BruceVC

Faulty analogy. You're not describing the rock's potential, you're describing civilization's potential. Romance is not a tool. You cannot do anything with a romance but present it as it is. And therein lies the problem with your analogy. Romances suck. They're like turds. You can Sugar coat them, or gold-plate them, but they'll still be turds. And I'll say it again. Romance has a far bigger potential to ruin the RPG genre. It has already evolved enough to ruin Bioware games. Sorry to criticize your opinion again but the suggestion that something optional that is a small part of the overall RPG experience in any game could somehow " ruin the RPG genre " is ludicrous and is an egregious exaggeration ....and you know it is

This is a good post, you don't make enough detailed posts on this topic. I hope this will change, I like your insights Also I like your forum name, its cute. What is the history to "PieSnatcher" ?

I think there's been enough repeating on this topic. The forum has a search function. And yes, if an example falls in the forest and Stun isn't around to hear it, it still makes a sound. @ Stun Lephys is right on this point, there are dozens of examples of how Romance can be implemented. But you need to do your own searching, you can't expect people to do this for you. Also my example of decent Romance definitely doesn't represent all the possible ideas so I don't want you to think my ideas are the only way Romance can be implemented in a meaningful way "“If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, and it hits a mime, does anyone care?” - Gary Larson

Mmm.....that's not completely true, you are anti-Romance in RPG, so you are anti something

Men are discriminated against in the work place, what do you mean? How is feminism sexist? As I've explained numerous times feminism is not about the marginalization of men, its about ensuring gender equality. If you don't agree with that then post some links or examples to explain your point further

Hah, not at all. It appeared like typical Hollywood style chestbumping of an overproduced wannabe hero spectacle. I'm sure its in line with the expectations of it's intended audience and there will be much rejoicing among them, but it certainly didn't change my mind about the game. Okay, I respect your opinion.....I think its deeply flawed...but its your right to like what you want But I'm sure you will be one of the few people on these forums who aren't excited by it.....and damn Morrigan is looking hot

You cannot play this game even if you want to, you made a vow to never ever play another Bioware game again...and I'm afraid I have to hold you to that

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