BruceVC

I have started playing Planescape for the first time. I am loving it as I expected. Whats amazing is that a game that is 14 years old can captivate you more than modern and vastly aesthetically better games from a graphics perspective. Its early days for me in the game, Annah has just joined my party and I'm enjoying exploring Sigil. I am also really loving the bizarre nature of the game compared to normal RPG, Demons walking the streets and talking undead. Its makes me even more excited about the next Torment. Imagine what the genius of Brian Fargo can do with his experience now.

I hope it bombs. Why do you want it to bomb? Probably because Ninja Theory has been insufferable and pretentious for all development and the game hasn't been developed in-house. Going from the demo and the streams, it seems like an okay action game with a story that takes itself way too seriously despite being just as bad as the first 3 games, and some really impressive art here and there (though monster and character designs are kinda so-so imo). I'll probably grab it at a Steam sale. Okay, thanks. I did some research after my question, I saw the video for DmC involving a fight in a night club. I thought it looked good, but I am not a very good judge of action games. I am easily pleased. Check this Gamespot video http://www.gamespot.com/dmc-devil-may-cry/videos/how-ninja-theory-is-changing-devil-may-cry-6399688/

I played Dead Rising 2 by Capcom, the game was brilliant but hard. So I'll try DmC

I hope it bombs. Why do you want it to bomb?

Okay I see what you are saying, I guess we can agree to disagree

With this argument you actually have to hate F3 and F:NW and only accept Turn Based Isometric Fallout games. Because to use your words. They are completely opposed to Fallouts core game design. ----- For me the greatest problem with Fallout 3 and probably with Fallout 4. Is that the traditional strongest points of the Fallout Franchise, are the traditional weakest points of pretty much every Bethesda RPG. Fallout Games traditionally a big world with a limited amount of things to do (at least compared to Bethesda type RPG). But not as cramped an Focused as BioWar RPGs. But often those Storys and experiences are very character driven deep Storys. Even small interludes and mini quests feel as if the have a meaning for the word or the people that are involved. Bethesda rpgs feel more like a canvas in witch the player can forge his own experience. They ave an enormous amount of things to do. But they are mostly experiences that get their meaning becaus you are involved. Both kinds of RPG have it's place. The traditional Fallout Games gives you a big chance to experience storys und the people in the world. While the Bethesda kind gives you the chance, to forge and experience your own story. The world / story is more like a backdrop for this experience. Fallout 1,2 and New Vegas are somewhere in the middle, between the more Focused and Cinematic BioWare RPGs and the very big World Bethesda RPGs. The thing is. You can get high quality BioWare and Bethesda type RPGs, in regular intervals. Traditional Fallout type RPGs on the other hand, are pretty scare. Obsidian has the skill to make games like this. But unlike BioWare and Bethesda, they don't have a comfortable market niche. In with they can make those games over and over again. I never played Fallout 1&2 so I can't comment. I also think that my point is being misunderstood. I love turn based, isometric games but to say you don't like Fallout and F:NV because they aren't turn based, isometric games doesn't make sense to me. It would be like saying you don't like Risen, Gothic or Morrowind because they aren't turn based and isometric. They aren't suppose to be yet the games have a huge appeal. Saying that I am very excited about the KS games coming out that will be isometric and turn based, like Wasteland 2 and PE.

Are you telling me you didn't enjoy Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas? Seriously now What's so weird about not enjoying those games? I liked them, but there certainly are plenty of arguments to be made against them. Whats I find strange is there is a difference between saying you had issues with a game and saying that you are completely opposed to core game design, in other words saying you only want another Fallout if its isometric and turn-based means you want a complete paradigm shift with future games from Bethesda. And thats not going to happen.

Are you telling me you didn't enjoy Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas? Seriously now

Today is my first day back at work after nearly 3 weeks of leave I am excited and looking forward to it, I went to gym this morning instead of training in the evening. I like the morning session. I may stick to it

I know exactly what you mean, and I can see this got things a little off-topic, so I'll keep this brief. There's not actually anything inherently sexist, or even wrong, about programming female types that only some groups admire and not others. However, I do realize the point behind "then why aren't the dudes all scantily-clad, too?", even if it's often inaccurately stated (as automatically making things sexist), as well as the "the designs of those females completely detracts from the practicality and believability of the rest of the game world" point. In short, there are many reasons why it is silly, from a standpoint of reason, for so many female video game characters to be sexualized while pretty much nothing else in the game matches up with that, but it is not inherently wrong or sexist, as it is perfectly possible to admire the human female form without thinking women are worth nothing more than the aesthetics of their form, or that they are lesser than men, etc. I mean, if some company made 17 different beverages that all tasted the same, no one would say "You're being FLAVORIST!". People would just say "Wow, you've got a pretty narrow design scope for your product. I'll look elsewhere, thanks." Annnnnnywho, what I wouldn't like to see in P:E is ONLY-sexualized-female-armor. Just because it's nonsensical to not also have practical armor. If some hot Barbarian girl wants to wear a chainmail bikini because she choose to adhere to the hassle-free, hardly-any-armor, berzerker-movement friendly Barbarian equipment policy, and she just loves chainmail as well as showing off her body, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. To say otherwise would literally be contrary to the entire sexism argument in the first place (by saying that admiring the sexuality of your own form, if you're female, is inherently wrong). BUT, if all females are scantily-clad and flirty, I shall be disappointed in the extreme imbalance in the range of female character models. u_u You make some relevant points and I agree with almost everything you have said Another point from me, many people say that women are objectified in games as there purpose in the game is as some kind of sex symbol only. All my female characters are chosen because they add value to the overall mission. Viconia was an important War Cleric and Isabella was an invaluable aid in combat. I know this may seem simplistic but its disputes the argument where people say " women in certain games have no purpose except for aesthetics"

That may be true but I find it insulting to the guys character and his achievements when he is called a coward, considering we have no idea of the circumstances. What makes it worse is that Volo is ignorant and doesn't understand the nature of depression. So its difficult not to comment when faced with such opinions as Volourns

Stalin? USA now has more people in its stuffed prisons, 6 million, than were stuck in Stalin’s gulag prison system. http://www.calwatchd...-stalins-gulag/ How armed military/police can protect you against own government? Yes S Stalin? USA now has more people in its stuffed prisons, 6 million, than were stuck in Stalin’s gulag prison system. http://www.calwatchd...-stalins-gulag/ How armed military/police can protect you against own government? Stalin, one of greatest mass murderers of the 20 century. He ccommitted horrific crimes against his own people. He was responsible for the death of millions. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/major-soviet-paper-says-20-million-died-as-victims-of-stalin.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_Great_Terror http://rt.com/politics/stalin-great-purge-victims/ I notice you are very good at reminding us "Westlings" about our corrupted governments and institutions but how does it feel to have one of the worst mass murderers in history as someone who is still celebrated in your country. Do they teach you about the insanity that was Stalin in your schools?

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men? This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor. OK, I'm going to assume you meant Robert E. Howard (writer of Conan) rather than Arthur Conan Doyle (writer of Sherlock Holmes) for that quote. The answer is.... not clear cut. The problem with judging any non contemprary writer is that we are judging them by the standards of our time, but by the standards of their own they may have been radically different. In the case of Howard, while he was apparently at least a little feministic for his time the Conan stuff of his I have read is fairly one dimensional in terms of his women, who are all of course young, nubile and either innocent needing protecting or a strong sexy counterpart to Conan himself. That being said, having done a little quick reading apparently Howard had a fear of old age so all his characters tend to be youthful and vigorous anyway. But by the standards of "high-fiction" his female characters are pretty one dimensional today, even if they are basically the same roles as a Mills and Boon character in a markedly different setting. The problem with the chainmail bikini is that it's a double standard - no one is saying that you shouldn't find women attractive, the problems are more that firstly on average, a character like Conan (or to take a real world example, male wrestlers) is not an equivical female fantasy to say, Red Sonja. Both are actually male arguably male fantasies, though in the Conan case "to be" rather than the the Sonja "be with" one. Which isn't to say no woman would like that, far from it, but it's a male empowerment fantasy, not really a female sexual one. Then we have the issue of practicality, and this is the one which is most pervasive in modern fiction. A man wears massive armour with spikes and gauntlets and all things that suggest his massive power. A woman wears a chainmail bikini which suggests her sexuality. Again the male fantasies in both. If the bikini and the power armoru were equally viable defensive options this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore a female character is being defined by her sexuality before anything else. Where this gets a bit muddy is where you bring this back into context against real life, where obviously, women do wear sexual clothes some of the time. This is where I think the "no sexy clothes" for women brigade are mistepping a bit. As women do wear tiny skirts and bikini tops some of the time, its a bit of a fallacy to say they never will in a work of fiction because of equality. True equality would basically mean that some women (and, importantly, some men) dress sexually some of the time, while some dress in whatever way they want/fits their character. I could go on at length noramlly but as I'm off ou, have a look at this site for examples in comics to compare the problem: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ Thanks for the informative response , I appreciate the time you spent explaining your view. I did mean Robert Howard, I couldn't edit the post for some reason after I realized my mistake. The reality is in RL we are surrounded by aesthetics and the appeal of beauty. Magazines, adverts, TV and News Channels presenters all have beautiful women that often wear clothes that compliment there figures. I don't think this is wrong. I don't think women should in anyway be inhibited by what they want to wear. I also don't think that guys that like this are weird, as this is a natural part of what makes up our modern world and our human psyche. Therefore in a fantasy setting I also have no issue with men or women wearing bikini armor. I know you are not objecting to this but there are several people who are vociferously opposed to this type of sexuality and when people talk about similar topics they are accused of being "perverts" or "sexist".

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Women in almost all fantasy books I have read wear some kind of revealing armor. Does this make the writers of fantasy books, like Arthur Conan Doyle, sexist? I like to play RPG in a similar fashion to interpretations of fantasy like the Conan world. Also in the Conan world he doesn't wear a shirt most of the time, thats his nature as he is a barbarian. Should we now say this is discriminating against men? This is probably not the right post for this debate but I refuse to accept that I should feel guilty or feel like I am sexist because I like to see beautiful women in revealing armor.

Awwww... you are totally discriminating against sexist male chauvanists. Also, there's a joke somewhere in there about armor on female avatars hopefully being off... haha. Ohhh terrible out-of-context meanings. 8P I have to be honest, I don't understand why its sexist or chauvinist to admire or be a supporter of the female body. I am a huge supporter of Bikini Chainmail armor in PE and Viconia similar characters

Why is he a coward? He could have been suffering from depression , and depression is a sickness. Committing suicide doesn't necessarily make you a coward.

Mmmm, what don't I want? Good question. For it will be things I didn't enjoy in other RPG, like DA2. So that would mean enemies appearing out of the air the same dungeons being reused

Nice one Nep, thats good news

It seemed to me that he wasn't very consistent. He claimed that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the citizenship from the government, yet does not want people to have the same weaponry as the government. And he sounded like a 12 year old. And looking sane next to Alex Jones is not very hard, I think not looking sane next to Alex Jones is what is near impossible. Its funny how we can have different views on the same style of debating, I don't agree with him but he did come across as intelligent, calm and reasonable . Except for the "dancing on the graves of children" comment. This was uncalled for but this is an emotive subject so people will make extreme comments.

It's relevant because it's the entire platform they're using for the sort of "primary springboard" of their arguments. The most right wing people fear that the governments expansion of federal powers will eventually lead to the Federal government being the only government, and then an oppressive president who uses the state apparatus to turn it into a dictatorship. How realistic this is is up for debate. But to a degree, it's the only argument they can really throw forward without having it countered by "Well if you're going to hunt, why not use a rifle?" or "If it's home defense, why not use something more portable like a pistol?" Instead it's really more "Whats' an AR-15 going to do against a Tank?" (although the insurgencies in Afganistan probably provide at least SOME backup to the anti-dictatorship thing) I agree, its the only feasible argument that the right wing can make to explain there reason to want to keep semi-automatic weapons. But the thought of the USA government ever actually turning its own army against its people I think is absurd? Besides how would this help against air power or tanks as you mentioned.

My point is not about how many people agree or disagree with me. My point is you cannot say in life your opinion is fact, its not. Its your view. I know you are just trying to avoid answering the question, nice deflection but its doesn't change what I said.

I heard a different perspective from the right wing on CNN on the Piers Morgan show. The guys name was Ben Shapiro. He was highly intelligent, articulate and made cogent points. I thought to myself what a massive difference to the debate this made compared to that lunatic Alex Jones. Ben Shapiro is the type of person that groups like the NRA need to get to speak for them. I still support the banning of semi-automatic weapons for the average citizen but if I am being honest I would say its the first time I have see Piers Morgan "lose" one of these debates. Shapiro did make one ccontroversial point, IMO, and that was a typical one asked by Piers Morgan. Piers asked him " why does any average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon?" Its a reasonable and valid question. Shapiro answered " in the future we may need to defend ourselves against the tyranny of our government " I am not sure how relevant this is?

This question makes no sense, because his information source not trustworthy. I don't trust reports about war crimes from organisations funded by Military lobbyists, CIA and Banking elite. They just want casus belli for war, because wars extremely profitable for them. It's capitalism, baby. Yeah and your sources don't come from anti-western, RT funded, conspiracy based websites that believe in global companies pulling the worlds strings where 9/11 was perpetuated by the Americans themselves. Your links are no more credible than anyone else's, sorry to tell you the truth.

Yeah, yeah. Since when is your opinion fact ? Many people, including me, feel Fargo has marketed PS 2 perfectly fine.

The conflict in Syria was started because Assad chose to use the might of his army and police to quell the initial political dissension to his dictatorial rule, he refused to make any serious changes to give his citizens more rights and political freedom. The background to this civil war is almost identical to Libya. This conflict would have been over ages ago if Russia and China hadn't vetoed any military actions through the UN security council. I blame Russia more for this as they can influence China so the blood of the thousands of people killed is on there hands, not that Russia cares. Now the war has become complicated. There are several Islamic fundamentalist groups that are now involved in fighting for the Free Syrian Army. These groups have links to Al-Qaeda so it makes it hard for the West to supply weapons to them. I believe that Assad will be defeated in the next 6 months but at what cost? Thousands of people killed and the iinfrastructure of Syrian destroyed. This could very likely have been prevented if Russia hadn't vetoed military action, there wouldn't have been boots on the ground in Syria but the contributing Western countries could have stopped Assad using his air force by controlling the air. A similar military sstrategy that was used in Libya could have been adopted. "Well done Russia", for achieving a political stalemate at the UN and helping the drag the conflict on.