BruceVC

Nothing you can do will change that. Really, you don't think that someone could, for example, be homophobic and then realize this type of discrimination is wrong? You don't think people can change there views in life?

Also there are several new IP similar to old Sierra games that are being funded by KS through ex-Sierra developers, Hero-U is one them

Except that you did not leave Syria alone. If you had maybe we could see what would happen. And it's not up to me or you to decide if they are better off. Wow, you really think the West has deeply intervened in the Syrian conflict? Some arms were supplied to the rebels but the Saudis and other Sunni countries provided most of the support for the Syrian rebels. Proper intervention from the West would have involved destroying Assads tanks and supremacy of the air like in Libya...and the West didn't do this at all. If they had done this then the ground fighting would have been between the Syrian rebels and troops loyal to Assad. Right now the Syrian rebels are at huge disadvantage because Assad has the usage of his whole army that includes tanks, artillery and planes. Its a very one sided civil war

Well it being okay, and the way it works are often different, so best looking at things case by case. In this case, they can't ignore ISIS making a joke of their hopeful client state. Sure I agree foreign intervention is complicated. But either the West must abide by the UN security council votes or it must ignore them. What annoys me is that now the world is asking "What is the West doing to stop ISIS"....but if the West has intervened in Syria and ignored the UN we would be hearing " look its the arrogant West getting involved in other countries conflicts. Obama is a warmonger " and other ridiculous comments So the West is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't ?

Left a governement that almost immidiately failed without direct US role. That is not my definition of a functional government. This is what really happened in Lybia: Three years after Gaddafi, Libya is imploding into chaos and violence World View: Its government has no real power; militias are ever more entrenched, and now the state itself is under threat http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/three-years-after-gaddafi-libya-is-imploding-into-chaos-and-violence-9194697.html I see this a lot, whenever I say "Libya is an example of how the West should intervene in order to achieve regime change" People will say " but look at Libya now, we are seeing sectarian violence". They are missing the point, the West cannot be involved in regime change and run the government, this has proven not to work as the West in seen as an occupying force like in Iraq. The West allowed the Libyans to run there country the way they wanted once Gaddafi was removed Now you may say "well the West should have just left Libya to sort out there own civil war" and all I'll say "compare Syria to Libya and ask yourself what country is better off despite the current violence in Libya"?

So what ? It's in the West's interests to go finish off ISIS as they're slapping around Iraq at this point and the US has an objective of fighting Islamic terror with broadswords the past decade. I'm confused, are you saying its okay for the West to intervene in other countries affairs even if it doesn't directly impact them? I believe that but I always thought you were one of those that said "the West should stay out other countries internal affairs" ?

Oh wow. US naively made a predictable mess -- just like the years of blood and destruction during Iraq occupation or the Taliban post USSR occupation -- by sponsoring these freedom fighters. But sure blame everything on Russia and China. Strawman argument, I didn't say the USA is not partly responsible for the Iraq mess. But they did pull out in 2011 and leave a functional government. The new Iraqi government failed to integrate the Iraq Sunni's who have now mostly aligned themselves with ISIS But the real question should be "how was ISIS created " and I've answered that

Well, the West and Russia and China play the global game so they interfere in places they really don't need to all the time. Surely you're not implying with your last line that the West acts outside of their own interests. US should definitely look to end ISIS. Perhaps they can enlist IDF help, too. The reality of the creation of ISIS is simple, they were born out of the protracted civil war in Syria. The civil war in Syria would have been over years ago if the West had been allowed to intervene like the Syrian rebels asked them to do through the United Nations security council. Just like the West helped end the civil war in Libya Russia and China vetoed military action in Syria, the creation of ISIS is there fault. But they don't care and pressure gets put on the West to do something about it

Once again despite the creation of ISIS having nothing to with the West it is expected that the West must help deal with this Islamic extremist threat If the West's suggestions around military intervention in the Syrian conflict in the beginning of that civil war hadn't been vetoed by Russia and China ISIS wouldn't have been in existence today. So Russia and China should be pressured to deal with ISIS...oh that's right, I forgot., Russia and China only intervene when there own national interests are directly threatened.

. Bunch of kids with superhero powers fighting in arenas/possibly in co-op? Sounds feasible to me, but we'll see. If that is what this game is really about my interest in it has diminished dramatically

I see what you are trying to say but I have to disagree, bigotry is a choice that some people make and racism is a form of bigotry. And there are absolutely some people who dislike or think less of people automatically because of the colour of there skin. But you are also right, there is such a social dynamic as the class struggle in all countries in the world but this doesn't have anything to do with racism but there are similarities End of the day no one is born a bigot, its a choice we make based on certain conditions that influence our perspective

True, we are talking about conspiracy theory here - like dragging NATO into conflict Okay I see where you are coming from. But the chance of NATO getting involved militarily at the moment is almost zero. Firstly Ukraine is not part of NATO so there is no legal obligation and secondly Ukraine isn't of real strategic importance to the really powerful NATO countries that would motivate military action. That does not mean the West isn't concerned with Russian interference and will implement punitive economic measures to change Russia's current course of action. But this is not the same thing as military intervention But Ukraine is of strategic importance to Russia which is why they are interfering in the conflict and supporting the separatists.

Yes that's exactly what I thought I was explaining, I am not saying we call out racism if we think it doesn't exist just to raise awareness. I'm saying we should discuss issues of racism but sometimes our perception of racism may be wrong but rather we say something than say nothing. Would this perspective of yours extend to other forms of bigotry like homophobia and sexism?

That's a good post, very insightful and reasonable I agree with the general sentiment. So basically you are saying that bigotry like racism does exist in society and even if sometimes we think something is racist but its not just the fact we are raising awareness is worth the possible fact we may be wrong?

I find the suggestion that the Ukrainian government shot down the plane ludicrous. I'm not sure why people are still debating this? Let me ask a different question, how many planes have the Ukrainians shot down since the conflict started? As far as I know the Ukrainian government controls the airspace and only there planes have been destroyed by the separatists

We had another very eventful day yesterday, we went on a bus tour from Chelsea to Saint Pauls and the house of Parliaments. We were fortunate to see a horse parade of mounted guards, we then spent loads of time just walking and reading the various plaques and see all the statues that represent UK history. We then moved onto the Tower of London to see the poppies that have been laid, one for each British causality in WW1. We also walked up and down the Thames on both sides and had a lunch at a French restaurant right on the river by the HMS Belfast We took a Taxi from there to Chelsea and had a interesting encounter with the Taxi driver, he was local man and we asked him why he was taking a certain route to Chelsea. He became aggressive and basically told us " we could get out the Taxi if we didn't like how he was driving ", that in turn irritated me and we got into an argument. Anyway he dropped us off and we ended up paying 25 pounds for trip from Tower of London Chelsea

For me its irrelevant if Casey Hudson left, I have no doubt there are plenty of talented and inspirational new people who can full his shoes and continue the important Bioware legacy of providing us with entertaining games. But good luck Casey with future endeavors

This discussion is getting very interesting and I would like to comment. Firstly those that know me know that I take issues of SJ seriously. I am vociferously opposed to any kind of bigotry and that obviously includes racism, sexism and homophobia. I also live in South Africa and grew up during Apartheid so I experienced first hand the inimical and appalling impact that system had on black people. It basically humiliated and dehumanized a whole a generation because of the colour of there skin and attempted to legalize racism But despite all this overt exposure to racism and the fact we as South Africans are very aware of racism, sometimes we see it when its not there, I have never in all my years of playing fantasy games or reading books every thought of Orcs as symbol of racism. Tolkien did grow up in South Africa and its quite possible that Orcs did represent black people to him, I always thought they represented Germans as others mentioned But the main reason why Orcs don't represent black people for me is that the representation of Orcs has evolved so much since Tolkiens day they have just become a staple of fantasy and have developed there own unique cultures and characteristics. Orcs in Tolkiens books were basically mindless, savage killing machines who didn't seem to have any purpose but to serve Sauron. If you look at the D&D view of Orcs they are just another race with real goals and aspirations, albeit brutal in some cases and hating certain other races So for me there is nothing wrong or inappropriate with wanting Orcs as they are part of the fantasy genre that we all love. So of course this becomes a subjective discussion but I see nothing racist about Orcs and people may be a little over sensitive about this topic and over analysing there symbolic role in fantasy?

Well its good to know you are not dead

What !!! You mean you don't speak Russian or Ukrainian...wow Dude you really need to embrace these global and important languages, don't you realize you can't function in a global world without these linguistics skills !!! Nice example of arrogant colonial supermacists. It's really disgusting behaviour for any progressive people, but in present times nothing progressive exist in Western consumption society. Just remark about spreading of english language in world. Let's see languages of such country as Pakistan. This is paradise for linguists, rich ancient cultures and languages... and all this completely f****d because of colonialsm. Moar here. http://viewpointonline.net/2014/05/urdu-english-used-as-tools-to-oppress-working-classes/547-urdu-english-used-as-tools-to-oppress-working-classes In other words in many places of world people can beat you for such speech. Nah, nothing arrogant about it. Just stating the facts, Russian isn't considered an international language of business. Sorry, you will have to learn to deal with it

Yes they can. And yes they have. Trought history. Learn a bit, you'd be surprised. It's populat to use stereotypes and special/singular events and inflate them to over 9000, but that's not how the world works. Irocnically, often in the past people have been more tolerant than today. There are several Muslim countries where there are no conflicts. Like Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines But at the moment the Middle East is a particularly violent place, like New conflict in southern Lebanon Civil war in Syria ISIS fighting the Kurds, the Syrians and the currently elected Iraq government Ongoing extremist violence in Yemen Gaza conflict And this excludes the sectarian violence in Libya and Egypt In fact we don't often see this but Africa has less conflicts than the Middle East at the moment philipines is overwhelming catholic. malaysia... is maybe not as great an example as you think, even though it is probable the best example. http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/selected_judgements/lina_joy_v_majlis_agama_islam_wilayah_persekutuan_2_ors_2005_ca.html http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ft-disaster-looms-amid-rising-religious-intolerance-in-malaysia-neighbours http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/malaysia-and-the-myth-of-islamic-tolerance/ am admitting we know very little about indonesia. HA! Good Fun! You right Gromnir, I don't know why I thought the Philippines was predominantly Muslim. I must have been getting it confused with Indonesia ? I would think not. Indonesia has quite a few conflicts between muslims and religious minorities. Here is the latest from august 1th: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Moluccas,-fresh-fears-of-Muslim-Christian-clashes:-4-dead,-dozens-of-homes-ablaze-31781.html Wow Jaded, nice going. You sure know how to destroy a persons perspective I was trying to put a positive spin on the view " all Muslim countries are wracked by violence" So that leaves .....Malaysia....well one is better than none I suppose But there are several, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Algeria and Morocco are some Muslim dominated countries that either have no violence or limited sectarian violence. Anyone else is welcome to add to the list ?

Stun, is that an admission you're not buying DA:I? Or are you going to be waiting after it's released to see what people say? Yeah, I edited my post. I meant MMOish. Waiting, of course. And depending on how good PoE turns out, I may just skip it outright. After all, There's Witcher 3 on the horizon after PoE. You boys can wait till I play DA:I and then based on what I think decide whether you should purchase it? But so far from what I am seeing I would say get your wallets ready to invest

I have to say this is very clever and very funny I don't want to seem to be also putting the knife into Volo but just the fact that someone took the time to create such a flowchart that most of us recognise certain characteristics of Volos debating style is impressive. If I was Volo I would see this as a positive post because obviously his personality resonates with many of us. In other words "no such thing as bad publicity " @ Hiro I would love to see a similar flowchart but around how you see my debating thought process when it comes to Romance, I expect it to be quite funny as well

What !!! You mean you don't speak Russian or Ukrainian...wow Dude you really need to embrace these global and important languages, don't you realize you can't function in a global world without these linguistics skills !!!

And yet you can still join the Stormcloaks as any non nord race. Really, altmer being able to disguise as thamor in that one quest is only case where race gives you extra stuff in entire game. And dawnguard storyline is pretty much same on each path. And you end up killing Harkon anyway on both of those paths so thats kinda... Yeaaaah. And even then, how many major choices there are from base game or other dlc? Hmm, and how many times in game when you state your opinion, people actually care about what you say? Heck, there are really few option where you are allowed to roleplaying things in dialog tree that states a thing about your character, like only one I remember anymore is conversations with Serana, they really attempted to give you lots of conversations with her that allow for roleplaying. Okay, how do people react to your race besides one line of "Hi [race]" greetings? Even argonians don't do much besides "Hi [forgot term that argonians use to refer other argonians]" Also, if you are supposed to use imagination for roleplaying, it'd help if game was less immersion breaking. And you didn't really address the point where I can't do what I want because bethesda didn't program that in the game despite of how glaring it is. You can criticize Bethesda for many things but to say "there games don't offer a RP experience" is just fatuous and fundamentally untrue Of course the definition of RP is subjective, so maybe we need to focus on that first in order to get common agreement, For me RP is not necessarily about the dialogue options or even the responses because obviously these will always be limited and offer certain predefined outcomes, that's the nature of all RPG But can you choose to play a mage thief who decides to attack villagers and live in the forest? Can you do this? Can you decide to ignore the main quest and just aimlessly explore if that's what you want? What about someone who decides to only craft? Bethesda excels in all these things. I know a story about a gaming journalist who decided to play Skyrim and not complete a single quest, all he did was live in a village and only progress his crafting ability. Would I do this, absolutely not. But the point is this was the way he wanted to RP his Skyrim journey So in summary Bethesda games offer a real RP experience if you agree with my definition of RP