BruceVC

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

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

So why aren't any of the four available character choices in Unity a female option ?

The problem being that people say "we have no issue with inclusive games " but then when these considerations are raised there are all these objections to the inclusivity. And I'm not saying this is what you believe or say I've made this point several times but what do I mean by inclusivity, well your standard Bioware game is a good example of this? And yes I am also opposed to sexism in games so we agree on that. And I understand that certain games like COJ is probably more appealing to men, no issue there. What games aren't delivering, a good example is the upcoming AC game Unity or the new Far Cry game, no female protagonist so there is the risk of any female gamer not being able to identify with the main character,

No he made several personal attacks on me in a childish and unacceptable way. I won't ever debate with him again. There is an etiquette to how we debate and if someone cannot make a point without offending someone that's your choice, just don't expect others to want to continue the debate

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

Honestly dude, what planet do you live on? I'm not looking at it like "lost" and "won" like "cmon guys let's beat them at gamergate!!!" I'm saying that what that quote is saying is on par with "we cannot allow the Germans to bring such atrocities such as genocide into the world. Because of the sheer dangers this, I hereby order the extermination of all Germans." It's a self-defeating stance. It's not "we sure showed them," it's that they went about it the wrong way before the issue even began. You're interpreting the "they've already lost" as me viewing this as a competition. No, I'm saying they've got a self-defeating stance based on that quote. Secondly....again, what planet do you live on? Let me be very very brutally honest with you: you have one of the least credible opinions on this forum. You know why I say that? Because nothing in my post you quoted mentions 4chan, nothing mentions exclusivity in games, nothing mentions anything you're talking about. My response was, plain and simple: if she thinks we should change the perceived culture of harassment within the gaming industry, that's a fair point EVERYONE would get behind 100%, but unfortunately we've already lost that battle in that the very side claiming to be anti-harassment is equally as guilty of harassment, so no one has set a good example or done anything to actually change the culture and thus this entire clash is moot and should cease, IF her stance is truly the stance of the SJW side. Go back to the drawing board and think of something else once the tension has died down. The fact that you seem to spew out the same talking points in response to everyone, regardless of what they say? People are not listening to you, and NOT because "omg how dare Bruce spew the SJW message here!" No, people aren't listening because it seems blatantly obvious your opinion cannot and will not change, and half of what's said goes in one ear and out the other. You're doing a horrendous job of representing a group that's being labeled as zealous and quasi-religious in their moral code beliefs. If you truly want to actually discuss things, please read my f***ing post and respond to it appropriately. If I see a convo go down like this: "Peanut butter and jelly sure is delicious" "I agree and I wish 4chan would realize this and stop trying to stagnate the gaming community with their misogynistic DDoS and harassment techniques" Then f*** yes I'm gonna be an ass to you because nothing pisses me off more than seeing someone lie to themselves and basically pretend to be interested in productive discussion where everyone's willing to be proven right OR WRONG for the sake of and in the interest of general progress for the community as a whole. Finally, against my better judgement I'll ask how on EARTH do you figure that "never before has the gaming industry been more concerned and determined to create games that appeal to the whole fanbase?" Says who? According to what statistics? The only example I can name of a game with the deliberate intent of bringing more equality to the table is The Fine Young Capitalists, which as we all know was ultimately supported by the GamerGate side and nearly snuffed by Silverstring media. And even if that WERE the case that we saw an increase in games being made for everyone, there's question about how that came to happen. Allegedly it could occur via coercion, intimidation and censorship. And no, I think you'll find that many of us hold the stance of "Artistic Integrity > Equality" and would NOT be ok with this if it came at the cost of (or could potentially come at the cost of) stagnating and limiting artistic expression, so again even if that were the case, many of us would potentially be very unhappy with it. No one gives a flying **** about equality in video games. They care about gameplay. If you want equality, you can kindly bring it up and request it to the developers you like when they develop games, and they'll possibly consider it. I once helped a guy ask EA to include disabled people in the next Sims game. Did they do it? No. Am I gonna cry and piss and moan about it for all eternity? WTF no they have another focus, that being GAMEPLAY. I merely spoke up to say "hey EA, this is me acknowledging that yes my demographic does exist and play your games," but they're not f***ing required to meet some quota or some crap. Same goes for every minority group ever, and if you have a problem with games that aren't socially friendly, vote with your wallet. No need to use profanity, we are trying to have a mature debate without feeling the need to insult each other. And just so you don't say "what planet are you living on "...you claimed I must " please read my f***ing post and respond to it appropriately" and you have petulantly decided to use the f**k several times in your post . Using offensive words doesn't make you sound more emphatic or clever My advice is you should learn "to read your own posts and respond to them accordingly " . You again have used the word " lost " which means someone has "won " or can "win" To quote you again " but unfortunately we've already lost that battle"....notice the usage of the word "lost ". As I said there is no "lost " and no " won ", there is only suggested and expected change coming to the gaming industry. And then you ask " what changes around inclusivity have come to the gaming industry ". I clearly stated this which you conveniently ignored. Companies like Bioware and Obsidian already have male, female, gay and non-white characters that you can interact with. So the statistics are right in front of you if you bothered to actually see how games like RPG have changed just in the last 5 years Also you say "people don't care about equality in games"...this must be one of most bizarre points I've ever heard. Just because you don't care or think there will be any effective change that doesn't mean others don't care. The whole root cause of this Anita and Zoe furore is based on a need for inclusivity And finally this will be last time I respond to you, I am tired of people who are incapable of having a debate without feeling the need to insult others. Grow up and learn to debate like an adult

True, but how is this applicable to having an option to play as a male or female?

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

The very problem with this is that if this were their stance and their argument, then they've already lost by having people on their side partaking in the very same actions. It'd require leading by example, which clearly isn't happening. Not neccesarily by guilt of the person you've quoted, but merely by people sharing her opinions who could NOT manage to be "above it all" when it came to the bickering. You shouldn't look at this in the context of "lost " and "won", because if you do anyone opposed to inclusivity has " lost " because never before has the gaming industry been more concerned and determined to create games that appeal to the whole fanbase. And to honest its irrelevant that people on 4chan think that this is a bad idea as they don't officially develop games , this is way the industry is going Rather see this as something positive as now games will cater for all people where appropriate I want neither of those options, I want high quality games that are inclusive. And this is very achievable in most cases if you look at games from Bioware and Obsidian And yes this doesn't necessarily apply to Indie developers who have budgetary considerations

am personally considering shelving this until the first major patch... as is our ordinary custom with pc games. we never buy pc games til at least after the first patch, and recently we have been waiting for up to a year after release. I also only play any PC game after the first official patch. So normally I wait for a month or so

Sorry for trying to help Volo

No changes in the industry around more inclusivity is a good thing, you won't find any serious developer or publishers that don't say this is a something they believe in. So if your argument is " I don't want any change at all because I'm happy with how things are " this wouldn't be a very well supported view from the circles of people that matter.

Depending on how old you are it's possibly par for the course. In my experience, most women start going nuts by 25 at the latest (many men too). It's usually a function of how anchored one is in reality and how much one is or isn't in denial of X. Once you start down the path of denial it's only downhill into the abyss of insanity. A lot of people tread that path, more than not these days it seems. I'd go so far as to say bat**** crazy is getting to be the norm in the western world. Yeah I hear you, denial is a systemic problem we face in many modern societies. Would you believe me if I told you that there are some people who deny that Al-Qaeda committed 9/11?