BruceVC

Ironically, it's precisely RPS' incessant white knighting that puts me off more than anything else. I can usually put up with it (read: skim over it as best I can) because I enjoy their cheesy puns and they do have insightful things to say from time to time. Like with any other reviewers, we don't always (or even often) see eye to eye when it comes to taste in games or things that nag us and things we let go, but that's all part of different people having different opinions, and it's not enough to make me stop reading their work. I don't think I've ever truly felt like they had an agenda... Well, except for their clear desire to score moral justice crusader brownie points. Come now Keyrock lets be resonable, there are dozens of gaming websites that don't care about social justice. Surly we aren't going to judge RPS because they do and they are prepared to admit this? I wish more gaming websites had there perpsective but sadly there aren't.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun has me a little worried: I've been worried about RPS for a while. In all seriousness they're at about Kotaku level now, their concerns can be safely ignored. And, of course, their review of FalloutNV was pretty infamous- they just don't like Obsidian much. Some of their guest contributors are good though, and Tim Stone is, as always, awesome. Don't forget the important role that RPS plays in raising issues of social justice. There reviews may be debatably questionable but they more than make up for it with there awareness campaigns around certain issues

I said nothing about Russian invasion. But you are basically acting like the western media. "Lets ignore everything wrong in Ukraine and talk about Putin instead." I think I already explained that the main Western international News Channels have explained both sides of this crisis. What news channels do you watch? Also its obvious that Russia believes that Crimea is part of Russia, which is blantantly obvious its not. Crimea is part of Ukraine. But to be honest I can see the vote they will have to decide where Crimea should belong being the best way to decide where Crimea should be part of. It will be unfair and a bullying tactic from Russia but we may have to just accept that in the interest of regional peace

Hi again Bruce. Not being unfair at all. Perhaps if you need to stop white knighting and making stuff up? Actually go and read what he has written? Serious question. Can you stop making stuff up Bruce? because you're doing it now. He also said the against crowd has made 'reasonable points' and acknowledged this and now flipped flopped and now he's saying, he can't see any points on the against argument. He's admitted he doesn't know of any on the against side he would agree with. Total contradiction. And how about you being objective? You say these debates could do with some healthy objectivity. This is lacking primarily from the pro-romance position. Lephys is a case in point. And so are you. You should take some of your own advice about one's perspective. And thank you for confirming your bias with Lephy's view point. Perhaps you need to have an open mind when debating with people. In fact, your whole post is one giant troll and flame bait. Wow, so much for the pleasantries. I was enjoying the cordial nature of our responses I see you playing the infamous "Troll card". Don't you ever get tired of using that as a reaponse to someones opinion when you have nothing constructive to say? Apparently not

While RT can be bias and propagandic it is better than most, and there are certainly more bias and propagandic news channels out there. RT is certainly better than any of the major networks in the U.S. and the BBC in regards to telling it like it is. Do they ignore some of Russia's BS? Of course they do, but they don't ignore the U.S./U.K./et al's BS anywhere near as much as the BBC, CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, et al. do. It's a sad sad state of journalistic affairs when one does have to turn to a network like RT to get better coverage of some issues than you'll find on their competition. It says more about the other networks than it does RT that RT has the viewership and guests that it does have. The same could be said of AlJazeera and PressTV. Really, if you're of the mind that the BBC or CNN is less bias than RT I'd say you've bought a bit too much into their propaganda and biased reporting. And it actually has happened at CNN. Lou Dobbs left years ago for similar reasons to what Liz mentions in her resignation, however he did do it a bit more professionally than she did. I'm sure it's happened at BBC as well though I don't follow that news source quite as much. I personally know a number of folks working at the various big networks in the US (emmy winners even) and have been behind the scenes quite a bit, and can tell you that folks resign all the time (and are fired) at major networks and newspapers believe it or not for similar reasons as what Liz stated (in essence their ethics are compromised). It's just relatively rare that it's done on air and by one of the talking heads (usually it's behind the camera folks and producers as they're generally the ones fighting to put the unbiased story on air, not the person actually saying the words (those folks are usually the kind of folks that will say anything)). The news business is a very unethical business overall. The biased story is the norm not the exception, and journalistic integrity isn't common, especially on television news. A good question to always ask oneself about any news story on any of the networks is 'Why am I being shown this?'. The answer to that question is often not the one your average viewer thinks it is. In general news networks hire folks who will say what they want them to say, so the conflict of interest or beliefs in the TV personality isn't common, but it's not rare either. You've raised some good points but on the topic of CNN, Sky and BBC being biased let me say this I watch these channels primarily and from watching these I know Crimea is populated primarily by people who are Russian speaking and have political allegiances to Russia Russia considers Crimea to be important due to its historical and geographical significance Any sanctions against Russia will hurt the West as well There will be no military action against Russia The West wants dialog to end the crisis I don't know about you but that presenting of the news seems objective and reasonable to me? Can RT claim the same?

Hi again Hiro I think you being unfair to Lephys or rather his posting style, just because a person acknowledges another point or says " I can see what you are saying " that doesn't mean he is flip-flopping or contradicting his original position. Personally I think some of these debates could do with some healthy objectivity. I see this lacking primarily from the anti-romance position. But I don't want to stifle debate in any regard or suggest people shouldn't post what they feel, I just think we should engage in debate without the view of intransigence. Also I would disagree with Lephys if I felt was wrong, but I just find myself aligned to his general sentiment. Remember a debate is greater than one persons perspective. Often we can learn a new opinion if we just go into the debate with an open mind.

Neat idea, and I'll keep it in mind, but I'm going to wait to gain some assurance that he won't choke to death trying to eat the dice before getting him started on the arrpeegees. Maybe when he turns 25. Congrats Enoch on the birth of mini-Encoh

I don't know. Back in the day, journalists had a responsibility not only to convey facts, but also as a sort of cultural beacon people could look at for honest assessment and guidance. If she really believes RT is a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin and this is incompatible with her dignity as a journalist, she did the right thing by making her resignation a public matter, in my eyes. Impossible to know whether she has something better lined up (which would diminish the value of the act) or if the real reasons are what she stated, but no reason to assume they are not. I wish this sort of thing happened more often, to be honest. RT is the most biased and propaganda driven news channel I have ever watched, its a joke actually. I don't blame her. I think her motives were also driven by sensationalism but that doesn't mean she didn't make the right decision around her personal ethics. I wonder where she will end up? This wouldn't happen on CNN or BBC because there news presenters don't have such a fundemental disgareement with how the news channels operate and how they present the news

Good post, I have made similar points before and the response from certain anti-romancers is a deep psychological analysis of the difference between violence in video games and RPG Romance, it never makes sense to me. For me it seems hypocritical that it is acceptable for certain people to discuss and want magic, complex quests, realistic armour, deep lore, varied interaction with party members, loads of monsters, deities and demigods, a choice of classes and unique races but the consideration of Romance is anathema? It just seems selective around what constitutes a meaningful RPG experience...

Hi Hiro I don't know but Lephys makes a lot of sense from where I'm sitting? I have to be honest but sometimes I wonder if you anti-romancers don't agree with this logic only because traditionally you always debate with him? In other words even if Lephys is right ...you still won't acknowledged it. Its worth considering...you and others may be doing this subconsciously And come on you can't compare him to Volo.,..Volo makes no sense 99 % of the time and is more interested in absurd and controversial comments than real debate

I haven't played E2 yet but I can imagine what you are saying and I would also find that unrealistic.

Okay..I'm not sure now if that adds or detracts from the Romance case ?

Those are sweet words where did you get that from?

Tonight I had a herb salad with an Avocado pear and some Feta cheese. I added some Beef stirfry just so it was more substantial. It was healthy and tasty

I find it more akin to a bunch of people posting **** on the internet. Ah yes and thats something I consider you an expert on Kaine, so you should recognise it

I hope you would admit that the case set forth by the developers that they don't think they could do it to their satisfaction will indicate a solid point as to why Romance shouldn't be part of the specific RPG of Pillars of Eternity, however. For me the case for/against romance is always predicated in what the developers are trying to accomplish with specific games. Absolutely, I have stated several times I accept the reasons there won't be Romance in PoE. But who knows about the sequel

Come back, Bruce, come back! We miss you here on terra firma. On a side note, have you seen the film Her? Hormalakh posed the question earlier. Squeakymeister !!! Salutations I like clever posts and your post is an accurate and intellectual way of describing certain personalities in this thread. But don't you think some of your fellow anti-romance members may take exception to your characterization of there psyche? When I read Willful Ignorance I see Hiro, but I would prefer if you told him that as he always seems to want to argue with me I haven't seen that movie, it looks good

That's probably because "diluting the gaming experience" is not what romances tend to do. Instead, they just change the experience. They turn it into something wrong and out of place. I'll give you a quick example. Not a great one, but it gets the point across. BG2. You're deep in Fiirkrag's dungeon and the game did a wonderful job building up the tension and the atmosphere. You enter Fiirkrag's lair. You hear the low rumbling..... THEN SUDDENLY, OUT OF THE BLUE, VICONIA SPEAKS UP: Viconia: I'm wondering this. Have you ever entertained the notion of marriage? WTF. I'm about to fight a dragon, and the game just destroyed the mood for me. Wait, check that. the ROMANCE just destroyed the mood, as they almost always do. Thats a good point and relevant to my post. I can see how that would impact your gaming experience. In my game this just highlighted the fact that Viconia felt she may be facing death and knowing I had feelings for her gave her reassurance and confidence that she had something to live for. She was the person I Romanced in BG2 and she did have a low self-esteem around my feelings for her.

The fact that you've dismissed everybody's valid points on why they don't want romances in the game, in this thread and the other romance thread. You've said you have yet to see a single valid reason. Your words. This is a complete troll. There have been various valid points raised by many people. You've basically said all their valid points are invalid. And then you go on to say you're willing to debate various points. How can anyone debate with you when you've dismissed everybody's valid points in two threads already? Completely ridiculous. Maybe I should reword what I said, here you go "no one has made a point that has convinced me that Romance shouldn't be part of an RPG" I don't dismiss anti-romancers opinions, I just don't agree with them. This is not the same point as accepting that there won't be Romance in PoE as Obsidian has explained there motives and I understand those reasons. But this doesn't mean I don't think we can partake in threads similar to "The Case for Romance " I hope this clears this up for you as this is obviously bothering you and the last thing I would want is to upset you in any respects ( now that's a joke )

So what is it Bruce. Are you trolling or joking. Because it's obvious you're not being serious. Its simple really, I don't ever Troll but I sometimes joke or I'm being serious. So what comment I made do you want to know if I was joking or being serious about?

It's not my assessment. I was quoting someone else and it's a basis of fact when dealing with science. You are trolling and you know it. It's counterproductive to ignore the facts, ignore the valid arguments people have put forward in these romance threads, ignore anything that goes against your view point just to post frivolous dismissive comments. We both know it even if you want to play a game of dodge and evade. There's been countless valid points raised against romances. And you've made a frivolous post saying you haven't seen a single valid reason against romances. It's not only ludicrous, it's trolling pure and simple. I have no issue if you guys admit to Trolling around this topic but don't assume I am Trolling. I mean everything I say, I am prepared to debate various points but I do occasionly joke. This is not the same as Trolling. I'm sorry you don't believe this but you will just have to take my word on it

How'd you determine it was the motherboard? Troubleshooting, the Ethernet interface is dead on the hardware level and my 3G USB router doesn't initialize but only on the laptop. Also there are various driver failures on the network level It may be something else but once the Motherboard is replaced I'll confirm for sure

No Bruce. The OP's first post has been proven to be biased with it's so called science and not using science for it's against argument. It's neither intelligent nor logical. Bruce, you should take note of the intelligent posts that highlighted the OP's biased first post and not ignoring those posts. And there's been valid reasons why not to have romances. This post of yours is trolling. It really is. And I think you know it does as you're just **** stirring by saying things like, not seeing one valid reason and saying to other posters to be honest with themselves. Seriously, it's just trolling posters on this forum and everyone can see it. Nah, I reject your assessment of the Op's post. Lets not throw the term "trolling" around whenever we don't agree with the sentiment of others. Its counterproductive to the objective of the actual debate.

" was to whine about Obsidian's" You see the moment I see a comment like this I realize that despite all the apparent endless discussions about Romance some people in the anti-Romance crowd still don't understand what promancers have been saying. We aren't whining, we are logically and intelligently articulating the various reasons why Romance enhances the RPG experience. I have yet to see a single valid reason posted by anyone that explains how optional Romance dilutes the anti-romance gaming experience. But there have been many reasons posted why Romance adds to deeper interaction with party members and a more memorable RPG gaming experience Stun if you are honest with yourself you know I'm right

I went away for the weekend to a mountain resort, very relaxing. We went hiking and just chilled. It was awesome, I came back and discovered my laptop needs a new motherboard so I've been without normal Internet access for the last 2 days