JadedWolf

That really doesn't look like a very realistic budget.

It really depends on how you do it, Bruce.I think it's perfectly reasonable to boycot companies that support causes you don't agree with by funding them with advertisement money. That doesn´t constitute censorship, that´s just using your rights as a consumer. Censorship is if you are crying out to the government to forbid them.

Hypothetichal question. If a women employer only hires men willing to sleep with her, but those men completly concent to the agreement, is that all right? In countries where prostitution is legal you could probably draw up a contract for that, I guess.

No, no, it's true. Gaming affects your mind. Why, ever since I played Hatefol Boyfriend I have been having these strange urges toward pigeons...

Without any of the three main allied powers WW2 might have been won by the axis, and there is no point in claiming one of the three was more important than the others. And don't underestimate the importance of GB - it's easy to look at GB as it is today and to think of GB as a junior partner, but in those days GB was still very much a superpower, and the resources and the men from its colonies made a huge impact. And consider how easy it would have been for Britain to make a quick peace with Germany after they occupied France, in which case Germany could have focused all its attention on Russia. And yet they bravely fought on, even when at times there was very little hope. Remember that GB had to defend itself for a very long time while the U.S. was still not willing to fully commit itself against the Germans. In fact the U.S. never did declare war on the Germans - it was the Germans who declared war on the U.S. due to their alliance with Japan. (Well, technically the U.S. did declare war on Germany, immediately after Germany declared war on them.)

There are very valid reasons why these sort of cases are prosecuted. The line between coercion and consent is very, very blurry in these cases, and it is impossible for the law to make a distinction, and to see in which cases there really was consent and there wasn't. If you're saying that it's okay for a 25 year old good looking woman to have sex with her 17 year old student, you really have lost all credibility to not allow that creepy male gym teacher to invite some boys over into the shower. Because it's impossible for the law to make a distinction here. Also, quite frankly if you're a woman over 25 and you're having sex with 17 year olds (and you are in a position of power, as well) you have some serious developmental issues, to say the least.

Speaking of King,

When the media can all coordinate reviews to reflect negatively on a product because they didn't have an appropriate female character you start precedence for it in the future. Next will be violence, racism, etc until games are as bland as the modern cinema. You don't have to lay this on the table with percentages. They never have to flat out say, "you need a major woman character that isn't objectified and is strong." If they did then people would call foul. They just dump on the game in the review, and it will hurt sales. It is much more subtle that way, but censorship in its own way. I'm sorry, but I have incredibly strong doubts about the likeliness that a bad review due to "SJW issues" is going to meaningfully impact the buying habits of people who don't give a **** about SJW issues. Also, if you count giving bad reviews as a form of censorship, shouldn't you also count female developers not daring to speak their minds about the whole business due to fear of being harrassed as a form of censorship, too? I think what he meant was that they would give the game a bad review based on other -imagined?- faults to get people who don't necessarily buy into their agenda to not purchase the game. Basically making bad stuff up to hide the fact that the reason they don't like the game is because of their agenda. As to whether that would work? I guess that depends on the game in question. For an AAA game probably not, but for a small game to medium game that really need the publicity so that people even know the game is out there, it would certainly work. Not saying I agree that this actually happens, but it's not a far fetched idea.

I support publishers who make games I like. With my wallet. I do not support gaming websites that annoy me by trying to force opinions on me. By not visiting them. That's all.

That's a great article, thanks for sharing.

Wait, a dachshund? I take back what a said, she sounds like a wanker. Also not the dog I pictured Malcador with. I sort of had the idea that it would be a smallish dog since she tried to kick it. She probably wouldn't have if it was a large dog.

I don't really know the law about this at all, not where I live and certainly not where you live, but, provided the person complained to the authorities, wouldn't the dog biting her be cause for the the authorities forcing the dog to be put down? I'm also ignorant of the law on this matter, but I'm pretty sure that if someone kicks a dog, no sane court would force the dog to be put down if it bites back in response. Sadly, you would be wrong about that.

Well, then you know what time it is, right? Time to back up that brain and buy a new one.

I am all for the right to arm bears, where do I sign?

I don't think that's true, firstly I don't know any official link that says the West has been providing arms to the Free Syrian army, I do stand to be corrected. But the issue was always "what if the arms fall into extremist hands". In fact one of the complaints from the Free Syrian army has been that they aren't getting enough support from the West. Countries like Saudi Arabia have been supplying arms to various groups opposed to Assad Now that is changing, the West will be supporting the Free Syrian Army. (FSA) But the FSA is not the same as ISIS. These groups fight each other and fight Assad Also ISIS gained loads of weaponry when the Iraqi army basically retreated when ISIS first invaded Iraq. That's been there main source of armament and the fact that ISIS was able to buy there own military equipment as they control oil fields in Syria But its very important to understand there is a huge difference between the Free Syrian Army( which the West supports ) and ISIS, they both operate in Syria but have very different ideological objectives No direct links no. But... "There is some evidence, however, of small quantities of missiles arriving in Syria for the opposition, some of them apparently obtained from Croatia in a shipment organised by the Americans and paid for by Gulf states earlier this year. More recently the rebels have also used Konkurs wire-guided anti-tank missiles from former Warsaw Pact arsenals, while 82mm recoil-less rifles have been deployed in recent gains near Latakia, a regime stronghold, and in the defence of Aleppo. But the missiles are largely in the hands of Islamist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. The Islamists’ ever-increasing power is now a direct threat to the moderates, as was shown by the recent assassination in Latakia of Kamal Hamami, a member of the FSA’s supreme military council, by the al Qa’ida-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Qassem Saadeddine, a FSA official, recalled: “They phoned to say they had carried out the killing of infidels. They said they will kill all of the supreme military council.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-what-the-west-has-given-syrias-rebels-8756447.html Just a quick example. Of course you can choose not to believe it, but if you are waiting for Western countries to admit to sending weapons when they have said that they wouldn't do that you can wait for a long while.

To be fair, from what I understand the idea back then was to arm the rebels which weren't religious nutjobs. Not sure if that would have worked, because so far a lot of arms sent to the Free Syrian Army have ended up in the hands of the religious nutjobs. Perhaps if the FSA had been sent more weapons they could have better defended themselves against the religious nutjobs, but we'll never know.

For the record, I wouldn't mind, and still play, a game which only had a female protagonist if the story was interesting. Playing a different gender would not make me feel icky or confused with myself. So, game companies, feel free to make an RPG from a female perspective - no objections here. My problem with games that try to be "inclusive" is that they can only seem to do this by removing flavour. Characters being bisexual only really works for me if they are bisexual from the ground up, not basically a character that is heterosexual if you are, and gay if you are. Which is often what you get. And this happens a lot when games try to be inclusive. Their solutions are... gamey. Transparanent and immersion breaking. If you try to mold a character so that they can change to suit everyone, they end up with no personality. That's really my problem with your solution of "inclusive" gameplay.

I'm really not quite sure what you want, Bruce. You say you want "inclusive" games. I don't really think you have any opposition here. If a game company chooses to make a game that fulfills your wishes -wishes which are not unreasonable, and I am sure have a target demographic- I don't think anyone here will complain. That is something else though that trying to change existing games or preventing new games from being made that don't fulfull your wishes. If you want to fight sexism in games (girls only shown as lust objects) or the way some male gamers communicate with women (the same 14 year old pimply geeks who annoy everyone else as well) then I can totally understand that. But some games will by their very nature always be more attractive to males, and will cater more to them. I personally like to play strategy games. Not a lot of women do. Is that a problem? Can that be changed in any way to make them more inclusive? I honestly don't think so. Question: which current games do you find objectionable, and what would you want to be done about them?

... And lo, there was much strife among the Obsidianites. Though the Great Obsidian had not shown favour to either side, both side claimed to see signs of their deity's displeasure at the other side, and thus they hardened their hearts at one another. And thus began the great schism.

I think one would-be IS fighter trying to book a flight to Syria was arrested with a copy of "Islam for Dummies" in his personal effects. Yeah, deep down, if you scratch the surface, they are probably more Ali G. than Bin Laden. Ali G. who just converted to Islam and decided to go radical.

I am hoping they don't give it any attention at all. They should, after all, focus all their attention on delivering us a wonderful game. ^_^