Nonek

Well i'll try to explain simply if you wish, though i'm confused by your stated apathy and yet obvious passion and judgement on the matter. Gamergate is a response to years of corruption, unethical behaviour, nepotism, and demonisation of the diverse millions whom play games recreationally. It arose when a proven case of ethical misconduct involving Mr Nathan Grayson was swept under the rug, conversation was censored on the matter, and those wishing to discuss it were accused of harassment. This was followed by a coordinated attack on gamers by twelves articles with the base theme that "Gamers are Dead," and it was at that point that the last twig broke. Consumers had had enough of being demonised by corrupt, unethical, spoiled largely white upper class children, accusing them of being racist, sexist, and various other perjorative terms. So a consumer revolt started, that aimed to make journalists and their publications accountable and fit for purpose, because at the moment they are currently not. It was opposed by lies and misinformation, and painted as an harassment campaign by those with access to the media, that was just white children opposing the inclusion of women and other races in gaming. This was partly disproven by the "Not Your Shield" campaign which showcased the vast diversity of Gamergate and gamers, and now has been totally disproved by an independent third party whom monitor Twittter and have rubbished the harassment claims. So basically the real actors on the stage are: Social justice fascists (game journalists and those whom support them,) a hate group whom despise all races and genders except those whom buy into their sick ideology, which consists of such peaches as #Killallmen, advocation of Nazi style death camps, the abolishment of free speech, the sending of bomb threats to those whom dare to have parties where free speech and discussion is held, and the belief that abusing women is something to be proud of. A very small proportion of trolls and abusers whom are either mocking both sides or sending real abuse to people, doxxing and trying to harm innocent parties job prospects, though it must be mentioned that the SJF's have indulged in this also and regard it as perfectly justified behaviour. Gamergate, a consumer revolt whom are fighting for reform and ethics in the game journalism industry so that a multi billion dollar industry has a public serving media that is truthful, principled and fit for purpose. This is the only side that are actively trying to curb trolls and harassment and propagate a movement for accountability and morality. At the current moment Gamergate has done much, major news sites have been forced to implement ethical codes of conduct, sack those whom led the hate mob against those whom play games recreationally and some sites such as the Escapist have actually started to serve the customer. However more is needed: Gamergate is still being misattributed as a harassment campaign, despite this being factually incorrect, and so we know that game journalists are still commited to lying and libel. The hatred and mockery of consumers is continued, such that even after a bomb threat one of the writers of Rock, Paper, Shotgun insulted those threatened. The ethical abuses of certain individuals have still not been dealt with, and there are years of ethical abuses that must be brought to book with heavy fines and possibly revocation of their journalism degrees. Personally i'd like to see an independent Ombudsman formed, with the power to bring the industry to book, levy heavy fines, force retractions and enforce a code of moral and ethical behaviour. The game journalists have proven time after time that they need supervision, that they are liars, unethical, corrupt, far too involved with the industry they are supposed to watchdog and prone to nepotism and flagrant abuse of their powers, they cannot be trusted to monitor themselves. As for the moral relativity, I can support numerous causes and do, my involvement in Gamergate does not inhibit my participation in anything else. Just my personal opinion however.

I've never bought the Elric comparison, on the surface it looks good but to anyone who's read Moorc*ck it rings false in the details, here's a little list I found on another forum which I think is quite appropriate: Elric of Melnibone: Rightful emperor of Melnibone, and thus most powerful individual in all the Young Kingdoms. Elven. Albino. Weakling who needs to sustain himself with either drugs or stolen souls. Mightiest mage in all of the young kingdoms. Worshipper of the chaos gods. Frequently stupid. Bound symbiotically to a soul eating sentient sword. One aspect of the champion eternal, a multiversal hero. His people have ruled the world for ten millenia. Rides Dragons and sometimes even weirder craft. Has few friends or acquaintances, mainly Dyvim, Moonglum and his lovers. Geralt of Rivia: Orphaned child without family or fortune. Human. White haired and cat eyed due to witcher mutations. Superhuman, immune to disease and the ravages of time. Knows a few witcher tricks, the signs. Agnostic, with a certain distaste for fate. Clever, know his craft like the back of his hand. Bear two mundane sword, one silver and one steel. Is not sure whether fate exists, certainly does not like to think of himself as a pawn of it. Witchers are few and rapidly dying out, at their height they were reviled freaks. Rides an interchangable horse that he calls Roach. Has many friends. Edit: I'd also add that their personalities are quite different, Geralt is a world weary cynic, old fashioned, with a crude sense of humour and ill manners. Whereas Elric is fey, melancholic or manic, arrogant, intense, lazy and cruel like an idling great cat, and also quite determined to break tradition.

At least it's original, usually we have the supermutant orphaned Witcher equated with Elric of Melnibone, the weakling elven emperor.

I've heard that old mad bad John Milius was one of the few directors who actually welcomed input to his directorial vision, seems odd for such a forceful and stalwart individual, but I suppose his reputation was needed in the cutthroat business world of Hollywood. @Mr Parker:

Finished A Wizard of Earthsea tonight, am thinking about Lord Dunsany next, his purple prose might be quite appropriate for dramatic reading to the little ones.

I've heard that this is standard practise with the historical consultants hired for movies, simply there to lend a veneer of authenticity and then largely ignored, unless the director likes one of their ideas.

You know to say that turn based is routinely said to be boring compared to real time with pause, i've got to say that on average i've personally been far more bored while playing the latter. Now this may just be down to poor encounter design and a glut of such, but far too often i've tapped the space bar, sighed and muttered, "Yay more combat!"

Yes, simply yes. However this is a spiritual successor to the IE games, which were very combat heavy as well, so part of the mandate for the game was a lot of combat. Personally I think there were a lot more interesting combat situations in the IE games however, whereas in Poe it just seems to be copy pasted mobs stood around waiting to be slaughtered, hence making for a very dull experience.

I paid $20 for the expansion as an extra. If its now free can I get that back, or pay for the next one?

I remember the great femme fatales of the Noir movement, fantastic characters, strong, intelligent and self motivated yet also flawed and believable. In some ways I agree with you Mr Volourn, in the last thirty or so years womens roles in cinema have slipped a little downhill. However that's probably the subject for another thread, let's share Mel Gibson jokes instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTPSYbeNaa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4-_L0IOaGM

I honestly didn't notice that, I must have had Ms Theron on the mind. Which is no bad thing. I agree that Mr Hardy is one hell of an actor, and improving in almost every role.

Mad Maxine was quite an experience, beautiful cinematography and headlong thrills, though not exactly a cerebral experience it makes no pretence at being such. Mrs Nonek being far more of an action junkie was far more impressed, but I enjoyed it enough.

Flip flop, flip flop. Edit: Apparently now the classics are being flagged as offensive and requiring of trigger warnings by the oversensitive. Now I read the Ancient Greek tragedies as a child and consider myself to have benefited from that, as they are wothout a doubt still pertinent, witty and packed with thoughtful nuance. Certainly there are traumatic sequences, such as Medea murdering her own children, almost all of Oedipus and such, but the clue is already there in the title of the genre. These are tragedies, and deal with the more dramatic events of interesting times. I would recommend them personally for a far younger audience, as well as most of the philosophies and musings of the scholars, even Socrates simple Yes/No questioning is a fantastic basis for freedom of thought and education. Just my personal opinion however.

The Witcher 2, have opted for a path loyal to Roche and motivated by survivors guilt spurred on by the failure to protect King Foltest. I always liked Foltest, in the books and in the games, so his death having extreme ramifications for Geralt seems to be a more natural and logical path for my playthrough. It was also based on the strength of the scene showing the Kings death, which i'd equate to similarly strong scenes in Obsidian products, such as the confrontation with Marburg, the Lightsabre scene at the Jedi Council and others. Edit: Unfortunately this is objectively probably the most negative path, and assures much loss of life and tragic circumstances, but i've always seen the Witcher as a tragedy.

So... They're harassing a game company for posting that they've made a female playable character in this particular game after that particular game series had been yelled at for NOT having those characters before. Sucks to be Ubisoft. It's just another form of sloppy journalism however, there is no factual content or evidence there, the writer is basically stating that he can read the publisher or developers mind. For years women have been asking game companies to include female characters in their marketing, for instance FemShep, and finally Bioware acquiesced to this request. This was seen as a good thing and Drones celebrated it. Now we have a company doing the same thing without a sustained campaign for it, of their own will, and being castigated for it. Not to mention that Ubisoft have had female protagonists before, used them as marketing for their games, as all protagonists are used and the journalist raises no mention of this. Sheer sloppy journalism, made for clickbait and the idiots who are easily incited to outrage. If I were his editor i'd insist on a retraction and a public apology to Ubisoft.

So... They're harassing a game company for posting that they've made a female playable character in this particular game after that particular game series had been yelled at for NOT having those characters before. Sucks to be Ubisoft. Hypocrisy from SJF's, how surprising.

You inferred that we were not honest in our goals of ethical reforms and merely opposing those whom lie and say they support social justice like you, it is written above in plain English, and the inference is clear. Nope another epic fail Nonek but this time on interpretation I simply asked a question within a question. Nothing deceitful about that. Maybe someone can comment and say if they think my post was deceitful? No you made a clear inference of deceit, however feel free to deny accusing people of hiding their true motivations if you wish, that's your choice. More importantly, the facts on harassment on Twitter: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/05/gamergate-isnt-a-harassment-campaign-states-wam-report/

High Survival - Extra Camping ration above and beyond difficulty limit? High Athletics - Some kind of dodge functionality? High Lore - Damage bonus against a chosen enemy with a full description? High Mechanics - Small bonus to armour, due to better upkeep and maintenance. High Stealth - Can't think of anything i'm afraid.

Nice use of Black Blood there, reminds me of a story I read somewhere, and nice to see Geralts age referenced which varies between 60 and a hundred or so depending upon whom you ask.

This viral marketing ad has been intriguing me no end, looks very Blade Runner-ish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4OikGQvbiI Apparently the program will be called Humans and air on Channel 4 sometime in June. Edit: Truth be told I originally thought that it might be a Mankind Divided ad.

Montaron?

You inferred that we were not honest in our goals of ethical reforms and merely opposing those whom lie and say they support social justice like you, it is written above in plain English, and the inference is clear.

There was no false premise, you clearly inferred deception anyone with moderate skills in English can see that. Why lie again? I made no insults, merely factual statements as to why you won't answer my question when I have answered yours.

Amen.

Ah so no answer again, even when I honestly and explicitly answered your question, I expected as much. As for questions of etiquette, you infer that we are lying in our honest and reaonable goals of asking for ethical reform, and that we are instead only acting against social justice. Hardly a polite or normal thing to do, and it was you whom raised the issue of your use of sex workers. I will answer your two statements with three of my own: I have no interest in your need to visit strip clubs to interact with women, that is your own decision and none of my business. Your use of prostitutes is also your own business, and the authorities if they discover it of course, as well the women you are having to force yourself upon. However while abusing sex workers like this I will not accept that you are interested in SJ issues, as that is a hypocritical lie. As for understanding my points i'm afraid that if you cannot understand the intentionally plain English that I use then there is no hope that I can get through to you, perhaps some further education as i've suggested before is in order or a doctors appointment. You are very defensive so you and others, like Volo, tend to read a negative undertone into simple questions. I didn't ever say you were lying. I can only assume you are so defensive because of the perceived criticism you feel you are under for supporting GG so a simple question you feel is an interrogation I have to take some blame for that because of the level of some of our past debates And there is no need for me to answer the question because its so absurd..how can you ask me " why do I hate women " ? No when you make a clear inference of deception I call you out on it, that is not being defensive but truthful. I proudly and honestly admit to being a part of Gamergate, a consumer revolt is a fine and ethical thing, which there should be more of. No I expected no answer, that might require some self examination and hard answers which a hypocrite and a liar isn't capable of.