BruceVC

I am extremely excited, can't wait actually

I found this post interesting as it raises some relevant and philosophical points around this discussion I'm not sure I completely understand all you are saying but do you equate people who want equality in games as the same as people who think a classic painting can't be admired anymore because its inherently racist ?

And who made this decision? The Patriarchy? A huge free market. Thousands of competing game designers and you're telling me no looked into exploiting a market that is ripe for the taking because it is not occupied by anyone else. They all got together and said "nope"? You need to read that article, smaller companies didn't go against the trends. The big publishers dominated the industry and they made the decision to target male gamers. That's the only reason we have males dominating the industry as fans today. Don't think its because us males are more insightful or technically minded than females around our understanding of games. Its just because we became the demographic that was deemed the best target to buy games

There is no dissonance there. Women should have the opportunity to make games and have games be made to target their tastes. Denying them this is sexist. This however should be a matter of the free market and does not guarantee that women will take an equal stake to men in the dedicated "core" gaming space. And if this does not happen, it is not sexist. There is no need for some arbitrary representation number that has nothing to do with the choices people make. Why are most romance novel readers female? it does not matter. It just is. And doesn't require men in a bigger proportion to be "fare". If I were to speculate I would say game systems were niche technological gadgets and games were more mechanics based. And that is something men gravitate to more than women imo. This is why it evolved as a male hobby primarily. Now gaming has evolved since. Will AAA gaming attract women en mass in the future? Maybe. But there isn't any need for some arbitrary "equality" there. And certainly is no need to strong arm developers into that. It's an interesting question though as to what could get women into AAA console and PC gaming in those genres that that are "the issue". I'm sceptical it will be what people usually complain about in matters of gender representation. I am not convinced GTA (which caused much outrage) with a female lead would attract many women that aren't already into it. According to Bioware's own stats the vast majority played male Sheppard despite all the wonderful representation in Mass Effect mentioned here. I don't think it's Lara Croft with a hatchet that will get women to game more. You are mistaken about something fundamental, the only reason that games seem to be a male hobby primarily is because of the intentional design of these of games to males only at the publishers, that's the main reason. In the 1980's a decision was made to make games to target male gamers, it could have gone a different way where that same decision could have said " lets make games for males and females " and we wouldn't be even asking " why are males the greater gaming demographic " Please read this link below that I have posted several times, it explains the reasons behind the whole " gaming is a male dominated business" and it explains how we can fix it http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed

People worry about creators being shamed and dragged through the mud when they don't appeal to all demographics. Because they don't have to. I agree, I don't think the solution is to shame developers. Because we then see blow back and people becoming completely opposed to any recommended changes around transformation. There needs to be sustained pressure but raised in a certain way that doesn't alienate people. But the reality is you will also always alienate some people because they are opposed to any changes. As I have said not every person who believes in transformation agrees 100 % with Anita. There are several areas we don't agree on, for example Isabella is a good example of this. But that doesn't mean we dismiss everything she says. That's the difference.

You honestly don't see how **** like "why do there need to be more women in video games? It's a boy's hobby" is flat-out sexism? Bryy is correct but I want to add something People seem to object to changes for a variety of reasons, but what is the final product that people who believe in equality want? Its not unrealistic and the changes that AAA studios can make are already being implemented by some companies. Look at your typical Bioware game, they offer male and female character selection, you can choose your race and you have same-sex Romance options. There games are already inclusive and most people are fine with that. So I am not sure what people are really worried about when we talk about " changes to games that appeal to the entire fanbase" The problem is the perception that exists when people like Anita make videos around these changes, she is automatically dismissed and reviled because of the history around her comments. She is the poster child of hate for most people who support GG. And that is unhelpful when we have these discussions because we need to find middle ground in this debate

Sorry I wasn't aware you asked me a question about South African travel restrictions, I am unaware of them to be honest. I haven't heard anything official but there are definitely travel bans from other African countries where if you have travelled to any of the 5 affected countries in the last 2 months you will be denied entry But I don't believe the USA needs to implement such changes. Also the impact around the USA doing that and a country like Mauritius would be very different? The required steps from the USA doing it would create much more logistical issues. Especially considering the fact the USA is now really committed to stopping the spread of Ebola in Western Africa and is actually the only country in the world that is prepared to send troops and make other resource commitments

Except aiming and hitting your enemy it seems. It was sort of an accident, and it wasn't in battle - but.. I've been shot at by multiple 7.62mm rounds. And I suddenly understood why you essentially never create a battle-plan, even in the most experienced unit, that relies on returning accurate fire when you're suppressed. It's simply not going to happen. Ground battles are messy, and that's that. So all and any military forces train for and expect to hit the enemy in an ambush, or on the offensive, while moving. If that fails.. Well, you don't want there to be anything after the first hit. There's just no good plan that works then. Things get messy. The best you train for in a withdrawal is continuous fire, not accurate fire. ..In a well-defended position, you make sure you can hit first while the enemy has to move, and so on. But even then it's a bad place to be if the bullets start flying, or the enemy doesn't take the hint when they see the nests and keep away. They know where you are, and even a busted ak will hit reasonably close up towards 3-400 meters. But I guess saying that wouldn't make for a great recruitment speech. Very interesting post, did you do some sort of military training?

Keep well Woldan, see you soon

Like I said, I completely understand not having time. I barely posted last week because I had the flu, myself. The lack of response to that single post is not my reasoning, but the content of your responses and what things you choose to respond to. I want you to understand that. Trying to debate with you on this subject simply doesn't seem to have any point to me and it is aggravating, so I am doing this for my own peace of mind most of all. As demonstrated by how compelled I am to continue defending my decision despite my claim I wasn't going to respond to you anymore (I'm somewhat hypocritical that way), I have a hard time ignoring posts but I feel this is going nowhere, so I have to stop. Fair enough, you are perfectly entitled to not debate with anyone you don't want to. I won't lie though, I am disappointed because I thought I adequately explained myself which should have mitigated at least 50 % of your issues with me. But I also think we have discussed this particular topic to death. Also responding to me now is not the same as responding to the topic so don't feel you are being a hypocrite, you aren't Anyway we can chat in other topics

Wow I'm sorry you feel that way but since you are being honest I'm going to be honest. Firstly in most cases I don't really mind if certain people say "they won't debate with me" because the reasons they give are normally irrelevant and just more about the fact they can't accept my views or are annoyed with perceptions around my posting style. But you are one of those peoples opinions I do care about because I do respect you. You are also a reasonable person who means well. So it concerns me that you don't want to debate with me and I would like to explain a few things before you decide this Firstly yes you are right I didn't respond to your entire post but as I explained I have been busy the last 2 days and since Thursday I haven't been on the forums for long periods. I can easily respond to Volos point and others because the truth is they don't need much detail because its just a quick one liner or so. I read that article but I didn't study each paragraph and its obvious you read it properly and made a very impressive and detailed post about it. It now means in order to respond to you properly I need to go and spend much more time with detailed responses. And this was time I didn't have the last few days But I really admire the effort you put into your posts where you explain your issues with an article. I can imagine its both annoying and frustrating to spend time creating a detailed post and them someone doesn't respond, you can almost think " whats the point, this person doesn't appreciate my efforts" But that's not the case in this example. I do genuinely read most posts and try to respond when I am able . All I can ask is you can make your posts not as detailed, maybe less examples that require responding as my issues sometimes are about the time I have and how lI can respond accordingly In summary I'm sorry for not responding to your post and the other one but it was purely a time factor It's not the lack of response that bothered me at all, Bruce. Truth be told, you were correct when you say I didn't expect one. I can respect not having time as well and I wouldn't have made this decision if you had just come out and said that originally. What did me in was two things: - The rationalisation of "old and boring, historical and irrelevant". Since those posts are barely two days old and two pages in, we're still discussing the same subject and it's still very much relevant it showed me that you are willing to ignore something out of convenience or false reasoning, especially since you have responded to older posts before. - The damnation of all of GG over a threat made on a source that you yourself made the value judgement about of not being credible at all, without looking into its credibility at all (as has been pointed out, that account has not posted any GamerGate related tweets nor does it mention GamerGate). I can respect not having time, but I cannot respect not having all the facts, ignoring points, measuring by double standard and still making value judgements about it. I am not saying I'm going to completely ignore you but in the context of this subject, I am pretty much done with you. Interesting, but now you have added to your criticisms and I don't agree with several points I feel I need to repeat some of my point because you still don't understand something Today is the first day I've had since Thursday to respond in more detail. Therefore there is no previous excuse as today is when I could only respond. So there is also no false reasoning or excuse. My timeline is base on fact, for example I had people over for a party and we were using my laptop as the method to play the music. I couldn't now write a long and detailed response but I could respond to Volo. So once again this is a perfectly logical reason for me not responding I said the link accurately reflected my view, I know this from the overall point he was making. That doesn't mean I crosschecked every single point he made, (I doubt anyone does who reads links ) but end of the day his " facts " just support his view so there was no reason for me to doubt what he said as the main point he was making doesn't change. And finally I also said his link doesn't define all the people in GG. So there was no damnation of all GG members. There is a difference

Hm, thats news to me, what makes you think that they're drugged up? Would explain a lot though. That was certainly the case with many of the Taliban fighters. The Taliban actually implemented policies that brought Afganistan's Opium output to lows not seen in decades if not centuries. Not long after the U.S./U.K. overthrew them and occupied the nation, Opium output reached record levels. Note that at the time (and possibly today too (I haven't looked it up)) the U.S. and U.K. were the #1 and #2 importers respectively of both 'legal' and 'illegal' opiates in the world. You do realise the Talibs deal in opium base and heroin? They initially banned it when they ruled Afghanistan but after the USA invaded they now turn a blind eye to it because it helps to fund there military campaign against the USA and it allies I guess military expediency trumps religious doctrine when convenient

Wow I'm sorry you feel that way but since you are being honest I'm going to be honest. Firstly in most cases I don't really mind if certain people say "they won't debate with me" because the reasons they give are normally irrelevant and just more about the fact they can't accept my views or are annoyed with perceptions around my posting style. But you are one of those peoples opinions I do care about because I do respect you. You are also a reasonable person who means well. So it concerns me that you don't want to debate with me and I would like to explain a few things before you decide this Firstly yes you are right I didn't respond to your entire post but as I explained I have been busy the last 2 days and since Thursday I haven't been on the forums for long periods. I can easily respond to Volos point and others because the truth is they don't need much detail because its just a quick one liner or so. I read that article but I didn't study each paragraph and its obvious you read it properly and made a very impressive and detailed post about it. It now means in order to respond to you properly I need to go and spend much more time with detailed responses. And this was time I didn't have the last few days But I really admire the effort you put into your posts where you explain your issues with an article. I can imagine its both annoying and frustrating to spend time creating a detailed post and them someone doesn't respond, you can almost think " whats the point, this person doesn't appreciate my efforts" But that's not the case in this example. I do genuinely read most posts and try to respond when I am able . All I can ask is you can make your posts not as detailed, maybe less examples that require responding as my issues sometimes are about the time I have and how lI can respond accordingly In summary I'm sorry for not responding to your post and the other one but it was purely a time factor

Then respond to TN's points, instead of doing drive-by finger-wagging. Here they are: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68931-drama-in-indy-gaming-and-games-journalism/page-7?do=findComment&comment=1522053 KP I don't want to bore you guys with rehashing an old discussion, I do care about not subjecting you to historical and possibly irrelevant posts. I am not that selfish Besides I don't think TN is expecting me to respond anymore ?

You made excellent points on why that Verge article isn't valid. I didn't have the strength for that and instead lashed out. I'm sorry. But do think Bruce will reply to your points? No. He will simply go silent for few pages and then come back when the next "gamers are dead" article is posted: "Oh, look! All those valid points this article is making." *Smiley face* kirottu must have a crystal ball. Oh yes I meant to comment earlier about the allegation that "I don't want to engage in serious debate " I enjoy these debates but I also have a busy social calendar. Also I can't respond to very post made by every person, so I have to apologize for that but sometimes its just me trying to have a discussion with 5 different people

Wow you GG guys really have some intelligent and mature people representing your argument Nice one guys, you must be really proud

No, I don't venerate forum posters, but he was accurate then. *shrug* Malc why don't you start venerating me? That way you'll feel happier about the things in life that bother, you know you want to....

I have a technical training session now at one of our vendors, they are a large American software company so the food and drinks is always impressive after the session

Yes, very few countries in the world do anything for free but the USA doesn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and send thousands of troops to West Africa in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus They could also say " this is an African problem and we are closing our airports to anyone flying in from the affected countries. We will allow entry to the USA when Africa has resolved this crisis" So people in Africa could also learn to be grateful for the assistance from the USA instead of questioning the motives Again, states don't do things for free. Particularly powers like the US, they aim to get something out of this, either at home or abroad. Or simple a case of realizing it'll hit their borders and kill The Wrong People. Doesn't hurt to think about it even if pragmatism commands that you accept the help regardless of ulterior motives. You see if I was an African living in one of those countries I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth But to be fair the criticism was from some South Africans towards the USA on the talk show. Its easy to criticise the USA for there efforts when you are living in an Ebola free country like South Africa that has fairly decent healthcare infrastructure. But I doubt any people from the 5 affected countries are questioning the USA motives

He was your hero hey Malc Remember when he called me "thoroughly, revoltingly condescending " .. I have never forgotten that, it really made me laugh

No. I probably liked him better before the Qunari turned into D&D Minotaurs, but overall, I think the most memorable (read: those whose company i preferred) would be Varric and Zevran (from the first game) with Isabella as the runner up. Isabella The true love of my life

I'm being deadly serious When have I ever said " I don't like white males" or "I think white males are a demographic that I have an issue with " You are confusing the fact that I support transformation in games to somehow disliking my own race, I'm not sure why you would think that. I am clearly not explaining my point properly if that's what you really think I believe

Very valid article and articulates many of the concerns I have around GG But it doesn't say everyone on GG is a militant or extremist. We know that there are many people on GG who have good intentions, but unfortunately the whole GG movement is tainted because of some people The sooner it fades into obscurity the better for raising valid criticism against certain developments in the gaming industry Valid. Right. In the very URL it already calls us ****. You really are the biggest bigot here. You do know what the word bigot means right? Allow me to share something with you http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bigot?showCookiePolicy=true " a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race" How am I being intolerant of white, males? I just don't like some of the people on GG who happen to be white, males. But I don't like them because they are whites males. I don't like them because they offensive and make derogatory comments about certain groups

This is actually a very valid point and one that I have made several times in the Romance threads, people say "Romance is intrusive and in your face in Bioware games" . They not, they are optional and you can easily avoid them without any impact to your RPG journey, I recently played Jade Empire and the Romance dialogue options were so easy to ignore if I wanted to it would have been no issue Romance probably represents 6-10 % (?) of the total dialogue options in your typical Bioware game and dialogue represents maybe 5 % (?) of the total RPG components in your overall game So I really don't see why optional Romance is such a bugbear for people

Careful dude. I bluntly told him I thought no one here takes him seriously one day and I'm pretty sure he's blocked me for it, as he hasn't acknowledged a post I've made since. Wouldn't that be just awful if you got blocked??? 1) That's ****ed up. 2) Is she new at this...? I'm pretty sure I've heard nothing good about the game development industry. Every single kid that grows up with no clue what to do with their life while also enjoying video games in their free time basically decides to become a game developer. The result is an absolutely packed industry where they often get worked to death and know damned well they need to keep up or there's about 20 people ready and in line to take their job. Ever see a tour of a game developer HQ and thought it looked pretty sweet cause they had a nice cafeteria, all sorts of video games and other stuff all at their workplace? Yeah...those are there because there are certain periods in a development cycle where they likely won't get to go home. I mean this is on par with if we complained there's not enough male nurses. What do I personally care and why would I insist a gender work a notoriously horrible job? Careful dude. I bluntly told him I thought no one here takes him seriously one day and I'm pretty sure he's blocked me for it, as he hasn't acknowledged a post I've made since. Wouldn't that be just awful if you got blocked??? No I'm not blocking you, I just said I wasn't going to respond to you anymore because of your usage of profanity and insults when you replied to me But I can see that you are making an effort to engage in civil conversation so there is no reason we can't continue to debate