Nonek

Few minutes, inspiration struck.

So it's a disturbing trend despite the fact that class weapon restrictions have existed in RPGs since the beginning? This "trend" existed for 30+ years now. I could use any weapon in Ultima for any character, or Fallout, or pen and paper D&D (though admittedly the characters would have to deal with proficiency penalties.) Not being able to even weild a weapon due to ones class, that I find ridiculous, and of course a disturbing trend that I see as best left behind. Let us build the characters we wish, whom may have to use a non optimal weapon in a pinch, or find that certain abilities of the weapon are useful. Edit: Ones personal opinion of course.

Really hoping that one would catch on.

I was really hoping people wouldn't notice the acronyms i've been including.

Lords of the PC? Masters of Gaming? The Evolved? Proponents of Increased Graphical Superiority? Appreciated and Revered Sons of Extreme Sophistication? PC Eminences? Tyrants of the Mouse and Keyboard? Maestros of Modding? Steam Superiors? Titans of Increased Technological Superiority? Gods of Graphical Fidelity? Deities of the Desktop? Fanatics of the FPS?

PC master species? PC Ubermensch? Advocates of the platform exhibiting superiority? Council of undisputable and noticable technological superiority? Kryptonians? Betters?

Hmmm, not as fine as the second games trailers, a complaint I keep making unfortunately.

Yes they have romances and sex. Good Lord it's like talking to a gibbon, I think i've had enough of trying to do so.

Yes Nonek but Bioware did something much more profound and revolutionary than Ultima VII, they implemented optional gay Romance. This was always a very controversial issue ..so we need to salute them for the risk they took. I'm glad it paid off Are you losing the ability to read Bruce, or just comprehend? Ultima did this twenty plus years ago, I can't explain that any more simply. It was not a controversial issue or deemed worthy of saluting then, somebody copying them twenty years later is hardly worthy of comment.

Strange that Bioware heralds it gay relationships as a great, new and innovative feature when in Ultima VII you could be straight, gay, lesbian or rendered virginal because of planar travel, and not much was mentioned of this feature. That was twenty years ago, but now it is innovative and pioneering? Have we always been at war with Eurasia?

In my opinion Bioware make mediocre games, based on an established formula and archetypes. Some things such as their blurry pastel and over emphasised art design, their second hand squeeing Joss Whedon humour, their idiotic unmotivated and far too dependent characters, the far too blatant idolisation of the protagonist at the expense of the antagonists and plot, the simplistic nature of their narrative, the lack of verisimilitude in their settings and dead, lifeless gameworlds don't particularly appeal to me personally. However horses for courses and whatnot, they probably have as many strengths according to others. Edit: I'm not aware that they have broken from these designs in DA3 as I have not played it, and will not while Origins exclusive, from various trusted opinions i've heard that they have simply added a lot of quests in their usual empty (but larger) settings, a faux strategic aspect, and have degraded combat quite drastically.

I'm surprised that Blackguards didn't place higher, i'd personally say that it was my number three. I agree with the first and second places however, Dragonfall really improved on the base game, and Original Sin was undisputably the finest RPG of the year.

What I find increasingly pathetic is how particular attacks are used against Gamergate, such as that we are privileged and have nothing better to do with our time, or that we were only motivated by the insults that game journalists have used against us, such as Ms Leigh Alexanders nasty little, negative, schoolyard tirades against gamers. Influenced by the fact of course that she is fundamentally unlikable, and so must seek a reasoning and an excuse to blame this on others, this time gamers. This straight after we have provided multiple reasons for our opposition to a medium that is acknowledged by everybody to be corrupt, unethical, unfit for purpose, regressive, anti consumer and by its own actions proven to be against diversity in gaming. Surely all of these points are together enough to make taking a stand against it sensible and pro consumer, as well as make a stand for development of progressive media, rather than simplistic linear picture book preaching. But no, just like when denying that the twelve articles stating that gamers were dead and making a concerted attack on the consumer, they now frantically backtrack and state that these articles were not anti consumer and an outright attack. Except one only has to read them to see that they are, frenzied, poorly written attacks against a consumer whom they hate, who had dared to ask them to do their job. Any reasonable person would have simply said, fair enough, and implemented ethical policies, but that is not something they can do. Why? Simple, because in demonising millions of innocent consumers from diverse backgrounds whom just happen to play games recreationally they see themselves standing as judges, betters, and looking down upon the herds of humanity, and sneering. For no reason they hate, condemn and ultimately demonise millions, without proof of ill intent or action, and to me that is a disturbing trend. No longer do the fashionably hateful just look down upon women, people of colour and anybody different for no good reason, they can now call them neckbearded, misogynistic, racist, bigoted, man babies, even though those epithets seem more suited to themselves by and large. And now we are told that we should not ask the gaming press to do their jobs, to watch over publishers and inform the public of any lack of quality or anti consumer actions that may be occuring, we are told that publishers should guarantee their own quality and we of course should trust that. That we should listen to Goebbel's quote, "Listen and believe." Neither question those whom supposedly know better, nor raise any kind of logical argument against them, or mind when in their anti consumer arrogance they insult millions in a co-ordinated attack. Sorry, but to ask the seller to behave without any kind of supervision is idiotic and childish, and is an anti consumer dream. I realise that most antiGG and pro corruption proponents are not all that smart, after all we keep having to repeat the same things to them over and over, but it never penetrates the skull. Yet even they must see that if publishers have no supposed overseers, nor judges of quality, then their beloved regressive games journalism has no purpose, they are currently not fit for purpose as all agree, but remove this one last supposed reason to exist and then there is none. Their leaching friends will have to try real begging, amongst the real homeless, instead of on Patreon and compete with real victims rather than imaginary ones. Or maybe even have to work every day of their lives like us privileged many, pay outrageous amounts of tax, prop up the economy of their country and spend the time, care and money on their children that will ensure they too grow up to be productive and useful members of society. Monstrous of course as that is.

They make games and profit True Neutral, whether these are of highest quality or even worthy of consumption is not their priority so long as they sell. Their purpose is to give the shareholders a nice fat dividend. In this they seem to be succeeding mostly in difficult financial times, i'm told that even Ubisofts stock rallied after the Unity fiasco. The aspects of quality and worth should be judged by the gaming press, if they were fit for purpose, which they're not. Exactly and the context of those twelve coordinated articles was anti consumer and pro corruption, a direct attack on gamers for daring to ask for an industry that was fit for purpose, following a proven case of unethical behaviour. ...When 11 out of those 12 articles doesn't mention the very thing you're accusing them of mentioning, I find terms like "a direct attack on gamers" somewhat baseless. And yet they all attack gamers, subtly or not so subtly, even if only a few state gamers are dead outright. As you say context matters, and the corrupt gaming press launched a direct attack on gamers, because we dared asked them to do their jobs. Edit: Off to the land of Nod, nice arguing with you gentlemen.

If it's any help I also thought that the return of Toruviels lute from the Valley of Flowers to Jaskier was also well done, and most of the personal detailed items in Dragon Age: Origins. I just thought that the unspecific gifts were poorly implemented, clumsy and slightly hinting of blackmail.

Exactly and the context of those twelve coordinated articles was anti consumer and pro corruption, a direct attack on gamers for daring to ask for an industry that was fit for purpose, following a proven case of unethical behaviour.

No, I thought giving the cheese to Sherry was quite sensible, a few other instances stand out as well.

And as I've stated a dozen times in response, that simply didn't happen. It's a popular myth propagated by gamergate, but that doesn't make it true. There were 12 articles written on the subject, with only one of them using the phrase "gamers are dead" - and that was a post on a personal blog. Also, one of them was titled "the death of gamers", but haven't used the phrase in the article itself. But it did happen by your own admission, gamers are dead means quite simply that recreational gamers are dead, there is no arguing this fact. You admit it yourself, and all of that structured attack on consumers bore the same message in different prose. @TrueNeutral: Yes I agree an idependent Ombudsman would be the ideal solution, but publishers are currently fit for purpose in making games and a profit, while game journalism simply is not. Thus as I see it the anti consumer and pro corruption remains of the current media model must be swept aside before a new model can be pioneered. As they see no need to represent the customer or even posess ethics for a multi billion dollar industry, they cannot be changed.

Implementation.

Yes the popular opinion is and was that they are corrupt and unfit for purpose, but going further and accusing millions of innocent recreational gamers of being dead, inconsequential and a lot worse was simply the straw that broke the camels back, as we have stated dozens of times on this very thread. We accept that publishers are primarily interested in profit, that is their purpose, and let the buyer beware. We accept that game journalism is corrupt, regressive, unethical, actively trying to prevent diversity in the gaming genre and contemptuous of those whom have provided it an occupation. But to then bite the hand thats been feeding them, and adopt a holier than thou judgemental attitude that's a little much, in my opinion. Edit: Not to mention they make no effort to police themselves leading to the harassment of women and minorities that we have seen repeatedly, the neo nazis membership and the idiotic ramblings of regressive trailblazers, such as Mr McIntosh.

Quest markers as a whole seem to be breeding a generation of gamers that expect the answer to any situation to be given to them, i've watched quite a few let's plays where the player does not improvise, explore or adapt his playstyle, simply butts his head against the problem in the exact same manner and complains that the game is unfair. The alternate route or solution is quite plain, in sight and logically obvious and yet they do not even think to look around or deviate from what they have done before. For instance you see an interesting geographical location, for me and most probably you, the urge is to explore and see what lies around and whether there is anything of interest to see or do here. However there's a certain playstyle informed by quest markers that has the player simply look at his mini map to see that there's no glowing marks there, and move on without interest. I can't help but think of an enviromental artist or a level designer quietly sobbing at such an occurence. It's up there with skipping through text in my opinion. Edit: Gift giving has been used in gaming to garner approval since almost its inception, I gave Sherry the mouse a piece of cheese to gain her aid.

The thing is that none of us do trust publishers, we allready know through their numerous actions that their bottom line is profit, that is abundantly clear and nobody faults them for that as that is their purpose. However we should have an independent media that warns us of anti consumer practises and seves the public interest, that is games journalisms purpose, but they are simply unfit for it. Rather than embrace ethics and serve and inform the public, they feel that their purpose is to preach at and condemn the very people who have given them a job. It is not our job to watch over publishers, that is the game journalists, and they choose to reject an ethical and public serving duty over a multi billion dollar industry in favour of telling millions of perfectly inncent people who happen to play games recreationally that they're dead and inconsequential. The focusing on publishers deflection was just that, an admission that they're neither fit for purpose, capable of doing their jobs or even surviving without the symbiotic relationship with the medium they should be judging objectively.

Yes the claim that anti GG is really about stopping the harassment of women is looking more and more ridiculous. It's becoming more and more obvious that it's an anti consumer movement, and especially minority or non traditional consumers.

I've no idea who she is unfortunately, perhaps my reconaissance skills are not quite up to this task.

On the subject of redistributing wealth from the massively overpaid to the far more humble, if one were to kidnap, rob and defraud Mr Russel Brands bank accounts, investments and various savings, would he object? One would simply be after all doing as he espouses the common folk to do, redistributing wealth from the few to the many, would the gentleman support such an enterprise? Purely theoretically of course.