BruceVC

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. (Successful troll attempt though, since reading it literally pissed me off! \o/) Heh, why is that a 'troll attempt' and not just his opinion ? And really, there are feminists out there that believe that stuff (not a large amount, but for some reason, like everywhere else, the yahoos are the ones broadcasting) If its not a Troll attempt then it demonstrates a completely dismissive and exaggerated view of the issue of gender equality and is equally annoying.

That's all very nice, but he did make some pretty solid counterpoints to your suggestion... Especially regarding this part of it: Because, really, making something that is traditionally optional, and not necessarily all that well liked by everyone in your target audience, mandatory is a very effective way of swiftly losing a large chunk of that audience. In fact, your entire suggestion seems based around the assumption that most people will simply be OK with having romance forced on them as an integral part of the game, which is completely unrealistic. You've made some good points, there have been several polls that highlighted that the majority of fans want some form of well written Romance. If Romance was integrated into the RPG then there would only be a minority of people opposed to them. So I don't see this as a major issue. Besides I have never heard anyone say " I won't play game xx because of Romance". People seem to not want to play certain RPG for other reasons?

You haven't watched the videos I linked earlier have you? No I haven't, I don't think videos carry that much credibility. I prefer links with references like that link you provided about effectiveness of sanctions against South Africa

Well, I suppose one way to end a debate is to make something mandatory. It's also a way to stop people buying your product. Bruce you are as mad as a box of frogs. On LSD. So if I don't like mustard on my sandwich, my views on mustard would be void if all sandwiches came with mustard? Can't you see how delightfully deluded you are in your desperation? As ever, your arguments turn on compulsion, which is why you'd have made a great Khmer Rouge re-education officer. "They would have to do this. You'd get judged on it." In your dotty world-view everyone would love stuff if only they were MADE TO DO IT. No, we really don't. Huh? It might improve yours, Bruce. But you, as I have established beyond doubt, are mad. Please look again at my mustard analogy. Monte please bugger off !!! I'm just joking Monte, I don't mean that at all Unlike you I don't feel the need to tell people that they shouldn't comment on certain topics just because they annoy me or I disagree with them I would rather ignore a person or debate what they are saying. I see telling someone to "bugger off" as a form of censorship and betrayal of the principle of free speech which I support unless the words the person uses are words of discrimination or bigotry.

I know Gromnir didn't think that it was a valid suggestion but integrated Romance would be one irrefutable way to end this debate around the "role of Romance in RPG". I would support it for a number of reasons. Firstly I know many people will say " but I don't like Romance, why subject me to me something I don't like". But that view wouldn't really exist if Romance was mandatory. It would be no more strange than choosing a different race, a class or a selection of spells. Secondly this would put more attention on the developers creating more meaningful Romance that would appeal to the fanbase. They would have to do this as now Romance is part of the game and whether you can complete it and they would get judged on that. Finally I think most of us agree a well written Romance does enhance the RPG experience and improve interaction in your party so logically wouldn't integrated Romance improve the overall entertainment of your RPG journey in a particular game?

Whoa, whoa...what? I'm pretty sure *anyone* can have problems of the sort that you just mentioned, regardless of gender...myself as an example who is also a guy who has felt pretty directionless and not very confident since the day I was born... (e: your post after this sounds less extreme than what I quoted, where you just said there are generally NO cases where a guy could have problems of this sort...so I'll forgive you, Bruce, so long as you don't go to such extremes again, . That's not to say I necessarily agree, but again, as always, I try to maintain a position of neutrality, because really, I just can't say I know one way or another...so I don't disagree either. ) @Valsuelm: no problem. Barti, neutrality is fine and yes I agree that young boys can have confidence problems and also not apply for certain jobs because of it. But I doubt the main reason for this lack of confidence is due to them believing it's because of there gender and the result of this is they believe they won't get a certain job or be able to have a certain role in society

I have no idea whether that's true or not. I don't know how you can measure 'confidence' and I don't think it's confidence that's the entire problem. There's more to it. What you've described is a stereotype and can equally apply to a lot of males in that example. I think you may be confusing 'confidence' with applicants and 'prejudice' from employers which may be a reason why a female didn't get the job - but that is also a stereotype too. Either I'm not explaining my point properly or you are not understanding it. I'll try one more time. The issue is not that Fortune 500 companies don't hire enough females or promote females to leadership positions ( though this is a problem but not the purpose of this debate) the issue is some young girls when they want to be assertive are called "bossy" and this is a negative description that impacts how they feel about themselves. The result of this is these young girls when they become adults don't apply for certain jobs to try to do certain things in life because they have belief from there youth that they won't get them purely because they are female Its not necessarily prejudice from the company or the big corporation but the fact they lack confidence or they have been raised a certain way and have a perception around there role in society This for me is the most important point of the website and not the banning of the word "bossy"

What does that even mean. Achieve their full potential? I imagine not many people get to achieve their full potential in life, regardless if they're male or female. Okay let me explain it better because I see how that could be confusing. I'll give you a practical example, because the confidence of young girls is diminished through various reasons they aren't as likely as young boys to apply for certain jobs or think they could become a CEO of a fortune 500 company. This doesn't mean they would necessarily get the job if they applied, But they don't even think they have a chance. Yet men are more likely to apply for a particular job and not think they won't get the job because inherently this is a job that only a particular gender can do. I hope I have explained this properly

I don't know Malc, why don't you go to the website and confirm this? They do make some general comments like " young girls self-esteem drops 3.5 times more than a boys by high school" but it would be very difficult to give accurate statistics

Maybe they should have used the 'ban bossy' message as being something attributed to both boys and girls. Like don't be bossy, be a leader to both genders. That would have been a better message. And not single out one gender as being bossy (girls) and comparing it to leadership with another (boys) when they say the exact same thing. The fact is that they don't actually give an example of that same exact thing. It's deceptive hyperbole. But then I guess it would come across as another type of anti-bullying encouragement building site and drown in the hundreds of other anti-bullying encouragement building websites if it was aimed at both genders. Easier to aim it at one gender and get the emotional responses that it's received. I hear you but the reality is that generally there aren't any cases where young boys grow up thinking they don't have the ability to achieve there full potential. There is much more encouragement for young boys to become leaders of industry for example. So the campaign is aimed at young girls as this is where the confidence problem lies for a variety of reasons

Barti certain people say they are getting upset because they think this is a campaign to curtail there free speech and its ineffective. But the real reason is that they are tired of getting reminded about issues around gender inequality. But there wouldn't be all this awareness if there wasn't still a problem. Thats the way I see it But to be honest if someone of your generation can at least recognize that there aren't enough examples of people saying things about women like "she is a good leader" thats a positive step. And the objective of these types of campaigns is ultimately to raise awareness. So this is a victory even though it may seem like a minor statement from you

Honestly for me the purpose of the campaign is not about banning the actual word "bossy". Its about encouraging young girls to be confident and to be able to achieve anything in life. But the way the website is marketed and designed this message is misunderstood, all people see is that the website is suggesting " we ban the word bossy" and somehow that is going help with gender equality. I am normally happy to debate these types of issues by myself and I was prepared to explain this over and over again but when Hurlshot also didn't get it then I realized that this type of message using this type of mechanism would never achieve its purpose. Remember also bare in mind certain people on this website will always reject and joke about any discussion around topics like gender equality, I have come to accept that and its fine. But whatever the campaign or initiative is you have to have a message that your average person understands and is prepared to support. That is why I disengaged from this discussion

Its okay thanks

Mmnope, I see nothing weird about that question Yeah that seems normal to me, he's probably the dad of those of those guys that was drinking and slouching by the side of the road

Stupid question but don't you mean Chinese takeaway ?

Don't worry Squeakymeister I'm also completely dysfunctional in this type of creativity but its good fun to read all the posts

Someone who discriminates against facial charecteristics.

I don't know about you, but I enjoy the XP and loot from romance sidequests. Cut that out and I won't be able to mash spacebar fast enough. Seriously though, I mostly agree with you. The bluntness and lack of narrative coherence, to put it that way, is a necessary side effect of the format the romances are presented in. "Fast forward to the important moments" and skip the rest, but the result is going to feel half-assed, rushed and disconnected. But it's either that, a full-fledged relationship sim, or nothing. What I'm not so convinced is that the protagonist's ability to trigger a catharsis on teammates is silly or unrealistic. After all, in Bio games you are routinely beating impossible odds, so it's not so out there. Taking out a race of sentient machines possibly older than life on Earth and fixing the secret insecurities of the genetically perfect Princess Bitchface with a few clichéd phrases? About on the same level. a relationship sim is, we believe, unnecessary. no, there is a simple solution, albeit an unpalatable one-- make romance integral. romance that is actual part o' the main plot would diminish the ridiculousness o' achieving emotional breakthrough in a handful o' tangential romance encounters. developers coulds Potentially create a mature and meaningful romance if they would use the entire length and breath o' game... but again, while making integral and expanding romance would solve many problems, it is not something for which Gromnir would lobby. more bio romance? *shudder* forebear. as we noted earlier, the thing that makes bio romances endurable is the thing that most impedes any sorta meaningful improvement. bio romances is, thankfully, tangential and optional. makes romances integral only makes improvement possible, not likely. HA! Good Fun! "make romance integral. romance that is actual part o' the main plot" Gromnir I can honestly say that is one of the most unquestionably insightful and wise things I've heard on the Internet in ages. Brilliant suggestion

Wowzers Monte you're in a mood, but I can tell when I'm not wanted so I'll leave this thread alone and not give any MMO idea's

sociopaths "sociopaths"...Monte you should fit in perfectly there

Those are excellent points raised, its amazing that people still think the most relevant point about the crisis is "was Yanukovich illegally removed ". What he did during his reign of Ukraine seems irrelevant to them

I always find your opinion so interesting so thanks for the response but this looks like a classic BruceVC "we will have to agree to disagree" Do you still love me

Why the allergy to debate? This sort of "I'm entrenched in my views, you are entrenched in yours, let's be happy together in our pigheadedness" is fundamentally irrational and useless. It's a sad state of affairs when people have lost the ability to revise their views in light of evidence. Is your ego so inflated that you cannot even entertain the idea of "losing face" to a bunch of internets strangers? I don't know which is worse: that or the very notion that admitting that one's original pov may have been wrong is equated with "losing face". Heh. Oh 2133 your post made me laugh, I loved the pseudo psychoanalysis of my rationale..well said But you'll have to try much, much harder than that to get a negative response from me But you also misunderstand my motives. You and Zora are completely intransigent on certain topics to the point where I think you feel admitting you wrong somehow diminishes you, you've both proved that regularly. Its a waste of my time trying to convince you. There are other topics where people are more receptive to a different view. So I'll focus on those when I can

Are you aware of Survarium? After GSC folded, some of the devs went on to found Vostok Games... and that's what they are working on. Thanks for the link, I'll need to do some serious reading up on (and keeping track of) this game! I was aware GSC folded in rather odd circumstances, wasn't aware the devs went on to create a sequel though (also: istr GSC were talking about taking Stalker 2 to consoles before they folded, which seriously worried me). No, the main game plays very similarly to 2033. Some mechanics have been more streamlined (like stealth), but if you disliked 2033 you'll more than likely dislike LL. But one of the DLC has you actually go out from a fixed spot and collect artifacts. You have limited filters (for your gas mask)/ammo and you can't just stock up indefinitely because price goes up with every filter you already have on you (which is a bit dodgy from a purely logical point of view but it balances things nicely) and you get sent out to find entrances to the Great Library and collect artifacts on the way to be able to buy more filters/better gear (carry capacity is limited to 5 artifacts). You can also only save in the "base", so returning is both a necessary as well as a tactical consideration. There really isn't much loot to be found (outside of the artifacts), so new gear an weapons need to be bought (except for two exceptions that make sense from the story). Mutants do tend to drop ammo (which is a bit annoying), but is explained by them eating their victims whole (while they don't really drop a lot of ammo I didn't really have shortages either on normal difficulty, but it didn't take long for me to have enough cash that just buying the ammo wouldn't have been a real issue either). I thought they did a rather good job on making you actually feel like a vulnerable human in a pretty messed up environment (that said, aside from a few run-ins with Librarians I never died). I don't remember how long the DLC took me to finish (an hour or two I think), but a full game based on these mechanics would be pretty damn awesome in my book. I loved LL, I thought the game was spectacular. So I should enjoy the DLC as well

Depending on what class you are teaching! There is no room for anything but hard cold facts in a history class. Exactly, and there is no point not recognizing the facts around the role women have played historically in our societies