joking by the way and I'm not sure why you think this article is so bad, it really covers the core issues accurately? It raises some excellent points. For example it says around point 2 "Even though Quinn's critics are troglodytes disguised as functional human beings, they have a point in the sense that video game journalism does has ethical problems. There's an uncomfortable relationship between advertisers, developers, and reporters, and journalists often find themselves bribed or pressured into having a certain opinion. What does this have to do with Quinn, you ask? Nothing, I'm talking about a story from 2012. That link summarizes a number of questionable practices by gaming journalists, most of which you've probably never heard about because they don't involve an unpopular woman. No guy wants to send sexual threats to a middle-aged man, and lord knows there's no desire for nude pictures of a slightly overweight dude's flaccid **** (which is why I feel safe taking so many nude selfies)" I understand how outraged and hurt you guys feel by how gaming journalists have treated you, you have my sympathies. But why have you guys never raised this endemic corruption before in a such a vociferous way ? Why did it take a allegation about a women having sex with some obscure gaming journalist to galvanize you in such a way? We should discuss this article in detail because I genuinely want to know what is so terrible about it? Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-ways-gamers-still-suck-at-dealing-with-women_p2/#ixzz3Dj5N7w20

Its basically a foregone conclusion that Scotland will stay part of the UK, I'm very happy and relieved :dancing: Despite jokes from some of our UK members I thought if Scotland had left this would have fundamentally weakened the entire UK and Scotland in the long term. And that's not a good thing for the West, "united we stand ..divided we fall Anyway good news, I'm going to buy some Haggis for lunch as a way to recognise this whole event

Okay I now see where you misunderstand the principle of inclusivity. And I need to explain this to you but I can't right now as I'm about to start an afterhours software change at a customer, I'll try respond later but otherwise I'll comment tomorrow. Think how exciting it will be, you can wait in anticipation the whole night

I see you couldn't resist mentioning Isabella's clothes...you are a naughty boy Nonek....a very naughty boy Yes you right, the objectification of women in games can be subjective. For example I think the lovely Isabella represents a perfectly acceptable female character but for many she objectifies women. I suppose you can't please everyone. But take the latest Duke Nukem game, I played it and thought the female representation in that game positioned women in an insulting and vacuous way Also you are right in the sense a developer can create any game they want with no regard to what people may think. For example a developer can create a game where black people are seen symbolically as monkeys or where only gay people are the targets of a killing spree. But then they must accept the SJ storm that will descend on them and the obvious and understandable criticism that will follow To be aware of what some fans will expect from a game or rather won't accept is not hard to understand. Many development companies already do this as I mentioned, its not a big deal So what you are saying is let market forces decide? If so I utterly agree, that is the only true test of a games worth in the long run. And if a game deals with brave subject matter such as racism and homophobia, like the examples you mentioned, I would positively applaud it for presenting a realistic depiction of the world, rather than shying away from content that is not politically correct. So in summary developers can make what they want, the market will judge them and games are and always have been inclusive to almost everybody. Men, women and children. I'm glad that's settled. Mmmm...you trying to catch me out....you sneaky Nonek. But I don't fall for such stratagems A game will generally live or die through acceptance by the market as obviously this represents revenue generation But you must realize this doesn't always reflect what we are talking about when we say inclusivity For example Bioware would still be making loads of money around there RPG if they hadn't decided to include same sex Romance. Why do you think they decided to include this as a Romance option?

I see you couldn't resist mentioning Isabella's clothes...you are a naughty boy Nonek....a very naughty boy Yes you right, the objectification of women in games can be subjective. For example I think the lovely Isabella represents a perfectly acceptable female character but for many she objectifies women. I suppose you can't please everyone. But take the latest Duke Nukem game, I played it and thought the female representation in that game positioned women in an insulting and vacuous way Also you are right in the sense a developer can create any game they want with no regard to what people may think. For example a developer can create a game where black people are seen symbolically as monkeys or where only gay people are the targets of a killing spree. But then they must accept the SJ storm that will descend on them and the obvious and understandable criticism that will follow To be aware of what some fans will expect from a game or rather won't accept is not hard to understand. Many development companies already do this as I mentioned, its not a big deal

How exactly are you concluding that it's a 'generational' thing in the first place? Is there a recent influx of games that use the Rock Paper Scissors dialogue minigame? And in planescape torment, your toon is immortal, and you end the prologue with the ability to cast resurrection 3x per day. There's a ton of things that are 'old skool' about D:OS. 1)There's no level scaling mobs. 2)The fact that your party members can *die* in the first place. 3) Health doesn't regenerate on its own. 4) None of that quest marker BS. 5) Spells and Abilities have to actually be found in the world. You don't just automatically get them on level up. Just the fact the game doesn't have quest markers makes it pretty old school for me

He uses a prosthetic leg

So what would you like to know about the word inclusivity, I assume you mean in the context of what we ask for when we say " us SJW want games to be more inclusive" ? What I said in my previous post. So what would you like to know about the word inclusivity, I assume you mean in the context of what we ask for when we say " us SJW want games to be more inclusive" ? What I said in my previous post. Short and to the point, no frivolity around your posts. I can respect that Its actually an excellent question Nonek, an excellent question. Because many people assume when us SJW say we want " inclusivity in games " this means a paradigm shift around how games are developed. But the good news is it doesn't mean that at all, there are just some reasonable adjustments that need to be considered Also the word inclusivity is subjective to some SJW but I would say most of us agree on two important points that we would like games to include Less objectification of women in games. There is nothing wrong with the positioning of aesthetics around the female form but it needs to be done tastefully and in way that doesn't make people feel uncomfortable. Also female characters need to have a real purpose in the game outside of eye-candy Also we need to have female protagonists and female lead characters as a choice. Many companies like Bioware and Obsidian already do this but then you get Ubisoft which fails dismally in this regard. This shouldn't apply to indie developers who have limited budgets and purely from a cost perspective may not have the resources to offer male and female characters So that would be main factors around inclusivity IMO. But others are welcome to add more

Chronic masturbators? Seriously though I fail to see what inclusivity measures need to be included for games to aid minorities, colour blind mode is a very nice addition, as is a game that can be played mouse only for those whom are movement restricted, subtitles are good for the deaf, but all these are already being implemented to some degree. The wife has no problem playing games, except with poorly designed and insulting caricatures like Isabella (and fairly much all of the other poorly written characters) in Dragon Age 2, dragging quality down. And she does not mind playing as a man, an alien, a robot or a woman as it is escapism. I'm curious what more is needed? The fact that women now outnumber men in some forms of gaming says to me that it is inclusive already, are they overcoming hurdles to do this? It would be nice to see more ethnically diverse worlds, and that is something i've long hoped and campaigned for, though obviously not at the cost of the worlds internal consistency. In a dark age or medieval setting where there is no magical transportation, and the average man or woman rarely ventures beyond the local market town, ethnic diversity will not be as feasible, except at seaports and recognised trade-routes. Crossroads of the world such as Byzantium, where one can see a great mass of peoples from all over the world, drink in foreign cultures and become lost in the bustle and pace of the exotic. Or Rome where all Christendom comes in pilgrimage, traders come to partake of the legendary wealth and emissaries from far distant lands arrive to politic and spy. I'd be curious to hear what inclusivity measures are needed. Hi Nonek "waves" I see you have descended from your anti-SJ fortress to ravage and desecrate the land of people who believe in equality in gaming But I'm impressed you were able to dismiss Isabella without mentioning her attire, so that's progress....you getting there So what would you like to know about the word inclusivity, I assume you mean in the context of what we ask for when we say " us SJW want games to be more inclusive" ?

I didn't even think about that and I have no issue giving it away to someone. I'll find out how to give it away. There is no point in it being wasted because I won't play the Beta

Okay that makes sense, thanks for the feedback

Sup All I am one of those who is basically avoiding any news about the game until its official release so that everything is exciting, I respect all the people who are studiously partaking in the Beta and identifying bugs and effectively making my final gaming experience more stable. So kudos to you all, good work I wanted to ask something that I don't think will ruin the narrative for me and that's around party interaction. Does the Beta include getting to know what motivates your party members and who they are? And also I know Romance isn't part of PoE so if the Beta does contain chatting to your party members has anyone noticed the lack of Romance options is a negative factor in the overall party interaction? Or is this not really a big deal in the greater scheme of the Beta?

I don't think its unreasonable what the Ukrainian government is trying to do. There objective is simple, "" to route out any stinking Commie sympathizers who want to drag Ukraine back to the benighted days of Communism " And there must be certain Putin apologists who need do to be identified and removed from interfering in the destiny of Ukraine which is to align itself both politically and socially with the West? You can see the logic Zora?

Just out of curiosity, why do you assume the person didn't read the article when making that comment? Though I can't recall that I've ever bothered to type it out, that's been my response to a lot of the articles I've encountered. I'm all for equality, but honestly, ranting at people and demanding equality isn't the way to get it to happen. It turns off people like me who are for "the cause", but don't want to be associated with it because of the insane rantings of the hardcore (heck, sometimes, just for a moment, it makes me hope the whole thing fails, just because I get really sick of being told how horrible I am and how easy my life is because I'm a straight white guy, and I don't want the ranters to get the satisfaction of success.) Edit: Meant equality, said inclusiveness. Late night posting = bad. I used the wrong word, I should have used "people don't really try to understand it", not read it So some people will gloss over an article about some SJ development and assume its some kind of guilt trip or personal attack on them and not see the big picture. And this applies to certain people from the SJ side who also don't seem to respect a dissenting opinion

Okay, thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep that in mind