BruceVC

OMG !!! That was indubitably one of the best trailers I've ever seen, you guys cannot tell me that doesn't really excite you ?? This game is looking amazing :dancing:

Not really. In the rare times when anyone has suggested some "new" idea, its logic has been shot down, or else it was shown to be not new at all. Case in point: So I take it you don't subscribe to the long-held romantic notion that absence makes the heart grow fonder? This isn't new. It's how BG2 does it. And, IIRC, it's how DA:O does it. ^this one isn't even a suggestion. It's just a criticism of how previous video game romances handled things. This is not new either. Event-based Romance triggers are how DA2 handled it. And how MoTB handled the Safiya Romance. And it was terrible. It was gamey, and felt fake. ^I don't understand this one at all. Are you suggesting that one way to do romances correctly is by deception and manipulation? Wow Stun it doesn't sound like you like my suggestions? Maybe you should just be honest and say so....I find insincerity distasteful....as I said, just be honest

Happy Birthday boys

I agree, most countries in the Muslim world have serious work to achieve gender equality, I use to travel to the Middle East regularly for work. The degree of discrimination varies from country to country, for example in Saudi Arabia women can't drive or work and all women have to wear a burka. But in the UAE women can work and drive and the burka isn't mandatory. Its also important to recognise that many Muslim countries are making progress around women's rights but there is still work to do

This is one of the reasons you are my one favourite people on these forums, you always say such nice things about me, you rock Indira

This could be something that feminists should consider, maybe the word has a bad perception about it? But that's one of the reasons for this thread, my ideal objective would be for someone like you to come to your own conclusion that feminism is a good thing despite what you may have thought

You do know people need 'advocacy' (great now I sound like a Humanities major) without being discriminated against ? Frankly, one wonders listening to some feminists if equality is the actual goal, rather than advantage - easiest example is the view on the draft for some. Usual things about the slippery fish that is ideology. Can you give some examples when you say " You do know people need advocacy without being discriminated against ", I just want to be clear on what you mean?

What is BruceMode ?

While it may have started out as a movement for giving women equal rights, it's anything but that today. Today feminist only ask for rights but never mention the privileges that women enjoy. There is no equality to be had in the movement today. I won't even touch upon the subject of hardcore feminists, which seems to outnumber every other type (of feminists) today. This is an honest response and I appreciate it, when you talk about feminists asking for rights what in your opinion would these rights be that they want that are negated by the fact they already have privileges. And of course this will differ from country to country. So let me give you an example, there is a huge movement to get more women CEO in the Fortune 500 companies in the USA, but based on what you are saying would you feel feminists shouldn't be pushing for this because a counter argument to this could be " there is no need to get women into top positions in Fortune 500 companies because there are already many women CEO in normal companies" Also what is your definition of normal feminists and hardcore feminists? So this is an interesting perspective, IMO as the definitions explain feminism is the advocacy of womens right because at the moment there isn't equality between the sexes. So you are right in that sense feminism isn't about mens rights. But do you think men need campaigns or societal attention to ensure this , are we discriminated against in the workplace and in society just because we are men? Maybe you can give some examples where you personally have been discriminated against because you are a man? I'm not saying you are wrong, its just never happened to me so I can't identify with it

Guys even if I agree with this sentiment I would prefer if we don't criticize anyone or make them feel uncomfortable when they express there opinion, This way we can get the real truth around peoples views and why seem to dismiss feminist ideals Sarex you can be honest here. I don't remember that debate so what is your opinion on feminism?

I don't know why that is, I will need to research it further or see what others say. Are we saying men are better than women at chess as they have a genetic intellectual advantage? If that's what you think then you must say so, I would rather people were completely honest on this thread, there is no judgement. I know plenty of men who do believe that

Of course, please ask

This is a completely unhelpful comment, I have posted 2 direct dictionary definitions of feminism. As I said if you disagree then post your definition?

Can you provide some links and present your argument in a way so that I research it properly? Basically he took lots of quotes from people whose work is generally seen in today's academic discussions either as highly dated, or having nothing to do with mainstream feminism (generally both). Yeah, that's exactly what I thought, for the last 18 months every time I have raised issues around feminism there are certain people who have criticized me for " hijacking threads" or " not understanding the issue " Now I have created a platform where we can discuss this is a mature and reasonable way and I am interested in the feedback. If people like Bester cant contribute towards this topic in a meaningful way then he is a troll as others have mentioned. And that would disappoint me as I have always given him the benefit of the doubt

What is your definition of a humanist? The reality is even if its the right thing to do purely from a moral perspective that we treat the genders equally that's not how many societies and people function, so we need to legislate certain rights and ways that people need to behave. In an ideal world we shouldn't have to do this, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where some people feel women are inferior to men and that's not acceptable I'd start with Sir Thomas More...but having grown up reading his work, and opting for something more recent, I'm deferring to my favorite mensch: That's an excellent video and I watched the whole thing, and I now understand what you mean by a humanist. But in relation to feminism I don't see humanism as being diametrically opposed to it. In fact I now consider myself a feminist and a humanist. But because feminism is about something that raises the issue of equality in society are we now saying that someone who doesn't believe in gender equality should be entitled to his belief? Of course he should, I may reject this view but that's his right. But it doesn't change the fact that feminist agenda expects equality in the eyes of law and a person who goes on radio or a forum and says " I don't think women are my equal, they shouldn't be allowed to get certain jobs " is going to get criticised as is my right to do? I am not saying " he must change his view"...I am saying "I don't agree " and the fact we are all allowed to have our views is also a principle of humanism

I'm not with you, are you saying you don't want to Romance party members because you are concerned the Romance implementation would be cheesy? Ah, no. That would be like asking me if I am concerned I won't like boiled cod the next time someone offers it to me. 'Concern' would simply be an entirely wrong word for it. The point was with regards to CNPCs versus NPCs. They function differently, and can generally be held to different standards. I think fewer people would loathe Jar Jar Binks if he only appeared in a single scene, moreso if that scene was of little relevance. ( -> Random NPC) Conversely, zooming in on a character's 3D modelled face during conversation brings out the uncanniness of the articulation, in much the same way that romanceable CNPCs bring out the full extent of CRPG romance cheesiness. It removes believable depth from the character, IMO. (And, yes, this is where we completely and utterly disagree ) We should be having a difference of opinions on this topic, that's the purpose it. We are trying to find the ideal system for Romance But once again I just need to be clear on what you are saying, are you saying that fundamentally you are opposed to Romance options with party members for the reasons you mentioned. And any Romance should be with NPC outside the party? If so that is because of past experiences you have had with the normal Romance implementations which is always with party members, but I want to hear what a development company could do for you personally to change Romance with party members so that they would work. For example, would you suggest removing the zooming of the camera?

Can you provide some links and present your argument in a way so that I research it properly? Also keep it simple, I can't possibly respond to all those points, focus on one or two lines of information with links so I can confirm the context

What is your definition of a humanist? The reality is even if its the right thing to do purely from a moral perspective that we treat the genders equally that's not how many societies and people function, so we need to legislate certain rights and ways that people need to behave. In an ideal world we shouldn't have to do this, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where some people feel women are inferior to men and that's not acceptable

Well we know that Nonek is English and that means he loves his tea, so there is that similarity

Keep us updated, I respect your opinion as I consider you a reasonable and committed gamer

Hi All I think its time we had this important discussion. As most of you know I consider myself a committed feminist. I have noticed there is loads of misinformation around what Feminism is and isn't. In another thread Volo said to me (please note I am not attacking Volo, I am using his post to highlight the misunderstanding people have around feminism) My comments are in Red and obviously Volo responded No its not, feminism is an important way to ensure gender equality." Quite the opposite. It demeans men, it paints all men as pigs who only exist to rape women. It claims that the world would be better off if men had no power and only women wer ein charge.Feminism is evil to the core. If you believe in feminism you don't believe in equallity - only the fake kind where men are the lesser of the two genders.I believe in TRUE equality. Feminists do not. It's right in the name. Feminism = females are superior gender. "Please don't display your ignorance Volo" Look in a mirror. Believing that 'feminism' = equality is the definition of ignorance.I'll create masculinism and claim it's about equality. L0L So the first thing we need to understand is "what is feminism and what is a feminist "? A feminist is someone who believes in feminism, so what is feminism? All feminism means is the belief that the genders are equal and need to be treated equally and have equal opportunities in society http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism So what does this mean in relative terms? I can give many examples but some are women should be able to vote, it means that if a women is doing the same job as a man she should get paid the same amount of money there are very few things as "its only a job a man can do " if a women is suitably qualified to get a job she should have the same chances to get that job as a man A womens role in a relationship or marriage is not assumed to be one where she has to sit at home and look after the kids and get the dinner ready Equal and effective education Feminism does not mean All men are scum and rapist pigs I cant comment on an attractive women Women are automatically better than men Its about inequality around the sexes As man if I say I am feminist I now hate my own gender We need to feel constantly guilty or the cause of feminism is about some guilt trip Now you may say "No Bruce, feminism is not what you say it is ", then I want to hear what you think feminism is. Also there are times we cant enforce gender equality because women would be at a disadvantage because of the physical difference. For example you can't expect the women and mens rugby team to play full contact rugby against each other. Also I believe some jobs you can't compromise on the requirements just so women will join, for example the Navy Seals have a strict criteria to a qualify for. This criteria needs to be same for men and women Some of you have the wrong idea of feminism because you think that people like Anita Saarkesian represent all feminist ideals. But she has her own agenda and I don't necessarily agree with everything she says . I am not saying her attempts to raise genuine issues around the objectification of women in games are wrong. But I don't think everything she does is helpful to the greater cause of gender equality So in summary feminism is an important belief because its about the equality of the sexes. I don't understand how any man can not want to live in a world where your mother, daughter, sister, girlfriend, wife or any other women you know is treated equally I look forward to your responses

@ Bester and Volo I'm about to start a dedicated topic around what feminism is and isn't. Please come to that thread so we can discuss this topic in detail. I don't want to hijack this topic

The whole franchise is high-handed, with a slant forehead, no neck, and an ill odor. No Wasteland 2, Inquisition in November, PoE in January, on the thirteenth to be exact. Equating human qualities to a game may not be the most effective way to dismiss it

I'm not with you, are you saying you don't want to Romance party members because you are concerned the Romance implementation would be cheesy?

You are too polite Gromnir, it is an us vs them Russia's belligerence and methods to create a buffer zone between itself and NATO friendly countries have become increasingly more globally unacceptable. The West has given Putin lots of leeway on numerous issues, like Georgia, but his paranoia and belief that the West won't act effectively to stop his ambitions have gone too far. He simply overplayed his card in Ukraine, and now there are consequences. And this involves sanctions and just how effectively sanctions can be applied So looking at economic factors like exports and GDP are relevant. We need to understand what counter- sanctions Russia can apply and how they will hurt the West, because there will be a price to apply sanctions on Russia. But I believe this is a price the West can deal with