BruceVC
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BruceVC
-
-
Oh no we are going to miss you Well make sure you get back to the forums ASAP
-
I'm sorry but when I see that type of religious hypocrisy it just frustrates me..the point being its amazing how some people choose to practice the hate\animosity part within the Bible and not focus on the positive like what Jesus said about "Loving your neighbour "
-
Well I just think the boneless chickens somehow manage to rise to the occasion
-
Chicken wings are such a classic meal/starter , they are a real comfort food I enjoy using different marinades and sauces like you did Oh and I seriously loooooooooove the boneless extra hot chicken wings at Hooters with Blue Cheese sauce
-
-
-
Fair enough, you do realize that Bioware has tried very hard to improve DA:I on almost all levels ( and I assume that will include Romance ) and it has been receiving mostly favourable reviews?
-
-
I don't understand why a romantic relationship is somehow outside the "vast, vast pool of interpersonal communication." I'm pretty sure I never said it was. I'm pretty sure my point - which you missed on cue - was that there's a vast, vast pool of interpersonal communication, and a wide variety of emotions other than love, but Bioware writers only ever explore Romance. Because it is a crutch to them. They are incapable of going deep with anything else. Stun can you answer my previous question, I can accept you may not be excited about the Romance implementation in DA:I but aren't you at least curious ?
-
We've already accomplished one of three goals I care about within the video game portion of gamergate (crashing the mainstream media being an unrealistic and only slightly related 4th pipedream), you keep on saying that we haven't accomplished anything or that we won't accomplish anything, well, we're accomplishing the portions of the movement I care about just fine. So why do you keep on insisting we're never gonna accomplish anything when we already have? Shallow if I comment honesty I'll just end up offending people which is why I decided a while ago not to actively participate in this thread. Remember I have a responsibility to try to maintain a certain state of decorum as there are people like Volo who really look up to me and basically are guided by my comments. And the last thing I want to do is tarnish in anyway his almost perfect image of me I really think I have said everything I have said about GG. So its best I only comment occasionally and leave this discussion to people who believe in GG
-
-
That's true, but it's still a violation of property rights. At any rate; some one who would actually exercise that right would likely go broke anyway so... Oh well. I know it's unlikely to convince you, but American legal precedent has clearly rejected this view. Well this very informative link should settle this discussion, just because you own a property it doesn't give you the right to discriminate against people and, for example, refuse to serve them because of issues like ethnicity or sexual orientation ?
-
The complete illogical nature of the various conspiracy theories about the motives of the West never cease to make me laugh
-
Wait so the USA doesn't want to stop ISIS? Is that your observation because all the USA has to do is tell Saudi Arabia and Qatar to stop funding them and they will vanish? So why is the USA even involved in the airstrikes, surly this doesn't help there end goal of toppling Assad
-
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
-
-
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?
-
