Nonek

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.

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 wont agree with my view because you can't agree to it because to agree with me would undermine support for the GG movement but I'll make it anyway You say that gaming websites like Eurogamer and RPS need to maintain journalistic integrity. Yes I agree with this because its the principle that matters and they represent a serious revenue generating industry...even if it is gaming. But the reality is I doubt any of you guys use to use those websites, I visit them but maybe once every second day. Now the fact that you guys never use to use them is also not a issue because an argument could still be maintained that its the principle But you also cannot ignore that fact that certain websites on your consumer boycott list also happen to be websites that raise SJ issues and have been very vocal against GG So I guess what I am trying to understand is what is the real reason you boycott these websites? Is it because they lack integrity or is it because they push SJ issues which tend to annoy you ? Its fine to say you don't visit certain websites because of there view on SJ issues, I dont go to RPGCodex for exactly that reason but lets be honest? I am being honest when I say that the sites I boycott are unfit for purpose and not worth reading, they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and unethical, with repeated attacks against innocent cosumers, totally unproven accussations against Gamergate, and endemic corruption, thus as a reasonable, moderate consumer I avoid them. Their tendency to preach on social justice matters is hypocritical and a lie, just like yourself Bruce, saying that you support social justice and then boasting of using sex workers, propogating a harmful criminal enterprise and saying that there is nothing shameful in doing son at the expense of the women you have to pay. You and they are free to say that you support social justice issues, but when this is a hypocritical lie and you use sex workers, while they abuse and lie about innocent consumers wanting ethical reform, then I will not accept their falsehoods or accept their preaching at me when they are immoral scum. If you don't believe this that's fine, because I don't look for approval from an individual whom openly and proudly uses prostitutes, but I would in return ask that you be honest with yourself and why you hate women and see it as alright to force yourself upon them for cash? Is that why you try and interject SJ issues in this thread all the time, and interrupt the usual talk of ethical concerns and good journalistic practices, is it guilt for your actions against the women you have to pay for sex?

Apparently Mr Galloway is contesting his resounding loss in this election, should be worth a chuckle or two.

Journalists should abide by journalistic ethics, when advising people on how to spend their hard earned money in a multi billion dollar industry, or when reporting from a war zone. This is once again childishly simple, and trying to render ethical concerns as unimportant because they are advising on an entertainment product is a moronic argument. Edit: I've always thought that moral relativity is a particularly pathetic argument, yes I may tell my children to clean their plates because children are starving in Africa, but in a mature discussion it really has no place. To dismiss real and releavant issues of proven corruption, nepotism and unethical behaviour is to dismiss and demean all of journalism and ethical reporting, game journalists are literally tarnishing the entire professions reputation. At a time when that reputation has never been at a lower ebb, well I can't see why anyone would not take such issues seriously. Though after RPS mocked the victims of the recent bomb threat against a Gamergate party, and insulted the victims of that hoax for no reason whatsoever, well I care even less about the scumbags opinions or their publication.

well it's mostly a question of technical difficulty. how do you make it flop around realistically? and then the aesthetic question. cut or uncut and how long? there is a multitude of problems when making the 3D model of a naked man that are not there for a woman's. I dunno, after seeing an entire article devoted to how hard it is to properly animate breasts I'm not so sure making someone's dong flop around realistically is that much harder (or easier, depending on how you look at it)... To be fair one doesn't see that much of female genitalia in the game, mainly because it's quite discrete compared to a mans, with the exception of a woman whose gone through repeated childbirth after which things down there get a little messy if childbirth is natural. However i'd say that we see far more bare mens chests in the Witcher 2 than we do bare womens, especially if one is doing a berserker playthrough, which necessitates bare chest, trousers and axe rather than armour and swords. Then again i'm not really concerned with virtual nudity.

I think we need a separation between editorials and reviews(subjective) and news(objective), with different standards for both. Obviously disclosure should occur, and there should be some standards implemented to maintain professional distance. It seems strange to me that game journalist cannot implement this, it is so simple to have an acknowldegement before the piece speaking of ones contact with a publisher and developer, along with any ties. It is not an onerous or complicated thing. Then make the review in two sections, one an objective critcism focusing on features, tech and issues etc, and one a subjective review. A simple process, and yet the game journalists refuse to disclose or acknowledge the plethora of objective points that any game has. It's pathetic really, and emphasise how reasonable these demands are, and how unreasonable and arrogant the game journalists are being. Then again they've had many years of railing and preaching at their audience to become accustomed to it, must be hard to let go of their self righteous posturing. Edit: More than ever I believe that a regulaory board is needed for game journalism, as well as a period of sharp adjustments and heavy fines for those whom flagrantly flout journalistic ethics such as Kotaku.

Anyway on to a matter relevant to journalism and ethics: Does anyone feel a slight suspicion with the almost perfect review scores that the Witcher III: Wild Hunt is recieving across the board? This seems very similar to the initial reviews of Skyrim, where major bugs were ignored and any problems were glossed over by clearly hyped players. I'm a fan of the Witcher games, but I cannot believe that the Wild Hunt realistically deserves such high scores, after all both of the previous two games were extremely buggy on release and required much patching, though the Enhanced Editions were a gesture above and beyond in my opinion. I hope the game is as good as these reviews are stating, but I seriously doubt it is so perfect, even now i'm hearing that the game struggles to maintain 30fps on console. What do you think is contributing to these reviews? Is this merely the fashionable game to like, and the hype has reached critical mass, so that reviewers are ignoring the problems in the enjoyment of playing the game? Or could it be that we are seeing a game that does actually live up to the hype? If I were a betting man however I would lay down odds that we see secondary reviews from game journalists, reviewing the game again with a far more critical eye within a few months. Do you think that this is a side effect of the gaming journalists lying that objective criticism is non existent, and everything is subjective, when journalism should of course be striving for unbiased objectivity at all times? In prioritising their feelings and enjoyment are they losing the ability to judge and criticise, after all we have seen what kind of regressive games they prioritise, that actively try and limit interactivity and jettison features and content, ironically enough under the guise of innovation. @Bruce: Justify your using sex workers however you wish Bruce, you raised the subject not me, and it is hardly baseless when discussing sex workers stating that you are a hypocrite whom lies about supporting social justice. The reason why you cannot explain why sex workers being any different from other victims of crime is that there is no difference, as i've stated repeatedly anybody can be a victim of crime, no matter their profession. To argue otherwise is infantile.

No I have no shame, should I? I go to legal strip clubs, why should I be ashamed ? None of the girls are trafficked..they work there as it pays well...they aren't forced. You don't seem to know much about strip clubs ? But Nonek please stop pretending you actually care about the plight of girls who work in the sex industry. I doubt you do considering your contempt for women who wear revealing clothes..like when you said that young girls going out partying where you live were dressed looking like whores....nice choice of words there to describe a liberated and confident young women...very progressive And you still missing the point, hookers in RL can be victims due to there lifestyle choice ...what crimes are you talking about You can go to however many strip clubs you wish to Bruce, you're right I have no need to pay women for their company and would not think of doing so, as I do not see women as pieces of meat to buy. However that is different to the prostitution you boast of indulging in, which is illegal and harmful to women across the world, and certainly makes your claims of supporting social justice hypocritical and two faced. I do care for and respect women, and do not have contempt for women whom wear party clothing, I actually like the modern trend of dressing outrageously, though I do not wish my daughters to do so. As for when I said whores, that was in response to you calling Volourn's niece a whore, you brought that up not me, and i'd prefer such a term to be used rather than a politically correct term that abusers find comfortable such as escort. Anybody can be a victim of crime in real life whatever their lifestyle choices or jobs, not just sex workers, a child could understand this.

Pardon, people shot, tortured, killed and such are not victims in real life? You're not actually seriously stating this are you, if so then there's no point arguing with you because that is flat out denying reality. Anyone can be a victim of crime in real life, anyone, this is not limited to sex workers. Whether you are embarassed or not about using sex workers is your choice Bruce, if you have no shame about forcing yourself on young women, breaking the law and propagating a harmful and vicious trade in womens flesh, then bully for you. However i'll still think you're hypocritical and saying you support any kind of social justice is a slap in the face to the women you've bought. As a father of daughters and a married man whom respects women you sicken me.

Are we back to this idiocy again, arbitrarily picking one victim of crime to exclude from a game, and totally ignoring and being fine with including the rest. In a piece of virtual reality where nobody is hurt, unlike the real world where sexual predators buy womens bodies and abuse them for a handful of cash, then hypocritically justify it to themselves with whatever lies they want to believe. Honestly this is the most moronic argument seen yet in this thread, and it has featured the Full McIntosh.

Flashbacks to Betrayal at Krondor and discovering the En Passant move from the brothers at Sarth, so much nostalgia.

Playing the Witcher 2, have the pre download of 3 squared away on GOG and am wondering which side I should choose as my canon playthrough. Roche seems far more neutral, and a more trustworthy companion, but there's no doubt that the camp of Henselt is in no way a match for Vergen. There's also the great end game quests that were added to Loc Muinne with the enhanced edition, Iorveths is the most interesting of the two without a doubt.

Dates and times.

I strongly doubt Kickstarter's viability as a business practice will be forever tarnished by a product its funders are largely happy with. By the same logic, Harebrained Schemes (creators of the excellent Shadowrun Returns games) should also be exposed as scammers because in the kickstarter pitch, they promised us that every class will see the world fundamentally differently, which they not only refused to deliver on, but also failed to notify the backers about in advance. So should Larian Studios, because they cut the megadungeon from Divinity: Original Sin, also without consulting with their backers. Such immoral practices clearly have no place in a funding model so fundamentally reliant on consumer trust... ahahaha no, as long as the majority of the backers is happy with the final product they received, I doubt any project will seriously seriously harm Kickstarter's reputation. This sounds like such a weird way to refer to Sarkeesian. Could you explain why you do so? There's quite a large difference between having to cancel some stretch goals and content that cannot be reached in the funding, some give and take is allowed. However to not produce content such as Ms Sarkeesian's videos, which largely use borrowed or stolen assets is entirely different, and will obviously undermine public trust in Kickstarter. Then again if the naive are fine with this then they are welcome to accept not recieving what they paid for. I certainly think I got my moneys worth from both D:OS and SRR, they gave me a full product rather than less than half of one, while Ms Sarkeesian's backers are still waiting to recieve theirs years later. Ahahaha. Sock puppet is simple, she echoes what Mr McIntosh says with alarming regularity, strange to see a Feminist Frequency controlled by a spoiled fat white man whose never worked a day in his life or faced any real tribulation. Oh no it's not strange at all is it?

If Ms Sarkeesian can successfully con those whom kickstarted her videos out of their money, without producing the content she promised, then good luck to her and shame on the people whom fell for it. However I have to point out that I want Kickstarter to have a good reputation so that it remains a viable method of funding games, obviously we have the good examples that folks like Obsidian have set but when we have people like Ms Sarkeesian and Tim Schaefer whom take the money and run, well that is bound to be talked about and effect Kickstarter in the long run. Then we may not have good games made, for the sake of poor arguments from Mr McIntosh's sock puppet. Edit: Though i've never really seen the fuss raised about Mr McIntosh and Ms Sarkeesian as being warranted, they're a pair of idiots spouting inane tripe: One saying that games should not have any interactivity, the other actually thinking that, "I saw Mommy kissing Santa Claus" was about infidelity. Such people shouldn't be allowed to ruin Kickstarter for everybody else, still I defend their right to con the naive out of their money.

Had Ged facing the great Dragon of Pendor tonight, with appropriate snorts and booming pronouncements it's fair to say that I scared my offspring half to death, they absolutely loved every minute of the story however, at least I think so considering their big eyes peering out from the covers at me. Heard them fiercely whispering about it when I came to my study. I may make a few well placed edits after this however, the story gets quite horrifying when the Shadow finds Ged and a little levity may be required. Edit: Thought i'd posted in the wrong thread for a moment.

[citation needed] [citation needed] [citation needed] First citation, twenty years of undeniable demonisation by almost every form of media. The cherry on the top of course being the twelve articles attacking gamers as being dead late last year. Second citation, numerous studies showing that games have no effect on real world behaviour, thus her series is bereft of its main purpose. Third citation, Evicting the Honey Badgers for asking a question and the following demonisation of them, the gamergate women whom are derided as being indoctrinated and the women whom were exposed to a bomb threat for the crime of partying and not swallowing their hateful agenda, numerous other examples easy to find.

I had a frightening urge to post the wrestling scene between Oliver Reed and Alan Bates in Women in Love, but I resisted.