Nonek

Please explain this, i'm supposed to find papers I read years ago and no longer have on hand, and why is this my responsibility exactly, am I supposed to serve as an encyclopedia for any subject? Edit: Oh and please don't call me lazy, i'll not be judged by such as you, last warning.

[citation needed] The studies I read existed before Gamergate so I don't believe i'm allowed to cite them, however if that is not the case i'm afraid to say I no longer have them on hand, but you're free to look for them.

Had three interviewees this morning, two were totally unsuitable academically and the third had perfect credentials and a fine resume but upon meeting the young lady she stank of weed. Seemed extremely upset that I even pointed this out and ended the interview with her, but what would anyone expect? Her excuse that she suffered from nerves was hardly a logical defence, was she expecting to smoke in the office when deadlines threatened and stress abounds? Full day of appointments tomorrow, hopefully i'll find somebody suitable and professional.

On Death March and have no problem appying blade oils, though I miss the old animation for that task, along with whetstones and whatnot.

Well in that case you would be wrong. Everything affects everything. In this instance videogames are subject to the same ideological biases as all media and thus will reinforce certain ideological views, be it consciously or unconsciously (for an explicit example there is a reason why the American military funds billions into the COD or Battlefield series or why the U.S. government dictates how things be presented in superhero movies and whatnot) This of course doesn’t mean videogames are the sole or primary cause of such views but neither are they free from them. Aside from perhaps the age of the average GGer I’m not sure why they get so butthurt about these criticisms, it’s hardly something uniquely targeted at videogames. Is it? I’ve only actually seen people quote it maybe once or twice since the thing started. It’s popularity, be it positive or negative, is not because of its quality (or lack thereof) but its symbolic value. Like I said before she only really became a thing b/c of the massive backlash against her. No, humans can tell reality from the false, even babies are capable of doing this, and actually show disgust for the unreal and are made uncomfortable by it. The virtual does not affect the real. What a person brings to a medium, that is allready present and cannot be accounted for by that artform, or controlled by it. The individual will choose whether certain information reinforces his point or not, and still nobody can predict this. Thus there is no point to the Tropes vs Women series, it is just cherry picked content reinforcing the idiot McIntosh's biases, and does not apply to anyone but himself. I've seen it quoted numerous times in the crusade against gaming, and McIntosh's sock puppet has leveraged quite some publicity out of her alleged victimhood, and the manufactured false narrative that Gamergate is behind it. Edit: I agree that the backlash against McIntosh's idiocy was one of the only things that gave it prominence, as it certainly holds no scholarly value, that and the game journalists championing it.

That's quite an absolute statement. Nevertheless, have you actually watched her series? All it does is point out sexist tropes in videogames and explain why they're sexist. Honestly, from what I recall, I didn't think she went far enough i.e. examining the how's and whys such tropes manifest and continue and the societal implications there of. Given the butthurt it's probably for the best she didn't. Yes it is absolute. I've watched a few, as many as I could stomach, as i've stated before they're poorly made, factually inaccurate, cherry pick content and arrive at conclusions so riven with logical inconsistencies as to render them laughable. Thus i'm in the same boat as Amentep, in that I can't for the life of me understand why it is so popular, or quoted. Obviously I can understand the corrupt press championing this, as it propogates their crusade against gamers, but it was still shocking to see that any number of people could easily dismantle McIntosh's idiocy, and yet the media would not even try to, and held McIntosh's words to be sacrosanct and not worthy of any criticism. Indeed the ferocity with which they defended the pampered little morons tripe was astounding.

What's this? Feminism has been "scientifically and statistically" disproven? On Philippa not really, she holds a grudge for Radovid enacting revenge upon her and mostly for outplaying her in the game of politics, her ego has been bruised. She reacts quite appropriately. I've never mentioned anything about Feminism, I was stating that McIntosh's Feminist Frequencies main raison d'etre has been disproven, games do not and never have had a negative effect upon those playing them, numerous studies have proven this. Therefore whatever trope they are inventing this week, or worrying over has no effect on the audience, and will not cause sexism or anything else as virtual constructs are not real and have no impact, as everyone should know.

It's heartening to see Mr Kain from a respected publication such as Forbes disputing McIntosh's lies, perhaps the rest of the media will finally start criticising and pointing out that Feminist Frequency is factually devoid of substance, cherry picks content, has yet to deliver her promised Kickstarter content, propogates a harmful narrative and is relying on a scientifically and statistically disproven point of view. Personally I hope that the Witcher 3 and its success heralds a move for developers to make more challenging content, more internally consistent theatres of conflict free of politically correct pandering, such nuanced choice and consequence heavy narratives, and more importantly such well realised, strong and independent female characters as Ciri, Philippa or dozens of others.

I'm pretty sure she'd be fine if the enemies used insults at the woman as long as those insults weren't gendered insults. That is still pretty dumb, but it's not as bad as saying that the female character shouldn't be insulted at all. Many of the combat taunts used against Geralt are gender specific, such as son of a whore, son of a female dog, fatherless child, i'll cut your genitalia off, genitalia-less freak and so on, so I would say that that would be even more hypocritical and idiotic, and reinforce my point even further. He wants preferential, unrealistic treatment for the ladies of the game, a hug box that treats women as delicate porcelain dolls, McIntosh's usual idiotic prattle.

It really is pathetic. I mean it's not as if Dwarves, Elves, men of different nationalities or everybody else is routinely insulted in the game is it? I mean at no point in the game does the protagonist get called a freak, mutant, unholy, and a whole host of other expletives. Oh wait a minute it happens every five feet as you walk around any suburban hub, and in battle they yell out much worse. So what McIntosh's sock puppet is saying is that Ciri should recieve preferential treatment, enemies intent on gutting her should do it in a respectful manner, and that rude words should never be used around women only men. The idiocy of McIntosh is really reaching new depths, and it probably won't be criticised, picked up on or even disputed by the sycophantic press. This is really what Tropes vs women is all about, infantilising women and shielding them from anything vaguely realistic, casting out the internal consistency that the Witcher series has sought to craft since its inception and making it a place where shrinking violets are not subjected to "nasty gendered insults." It's insulting to any women of strength whom can deal with the same abuse the male protagonist recieves, and discern the difference between fantastic elements such as Ghouls and Wraiths, and accurate depictions of a very well crafted harsh, medieval inspired world. Edit: I'd hate to be the kind of man whom believes that his good lady wife is so sickeningly weak and fragile, when in reality I know Mrs Nonek is a hard nosed Yorkshire woman whom is of a stout constitution, and would feel positively insulted by this spoiled San Francisco hipster telling her to be offended by a virtual construct. Such a low opinion of women in general, as if they are so delicate.

The basic flawed old argument, gamers are ruining the medium with their entitlement, and one that blatantly ignores fact. GOG would not exist if this were true, Steams massive library of old games would not sell, just because piracy exists does not mean gamers will pirate if they have a legitimate alternative. As it stands piracy has for a damn long time been an unofficial source of curation, curation that large publishers actively shirk. If they want the history of games to be forgotten and remain unarchived that is their business, but it is a silly attitude, indeed many lessons can be learned from old games. One can of course see a benefit to this for large publishers, when they prate of the latest best game ever with unique innovations, well that rings true only if they do not acknowledge a thirty year old game that humbles their new one and pioneered those self same innovations, and many more that the new game does not have. As it is the curation and archiving of old games does need a movement to ensure that it is carried out, and most publishers and game journalists have proven that they are unfit for this task, indeed they seem to dismiss old games without even experiencing them. Foolishness of the first grade, equivalent to me dismissing Thomas Tallis as a religious composer or Charles Dickens as an author. If anything the industry should be bearing in mind the games of the past, that offered much the modern AAA+ products don't offer, and are forgotten and reviled by a press whom have championed decline and despise anything but the newest, fashionable offering. The term nostalgia goggles is always used, even when an objective side by side comparison is made. Edit: Just to clarify I do not advocate or indulge in piracy, but one can see where it has become a useful tool in maintaining the history of gaming, when publishers have actively shirked and avoided that responsibility.

I've only visited Japan a dozen or so times, and have mainly been involved in business at the time, however i'm not aware of any corporation restricting the private opinions of its employees. Indeed there seems to be a very solid line between the social and professional, where I may laugh, joke and carouse with an influential client outside work, but the next morning I must remain professional, sober and respectful. The developer of the Metal Gear franchise for instance frequently trolls his players, fans and whatnot as well as deriding and mocking various subject matters, and it is not considered a company line in any way, shape or form, merely the developer having an opinion. Edit: The video game business may well have a more relaxed staff atmosphere than those i've interacted with, and attract more individual spirits, as it does in the west. Certainly individuality was on the rise in the thirty or so years I spent visting Japan, there did seem to be a cultural shift, and an embracing of pseudo western mores, along with anti western sentiment.

It's not really a binary choice, they could simply have made the decision more than two sided with another interesting alternative resolution, that also could have reinforced a Conrad like atmosphere. Forcing ones hand is fine, but in that case it's not me whom has made a decision, and I feel no guilt for what the game decides it wishes to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXsE-Zwb_j4 Alltogether i'm in support of this, violence is more shocking and effective when used sparingly, something that most modern games seem to fail to grasp. However I disagree with his example of Spec Ops: The Line: For me the white phosphorus attack was not shocking simply because I had nothing to do with it, the game was playing itself, and I had no choice or input other than to agree with what it was doing and participating in the ride along. In essence the game turned into a movie, and simply lost the power of interaction, which is a games forte. *SPOILERS FOR THE WITCHER SERIES BEGIN* A far better method of creating truly conflicting scenes is when the character has a choice, must weigh up the good and the bad, and examine his own motivations and biases. For this i'd look to the Witcher series: Does one pursue Bernard Loredo and put an end to his cancerous existence, satisfying and perhaps a long term solution, for the man is clever, amoral and cunning enough to spread evil beyond his little trading town? Or does one save the Elven women whom he has trapped in a burning tower, save lives on the line now and play the hero, but let the villain slip away to commit more monstrosities? The Wild Hunt is even more full of such choices, some of them truly gut wrenching and disturbing, it really pushes the envelope but always allows a choice and a consequence that is logical and usually hinted at in some fashion if one searches enough. The Bloody Baron for instance and his wife are an unhappy married couple, both trapped in a harmful and abusive relationship, a vicious circle of hatred and petty revenge informed by their deep knowledge of each other. They know how to torment and pull the strings of each others feelings, and there is nothing left in their relationship but that sick little dance they are playing and replaying. In the end i'm still not sure that my interference was positive or negative, only that to my character it felt right at the time. *SPOILERS END* This is what i'd look for if one is to deal with violence and mature themes in a game, an in depth examination from all sides, with realistic human characters and not the one note caricatures we see all too often provided for us. Archetypes whom do not actually live or affect the world, but merely serve to advance a plot and provide blatant, clumsy ego stroking rather than challenging viewpoints and providing self reflection. Then again some times I just want to break bones and deliver high caliber justice with implements of mass destruction, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with such wanton virtual slaughter, at least it is self aware and honest.

I must admit it looks extremely impressive, think i'll drop a few francs on a basic edition.

Oh, I'm surprised this was left standing by the mods. Guess the little kiddies think the dwarf is just shy and is hiding. The eighth Dwarf may be shy but one has the feeling that he is a most cunning linguist. Sorry.

She really is a poor writer, I mean she's hardly unique in this as most of the modern game journalists are, but that article is a real highlight of how poor her prose is. Rambling, unorganised, humourless, and so very mundane. If she had come to me as an editor I would probably laugh, tell her to cut the piece in half, make a point and remember as Shakespeare stated, "Brevity is wit." As for the subject matter its hypocrisy is almost unreal, this is the woman whom condemned and insulted millions for indulging in a passtime, who spewed toxic bile and assumptions upon totally innocent people, and now she's stating that there is not enough positivity and fun in gaming. I shouldn't really be surprised but almost everything these self pitying, pseudo victims (please donate to my Patreon) write, but their lack of self awareness and personal responsibility is almost remarkable.

Apparently there's a bug with patch 1.04 that stops quests recieved after installing the patch giving XP.

The Nameless One has gotten a lot more aggressive, Homicidal Incarnation?

I can't help but be reminded of Mr Carradine being cast instead of Mr Lee in Kung Fu, Ms Swinton is quite a good actress but it's disturbing to see Asian actors still excluded like this. I hope it's not intentional.

The involvement of Mr Pondsmith is a large incentive to me, that and CDPR have demonstrated a considerable respect for the literary roots of the games they have developed, however I think you're correct in being cautious. A self made character from one of the radically different classes, the virtual world that characters can jack in to, a setting that is radically different from anything they've done before, and the bringing of Night City to life along with its history and complexity, these are daunting tasks. I'm not certain any developer would be up to this task, and i've got to admit i'm sceptical myself. Edit: It's funny but when phrased like that I can actually imagine the developers of Saint's Row maybe stepping up to the plate, though their cities are too dull and lifeless to represent the vibrant pace of life in a Cyberpunk setting, and their gameplay model a little too dull and routine.

This is a real tragedy, bullied out of the industry by idiot, barely literate SJF's, it's becoming very clear that they are nothing but an harassing hate movement. However Mr Sawyer's logical and truthful reply to that critic is immensely heartening, when one stops placing any troubling real world issues in any form of media because of percieved offense, well then one has taken a step back from truth and freedom of expression, which are of course far more important than feelings. Which one can never account for in any case, especially in todays world of professional, well funded through Patreon victimhood. Edit: I agree that the best method of combating such extremism is to remain moderate, reasonable and ethical. Truth will and is slowly being outed.

Sometimes I feel that placing a leveling mechanic for foes in the game was a mistake, in other words every creature (men included) should be of a set strength, and not scaled at all. After all Geralt has just about killed everything a la William Munny, the difficulty shouldn't really be reflected via level at all, except for important NPC's perhaps. I also wonder why they didn't just continue and add to the four trees character development model of the second game, even at level 35 the Witcher could master no more than a single tree thoroughly. There was a glut of advancement and progression still available. I'm also enjoying Gwent, surprising as I have no interest in Magic, Hearthstone or anything else. Indeed my reaction even to the Poe card game news was total apathy. Edit: It shows what an old softy I have become that i'm actively trying to avoid killing Wolves and Bear, I really feel quite guilty about it, I wish developers would stop using such creatures.

No, ealry is not a word!

In related news Dragon Wars is now out on GOG.