BruceVC

I don't think you understand sharp ones core message, he's just a dieheart communist looking to encourage the people to give commie revolutions another try. No He is many things but a Communist he is not. In fact he is very vociferously opposed to Communism

Please don't misunderstand me, corruption is a terrible blight that inflicts society and needs to be addressed But in the South African context we just want companies who can do a proper job, that in certain ways is more important than how they go it. And this applies to the public sector only

The power dynamics on those types of relationship are skewed yes, just because they are susceptible to become abusive doesn't mean that they inherently are. If I hold public office and award contracts to a company I have significant shares in ... that may not be corrupt. It may be the best contractor. But you can't seriously suggest it should be accepted. I get what you are saying but I don't know if that scenario you described would be unacceptable? In South Africa we have massive issues around corruption in the public sector and the awarding of tenders to people who know government ministers. And what happens in many cases is that the people who win the tender selection process can't do the job, so you have a failure to deliver certain services and projects due to nepotism But if the company was able to do the work and they really are the best company to do the particular work is that really a problem? It definitely can create a conflict of interest but it doesn't have to be.

In other words they do want destroy Syrian property and important Syrian economical structures. The Terror against civilian objects It's usual strategy of NATO (and his predecessors - during WW2 they bombed peaceful German towns instead of military objects by same way), we see many examples of this during war in Serbia, Iraq and Libya. As usual your understanding of these events is horribly misinformed ISIS controls certain energy resources in Syria, the airstrikes are designed to weaken and destroy ISIS ability to generate revenue and wage war. Therefore obviously this gas plant is a legitimate target as by destroying this you reduce the military effectiveness of ISIS as they have less money to fund there operations

I bought the latest Tomb Raider game as a physicalgame this year, but to the honest its just cheaper and more convenient to use digital distribution services like Steam But I still buy physical copies for games that I am very excited about like DA:I, Witcher 3 and GTAV

Its not unreadable, English obviously just isn't his first language. He may have used a document editor for spell checks and now the formatting is inconsistent when it gets copied to the forum?

Good post Ros, you have articulated the issue very eloquently

Guys please try not to intentionally misunderstand ,me, I have been partying the whole weekend and I'm feeling very tender No one is saying that a women who rapes a child or a man shouldn't go to jail, obviously the law must take its course But this article is making it out that female teachers rape there pupils, its not rape its statutory rape and its consensual It not the same as a 20 year sentence that gets imposed on a rapist. Lets not be silly now

This link is really irritating and is nothing less than a misogynist and pathetic attempt by someone to point about what exactly? That there are teachers who have had sex with there pupils? This isn't even rape and the sex is consensual so its probably statutory rape. And then he tries to lesson the appalling act of rape that exists in the real world. Seriously this link is one of the worst reads I've seen in while

WOD I understand that you and Hurlshot have different opinions on CAIR and that's normal and to be expected But Hurlshot is not someone to just formulate an opinion on something without having interacted with it, its too important to just have a random view without being certain And this is relevant as one of the main deterrents to the support of Islamic extremism in Western countries. Groups like CAIR play a role that vocally criticize groups like ISIS, this is needed to make it clear that this interpretation of Islam will not be something that Muslims will accept. So by saying CAIR is linked to fundamentalism is a serious accusation

Nonek I may have misunderstood you but are you suggesting in other comments that you actually aren't heavily invested from a sympathy and support perspective with GG? In other words you aren't really on a " side"

That's very interesting and I would like to understand how true the impact that something like GG has had on the appetite of sponsors on a website like RPS which I support. Personally I would be surprised if GG has any influence at all. And its not because GG doesn't have some good points. Its the actual perception that exists around GG, and corporations and sponsors general avoid things that are dismissive of social justice issues, like inclusivity. And I'm not saying this is what GG is about, this is just the perception that exists for some about GG But this discussion needs to be had around the facts, so I'm very keen to read any links (not Twitter comments ) that explicitly state that " company X is now making a public statement that it now supports GG and has decided to not advertise on RPS" ( this is just a simplified example, I am just looking for something similar ) It should be easy to find because companies are normally very vocal when they need to make marketing changes around there company image and who they support. Especially when they realize they made a bad call in the past I'll dig around and see what I can find. I'll start on RPS

I also thought that article was a good read. Do you think that GG caries the influence to get someone like Leigh Alexander fired or ousted from her job. Because I would find that strange considering the support she has? Do you think people outside of GG really care what GG says or thinks should happen to certain gaming journalists?

So glad he made the comment about saved games. My heart was otherwise about to drop. But its okay if saved games get wiped because then it gives you a chance to play the game again and learn all new things? Isn't that part of the fun of gaming

I started watching the latest and final season of Sons of Anarchy, as usual really good. But a very violent series, definitely not for the young ones

I would think so, but I'm not sure

We all love our pets, I get that and cruelty to animals is unacceptable. But don't you think you overreacted?

Wow that's really funny guys, next time I'll remember to laugh.

I have just finished Rage and it was really entertaining, it gets a solid 70/100 on the much respected " BruceVC gaming rating barometer " I liked there interpretation of a post-apocalyptic world. The cities were well designed from an artistic perspective. The quests were varied and exciting and I enjoyed the usage of the various weapons and the crafting. I enjoyed the combat but felt the auto-heal made it a little easy The only criticism was at the end, it seemed to just suddenly end with no big bad end boss fight . You also didn't get to find out much about the Authority and what motivates there leadership But apart from that the game did deliver on the entertainment front

On a personal sabbatical-- It sort of began with the rpg/tactical munchies I began having. I got Xenonauts, and saw how it actually improved upon original X-Com (not the firaxis abomination), and actually make it deeper. Then I started my yearly tradition of Jagged Alliance 2 (with 1.13 mod) and spent dozens of hours on it. Few games come close to SirTech's perfect product. Then, as you said, I finally started Wasteland 2 with a beta save I had from around Damonta, 40ish hours already upto that point. Now its time to properly test PoE, and play this little fallout1-esque gem called Underrail occasionally. How many hours did you play WL2 each day? Even with the save game its still an impressive amount of time on a game to finish it that quickly

I don't think that's true, firstly I don't know any official link that says the West has been providing arms to the Free Syrian army, I do stand to be corrected. But the issue was always "what if the arms fall into extremist hands". In fact one of the complaints from the Free Syrian army has been that they aren't getting enough support from the West. Countries like Saudi Arabia have been supplying arms to various groups opposed to Assad Now that is changing, the West will be supporting the Free Syrian Army. (FSA) But the FSA is not the same as ISIS. These groups fight each other and fight Assad Also ISIS gained loads of weaponry when the Iraqi army basically retreated when ISIS first invaded Iraq. That's been there main source of armament and the fact that ISIS was able to buy there own military equipment as they control oil fields in Syria But its very important to understand there is a huge difference between the Free Syrian Army( which the West supports ) and ISIS, they both operate in Syria but have very different ideological objectives No direct links no. But... "There is some evidence, however, of small quantities of missiles arriving in Syria for the opposition, some of them apparently obtained from Croatia in a shipment organised by the Americans and paid for by Gulf states earlier this year. More recently the rebels have also used Konkurs wire-guided anti-tank missiles from former Warsaw Pact arsenals, while 82mm recoil-less rifles have been deployed in recent gains near Latakia, a regime stronghold, and in the defence of Aleppo. But the missiles are largely in the hands of Islamist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. The Islamists’ ever-increasing power is now a direct threat to the moderates, as was shown by the recent assassination in Latakia of Kamal Hamami, a member of the FSA’s supreme military council, by the al Qa’ida-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Qassem Saadeddine, a FSA official, recalled: “They phoned to say they had carried out the killing of infidels. They said they will kill all of the supreme military council.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-what-the-west-has-given-syrias-rebels-8756447.html Just a quick example. Of course you can choose not to believe it, but if you are waiting for Western countries to admit to sending weapons when they have said that they wouldn't do that you can wait for a long while. I didn't explain my point properly and you are right , unofficially the USA has more than likely been supplying the FSA with weapons. After all where do the Saudis get there weapons from? But the weapons supplied to the FSA haven't ended up in ISIS hands. The FSA has been using them, ISIS has its own Western weapons that it got from the Iraqi army My post should have been more directed at Teknoman who said " the USA was thinking of supplying weapons to people who have been enemies of the USA for the last 10 years" The FSA isn't an enemy of the USA, Assad and ISIS are the enemy which is now why the FSA is going to get properly supplied and trained by the West

I don't think that's true, firstly I don't know any official link that says the West has been providing arms to the Free Syrian army, I do stand to be corrected. But the issue was always "what if the arms fall into extremist hands". In fact one of the complaints from the Free Syrian army has been that they aren't getting enough support from the West. Countries like Saudi Arabia have been supplying arms to various groups opposed to Assad Now that is changing, the West will be supporting the Free Syrian Army. (FSA) But the FSA is not the same as ISIS. These groups fight each other and fight Assad Also ISIS gained loads of weaponry when the Iraqi army basically retreated when ISIS first invaded Iraq. That's been there main source of armament and the fact that ISIS was able to buy there own military equipment as they control oil fields in Syria But its very important to understand there is a huge difference between the Free Syrian Army( which the West supports ) and ISIS, they both operate in Syria but have very different ideological objectives

So we obviously have a disagreement of what inclusivity means, appealing to the fanbase is about inclusivity where you can play as a male or female. So we may be debating the same point? Also female characters in a game mustn't be objectified. This does not mean now the games will become "watered down gray tasteless mass" But if a large AAA gaming studio like Ubisoft doesn't offer fans the chance to play as a female then this is a problem that they need to address. This objective is relevant in most cases and of course there are exceptions If a game has a set protagonist, with a plot based on that protagonist, with a lot of thought put into that protagonist, why should there be an arbritrary version of that protagonist with or without boobs to make people who are strongly attached to their gender happy at the cost of any gameplay related to gender? Let's look at Pplanescape Torment, if it had added an arbitrary Nameless One w boobs Ravel, Falls From Grace, and Annah need to be stripped off all flavor, something else will have to replace Ravels main motivation for helping you out and later not being happy about you leaving, something else with have to replace Annahs reason for following you as well. Now, our new Planescape Torment could keep the content for males and make a barebone senseless Ravel for females, not give Annah any reason for hanging around you, but it'd mean extra work that a decent portion of the playerbase (men play chicks too) will never see, and anyone playing a female char would complain that the game massively lacks flavor. You gotta either remove all gender references from the game, build new just as good gender references for females, or just scrap the idea of a nameless one with boobs. Some games are built with multiple potential genders in mind, some with multiple possible protagonists in mind, some aren't, and it is good that some aren't, because those games are capable of adding much more gender specific flavor. I'm naturally biased here as I'm a guy, like most protagonists, and as I have extremely little internal gender association, if I woke up a woman, besides being very freaked out I wouldn't really care one way or another, but despite such bias I still feel it is a very valid argument that the more you try to push for everyone being able to fullfill their deepest desires in one game, the more bland that game becomes, or the more work has to go into that game for the same content per gameplay. You make some good points As I mentioned there are exceptions, for example I don't expect Lara Croft to have a male protagonist. Planescape is another example where you can't really change the main character and I don't expect that change My point about inclusivity is more for a new RPG like the latest Dragon Age, in this case there is no issue around inclusivity as Bioware has addressed this. But Ubisoft and there new Unity sequel in the AC saga. This needs to change because its not like its not technically possible to have a female character Have you played any Assassin's Creed games? The nature of the Animus prevents a choice in character options because you're replaying a figure's memories within a single bloodline. The only way they could have a male and female playable character would be if they were in different time periods. Unity you're reliving Arno's memories, offering another character option means writing an entirely separate game. Sure I hear you. And I played all the AC games except for Black Flag. My issue is more with Unity and the four optional characters, all men. No women Why were you ok with watch dogs then?Or for that matter why are any ubisoft/open-world games acceptable? The drop-in multiplayer is a recent gimmick and it will force you to play the protagonist of single-player. Seems to me you have issues with design of many open-world games. I just can't tell why you attack only specific titles for natural outcome of this approach. I haven't played Watch dogs so I can't comment. But I did play Far Cry 3 and there was no female protagonist and with some effect from Ubisoft there easily could be. Its not like AC where a female protagonist would fundamentally alter the story Also I was asked to gives examples of games that aren't inclusive, so I am not attacking anyone.

So why aren't the four available character choices in Unity a female option ?There aren't four character choices. There's Arno. You can have up to 3 others play co-op in certain missions, but to you they are brotherhood Assassins, to each of them they are Arno.I see your point, so you are saying you cannot make any of them female because of the story line being about Arno specificallyYes. You play as Arno, the co-op missions are available within the main game from taverns, but you don't switch characters when you play them. Everyone looks different in the demos because they added a bunch of clothing customization to Unity, so whatever other people you play with will have customized Arno's apearance and equipment to their preference. So within each player's narrative they are Arno and the other players Arnos are random Brotherhood Assassins. Okay valid point raised, that was a bad example from my side because it doesn't appear to applicable

So why aren't the four available character choices in Unity a female option ? There aren't four character choices. There's Arno. You can have up to 3 others play co-op in certain missions, but to you they are brotherhood Assassins, to each of them they are Arno. I see your point, so you are saying you cannot make any of them female because of the story line being about Arno specifically