BruceVC

Eh, seen worse. Like the one with the scraggly-looking rapist Santa Claus. Anyways, I've learned my lesson since then, and don't skip on my sleep time How long did you go without sleeping and what were you doing that was keeping you awake?

and that is one o' the problems... and why we asked which western powers. US only has one real ally in the middle east: israel. not only that, most amaericans, even with mounting casualties in gaza, support the idf actions. so, take US sanctions off the table for the nonce as they don't seem at all realistic. sure, if death toll gets too high, the US will threaten, by which time the idf will probable be moping up and preparing for the next major hamas conflict 2 years from now. HA! Good Fun! I share Gromnirs sentiment but also the situation is not as black and white as saying " Lets stop aid or enforce sanctions against Israel as this will improve the situation" The reality is Hamas is considered an Islamic extremist group, linked to other groups like Hezbollah, and almost all Western countries grapple with the problem of Islamic extremism. So no Western country wants to unintentionally empower any fundamentalist group by weakening Israel. And Hamas has been very provocative by firing the rockets

Yeah that's the point I've made several times, the IDF should have used a ground invasion from the beginning. Yes they would suffer more casualties but they reduce civilian deaths and allow it allows them to be more surgical I think you just gave the reason why they didn't do it, they really can't or won't allow themselves to get into an actual conflict where they could lose manpower. Its a kind of admirable forward thinking strategy, play the war today whilst preparing for the wars to come. I'm more concerned about the lack of action by Western powers, I wish I had a reason to explain why that didn't become a conspiracy theory. When you say lack of action from Western powers do you mean in a mediation capacity and encouraging/forcing the Israeli's and Hamas to negotiate ? I'm echoing Gromnirs question

Mass media is just government's tool to form public opinion. Lot of people think mass media is supposed to report "the truth". Let's hug and laugh into their face. So what does represent the truth Bester? How do we get accurately informed?

I'd chalk it up to a hallucination induced by sleep deprivation. Have I ever told you guys about the time I hadn't slept enough in a long time and seen a huge glowing purple spider descend on my face? That sounds hectic ......

Tonight I'm having a Dutch sausage with green salad and avocado pear. Healthy and tasty

Not being a military buff myself, I had to look this up. I take it you mean Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, and not the Salzburg Experimental Academy of Dance. Although I do think we'd all be a lot better off if the Ukrainian government and the separatists would just have a dance-off instead. " Salzburg Experimental Academy of Dance" That made me laugh

I love hotdogs, I also enjoy Cheese Grillers and Bratwurst...in fact any sausage in a bun I am amenable to. I am getting hungry

I'm afraid you misunderstand again. What I would like is not the EU/NATO, but for my country to get out of debt and become truly independent, not to live on this artificial life support that the EU is keeping us on. Trust me Sarex its much better for Serbia to be aligned economically and politically with the EU than to be opposed to it, if Serbia going this route this is cause to be joyous. Your future is looking bright

I wonder if she is involved in strip searches

That makes no sense at all. lol I'm surprised you think that any development company will think that a game its makes is perfect and can't be improved on?

Yeah that's the point I've made several times, the IDF should have used a ground invasion from the beginning. Yes they would suffer more casualties but they reduce civilian deaths and allow it allows them to be more surgical

Hopefully, I am cautiously optimistic I think once they have got through the hurdle of making PoE they will say "how can we now improve on the game" and they start looking at a Romance implementation

Were do you get the idea that teenagers don't spend money on lol? In fact they are the ones who will most likely buy the skins. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120229006232/en/PlaySpan-Study-Shows-Percentage-Consumers-Buying-Virtual#.U8-L6PmunLE This study suggests that about 50% of teenagers spend money on virtual goods, and of all the virtual goods purchases made about 32% was to look better in game. So yes, they do spend some money to look good in game. That's an interesting link, nice one

I am because I see this as a positive way to add realism and make the RPG experience more immersive. The levels of party interaction are important and do add to the overall believability of the whole RPG experience Bruce, you've described yourself as a feminist but I'm having a hard time reconciling how as a feminist you're okay with the sexualisation of NPCs in crps. Even more, you say this adds 'realism'. I'm guessing 'realism' in the sense of treating subject matter that presents a description of everyday life. Some points and this post is going to be quite long. And since you're heterosexual and are looking at female NPCs, I'll just focus on female NPCs . Games ask us to play with them. Now that may seem obvious, but bear with me. Game developers set up a series of rules and within those rules we are invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do, and what we can’t do. We are encouraged to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not. The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibilities within the gamespace. So the developers have set up a series of possible scenarios involving sexualised female characters. Players are then invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play-through. The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that purpose. Interactive media has the potential to be a perfect medium to genuinely explore sex and sexuality. But that’s not what’s happening here. These interactions set up a transactional relationship in which women (NPCs) are reduced to a base sexual function. It frames female sexuality as something that belongs to others, rather than as something NPCs enjoy for themselves. I’d argue that none of this is really about sex at all, certainly nothing resembling authentic consensual intimacy; publishers and developers are instead selling a particular fantasy about male power centered on the control of women - at least in this example of female NPCs. This then leads into the dehumanisation caused by objectification, inevitably leads us to the concept of disposability, which is defined as “something designed for or capable of being thrown away after being used or used up”. Especially when you have multiple female sexualised NPCs that you can go from one to the other. Which means that these female NPCs fulfil basically the same function as items the player can purchase from stores. This is a textbook example of another component of objectification referred to as interchangeability. The player treats the 'object' as interchangeable with other 'objects' of the same type (eg. Female romanceable NPCs), and/or with objects of other types.” Since these NPCs serve an identical or nearly identical “resource” function within the game space. So what we have here is sexual objectification. The practice of treating or representing a female NPC as a thing or mere instrument to be used for another’s sexual purposes. Sexually objectified NPCs are valued primarily for their bodies, or body parts, which are presented as existing for the pleasure and gratification of others. You even admitted that you need to be physically attracted before a romance can start. This doesn't sound like realism to me. And since you call yourself a feminist, you're okay with sexualised NPCs in video games. This is a very thought provoking post and you have raised some genuine considerations and concerns , I am going to respond to it but I want to acknowledge first that it is relevant to the discussion. So nice one

I can tell you what would change this debate once and for all, and its a suggestion that wasn't popular when I made it on another thread, is a situation where every single RPG offers Romance. Its optional of course but there is no way that game X doesn't have Romance as a mechanism of better party interaction. If Romance implementation was mandatory in all RPG then there would be more expectations from Developers to create them in a way that resonates with the fanbase? So it would be same as where fans expect a compelling story or variety of races to choose from. We wouldn't we saying " I don't want Romance " we would be saying "how can this Romance arc be improved"" We can then focus our attention on how to make Romance better instead of interminable debates around whether Romance has a place in RPG? What do you guys think?

Okay you right, but I knew how much you were going to miss my insights into this development...and I felt I mustn't "cut off my nose to spite my fellow forum colleagues faces"

But then you're okay with Lephys' evasive and argumentative debating style of avoiding the question for pages on end, unless they have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable? And I'm still waiting for you Lephys to answer the question on why developers sexualise NPCs in video games. Even Anita Sarkeesian's videos will help you with this one. To be honest I don't see the debate like that, I think Lephys has been very reasonable and forthright in responding to you? But I have to say I also at times don't follow all the nuances of your debates with Lephys as it gets confusing..and I'm sure I'm not alone?

Its horrific and must be very hurtful for the relatives. It also highlight the complete disregard the separatists have around basic human decency when it comes to these types of disasters and how you treat the bodies of loved ones. Do you know anyone who was on the plane?

Also Bruce, I don't know why you left out one of the most important parts of Namutree's post: "To put it bluntly; adding sexuality to a npc is an easy way to manipulate a player's emotions and create a connection to the game world." So you're okay with developers manipulating a players emotions with sexualised NPCs? I am because I see this as a positive way to add realism and make the RPG experience more immersive. The levels of party interaction are important and do add to the overall believability of the whole RPG experience

Hiro did take an interest in my post and has mentioned it more than once. Hiro now wants Lephy's opinion on the matter, but feels that he is dodging the question by over-analyzing the way Hiro phrased it. Really? Because it seems like despite a relevant answer Hiro is still asking " why developers sexualize NPC's" I don't see the point in asking someone a questions when you know the answer yourself unless you have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable?

The end result will be the same, the IDF will end the ground invasion when the rocket attacks have ended. They are committed to this approach now and the tunnels will also be closed

Hiro why is no one interested in the post that Namutree stated for the reason that developers sexualize NPC's ? Don't worry about Anita and her explanations, I am a feminist but I don't always agree with her. She is almost militant in her campaign for equality and sometimes I think she does the cause of gender equality more harm than good Namutree stated "The reason why developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human npcs is to try and create the illusion that the npcs are real. People have sexual aspects to them, so when they sexualise npcs; they can seem more human. That makes role-playing more convincing for some people. There are also strong emotions that can easily be brought out through sexuality. Those feelings can make a player feel connected to a world " This is a positive explanation and makes sense, why don't you focus on this?

If the threat from the rockets was that great the IDF would have invaded en masse, like they did when Hezbollah had their rocket offensive. The IDF know air strikes and artillery won't solve the problem which is exactly what makes the strikes punitive rather than decisive. 300+ people have died, if not for nothing then for very little gained in both Hamas capacity and Israli security. I don't understand why they would set out to be punitive in that environment. For the benifit of the voters ? To be seen to be doing something ? ... wait a sec. the fact that the idf didn't go in and carpet-bomb the place and is instead putting their own civilians and soldiers at risk to be more surgical is proof that their actions is "punitive rather than decisive"? did that make sense? hamas was able to dictate where this fight would take place. hamas wanted the fight to take place in one o' the most densely populated places on earth. hamas, an organization with the expressed purpose o' destroying israel through force o' arms, was put in power by the people o' gaza. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13331522 who the hell democratically elects a terrorist organization into power? the pictures o' wailing palestinian women as they stand over the bodies o' their broken children is cause for grief, but there is a great deal o' responsibility to go around when we reference civilian casualties. blame idf, but you also better blame hamas and the not-so-innocent civilians who voted hamas into power if you is gonna be honest. HA! Good Fun! I would say you both make valid points around the Israeli strategy and what motivates them The initial Israeli reaction to the rocket attacks was both punitive and strategic. The idea is that Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel because of the consequences to the Palestinians in Gaza, but because the Israelis are using targeted strikes there is no risk to them around casualties. Its a win win for them, they stop the rocket attacks without ground troops But of course its clear that Hamas has very little regard for the lives of the Palestinians and actually want an IDF ground invasion so they can score political capital. This may sound bizarre as most people will ask "" how can Hamas think this is some kind of victory " But just the fact that they have killed 2 dozen or so Israelis and kidnapped one they will spin this as a victory on certain levels. Also another important difference between the two sides is that the Israelis do care about the sanctity of a single Jewish life, Hamas is quite prepared to have dozens of Palestinians killed if it brings attention to there cause. Its like that kidnapped Israeli soldier who was finally returned to Israel and dozens of Hamas militants were released as a prisoner swop So end of the day I will argue that its extremely difficult to wage conventional war against a group like Hamas because they feel the political agenda is more important than the welfare of there citizens

Not sure why you seem surprised by this or somehow you think this diminishes Russia's role in the overall conflict? The separatists were responsible for the plane being shot down but Russia is directly responsible for the civil war being prolonged as they are aiding the separatists in various ways