BruceVC

Volo that hurts my feelings, what is so bad about my Internet behaviour? Can you share your perspective

I'm not one that believes in tribunal system, if you don't know by now that you aren't suppose to make racist or homophobic comments online I doubt some kind of player based court is really going to change that behaviour. Banning is the right strategy, this type of punitive step will get the message across Where has gone "education is needed to change social injustice on the internet" attitude of yours? Did you grew tired of polishing your white armor already? You know me, I never get tired of polishing my white armour But the reality is I have very little patience with some types of Internet behaviour If you ever make a software to reach through screens and punch people on the face I want to be your customer. If people want to assign some negative label to my commitment to issues of SJ as a joke, to be dismissive or in an attempt to make me sound silly that's fine. I really don't mind. It makes absolutely no difference to me and will in no way change my view or comments I make. Sorry to disappoint

It's not false and it's not slander. You admitted you are all for sexualisation of female NPCs in video games. You can't get around that. And what act is this? Quoting you saying you are all for sexualisation of female NPCs in video games? I'm just quoting what you have written. Hiro I wanted to respond to this because you asked a good question earlier Firstly you are 100 % correct that I am a feminist and as you know I take issues of SJ very seriously, in fact I take them more seriously than Romance. But there is no contradiction here. The sexualisation of a person in game is not necessarily a bad thing. My definition of that means that there is sexual dimension to there character. This could be there appearance or how they conduct themselves. Isabella is a good example of this type of personality and she also happened to be my Romance choice, ahhhh....those Pirate boots But a person who is sexualised also needs to have other attributes that make them relevant or important. They need to be defined around something else apart from there sexuality. And that's important, so Isabella wasn't just a hottie. She was a important contributor in combat and had an interesting personality But the objectification of a person is where that person has no other purpose but to be an object and this is normally around there looks, so for example if Isabella only looked like she did and had no other valuable combat skills or had no interesting dialogue choices. This is a negative So you can see the difference, the sexualisation of something is not always a bad thing but the objectification of something is

I'm not one that believes in tribunal system, if you don't know by now that you aren't suppose to make racist or homophobic comments online I doubt some kind of player based court is really going to change that behaviour. Banning is the right strategy, this type of punitive step will get the message across Where has gone "education is needed to change social injustice on the internet" attitude of yours? Did you grew tired of polishing your white armor already? You know me, I never get tired of polishing my white armour But the reality is I have very little patience with some types of Internet behaviour

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 So it justifies funding genocide? US has given support to terroris... freedom fighters before, they have no problem when it seems to suit their agenda; I guess they don't mind what their allies do as long as its not done to them. Personally I just dislike how media is treating this, by pulling out whomever dares report anything negative about Israel and how the West has taken a meek, consenting attitude towards the whole thing. It bothers me that these people could wipe out a nation and manipulate perception into making themselves the good guys. Do you really consider what the Israeli's are doing as genocide? Also how do you know the media is pulling out anything negative about Israel, do you have any links you can share about this or is this more your perception? Because in South Africa most people, outside the Jewish community, are very critical of Israel

Kids spend their parents money on this game too, and behave like brats too. Trust me played this game long enough to know. Shadowgate does look good but it also appears to be very hard

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?