aluminiumtrioxid

Agreed. Part of the issue of social science is that it's a "science" in that it tries to employ scientific method (i.e. empiricism) but with serious handicaps in terms of trying to set up experiments without bias influencing it. Natural science can have bias too, obviously, but gravity typically doesn't decide to false report due to social pressure That's what IATs are for.

Let's not forget the whole "possession by demonic artifact" thing going on in the background. Kinda hard to be fair and just while a glowing red sword goes all Reaper on your brain (As an aside, am I the only one who thinks it was a mistake to bring this kind of stuff into the DA franchise, too?)

I love how she and her supporters act as if it has already been proven that the tropes cause real harm for women, when there is no evidence at all. I guess reason goes out the window. Also what do you suggest we do? we already have an ESRB. are we going to forbid developers and artist from creating sexy characters? The hell with free spech, go radical feminism! I already pointed you to a study about how exposure to certain exemplars does implicitly change one's attitudes towards minorities. It's not much of a stretch that this might be true about unflattering tropes and misogyny (which, by the way, in feminist circles, does NOT equal explicit hatred against women). I suggest we do nothing about it; shaming people into changing their attitudes does not work, and the resulting screaming match achieves nothing beside the righteous anger of 'fighting for the Good Cause' in both sides, which just furthers the hostility. But we should consume more content created by women; and if a developer team with women at key positions offers us to create a good game - not a feminist game, a good game, which doesn't want to preach, just tell us a story from women's perspective -, then we should throw some money at them.

Erm... way to miss her point.

Correlation =/= causation. Your alternative hypothesis is welcome, if you have any.

And the moment to belive any hypothesis is true, is when there is evidence for it, and not a second before. Especially if said hypothesis would require us to re-evaluate some of our previously held preconceptions. Sarcasm aside, this seems to suggest that IAT scores can be influenced by exposure to certain stimuli. I think it's a safe guess that it works both ways, and is not exclusive to racism.

Yeah, I think that's what most feminists, including Sarkeesian, really want, but because we mostly hear them talking about the bad, their views seem limited. In an optimal world, that would be true. But sometimes I feel they are more interested in yelling about opression than actual resolutions. It could reinforce them subconsciously. But until someone creates an implicit misogyny test, we can't really tell. So in short, no evidence that shows correlation between princes peach beign kidnapped and real world misogyny. Absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence, especially since I haven't heard about any studies regarding this question. Until then, "such a correlation does exist" is just as good a hypothesis as is its opposite.

It could reinforce them subconsciously. But until someone creates an implicit misogyny test, we can't really tell.

Did we read the same article? Where did she 'bash one gender to prop the other up'? The whole article could be summed up as "diversity in hiring equals diversity in content, thus we should not waste time whining about how a male-dominated industry does things in a way that could be expected from a male-dominated industry, but instead lobby for hiring more women". I can't really find a fault in that.

Oh, come on. This is misandrist and inflammatory. My previous link was perfectly reasonable.

This.

They lack the cthulhuesque "ooomph" of my example Although there is potential in spiders.

How about "school of magic", then? Transmutation? It's been done. Yeah, but the fact that - for example - projectile-type spells which do poison damage had been done before doesn't make throwing a freshly summoned, pulsating, luminous, extradimensional jellyfish at your opponents and watch as it pokes their eyes out with its venomous tentacles any less satisfying (and/or awesome).

How about "school of magic", then?

Temporal manipulation. Shadow magic. Spells designed to manipulate passion and cause madness. Drug magics! (Well, magic of addiction and/or hallucinogenic substances.) Magic themed around a "corrupted" version of the classic four elements! The possibilities are endless! (And include probability manipulation, too!)

I think a nullophage (a creature which feeds on physical, emotional or metaphorical voids) would be pretty cool. I can't quite wrap my head around how it would be dangerous enough to warrant a combat encounter, though. (Even considering that it would crap echoes of the things that created those voids...)

That's a tall order. I suppose it's best accomplished by having the evil path be more "evil-lite" than truly horrific. In my experience, evil typically involves a lot of what historian Paul Fussell described in his WWII book Wartime as chickens*** behavior. The American WWII GIs defined chickens*** as "...behavior that makes military life worse that it need be: petty harassment of the weak by the strong; open scrimmage for power and authority and prestige; sadism thinly disguised as necessary discipline; a constant 'paying off of old scores'; and insistence on the letter rather than the spirit of ordinances. Chickens*** is so called--instead of horse- or bull- or elephant s***--because it is small-minded and ignoble and takes the trivial seriously." An honest portrayal of evil would involve a significant amount of chickens*** being dished out by evil organizations and individuals. That might appeal to a limited element in the cRPG community, but I can't imagine it being a major draw for most of the players. "Evil-lite" or focusing on the glamour of evil as often portrayed by Hollywood might prove a superior tack for allowing the players to tickle themselves with the glamour of evil without feeling like abject scum. To use a WWII analogy, many more players would enjoy the look and fearful reaction from others if their character was all decked out as a Waffen SS tank commander, but they might not be so happy to spend time as a SS-Totenkopfverbände guard (Death's Head unit, genocide duty). I favor depicting evil in all its horror and wickedness as an antidote to the allure of its largely illusory glamour, but this wouldn't help players enjoy playing (in D&D terms) a blackguard or an assassin very much. More likely it would give a number of them a bit of a "spiritual cramp" (C.S. Lewis). Then again, I tend to favor realism to the detriment of fantasy more often than many who play cRPGs and RPGs. Ain't I a fuddy-duddy? I disagree. What you described is not 'evil' in the sense of true depravity and a sociopathic lack of empathy, but a nasty combination of narrow-minded pettiness and the results of a lifetime of frustration. It's symptomatic to individuals, rather than organizations (although, one can argue that certain lines of work do cultivate this attitude). Also, it's not exclusive to the bad boys. I'm pretty much convinced you won't find an army anywhere which doesn't employ a large percent of people with this attitude Problem is, I don't find playing such a character entertaining. Evil options can have a wide range between (and beside!) "petty cruelty" and "badass villainy". I, personally, am more interested in subtle corruption (the gradual breakdown of morals as depicted in Breaking Bad or some of Balzac's works) and calculating, manipulative selfishness (the Practical Incarnation was a good example, albeit somewhat cartoonish; some characters in Game of Thrones would also apply). I believe these have none of the "illusory glamour" you disapprove of, but also lack the small-mindedness I find so hideously boring.

Wait, what!? You act as if the last two plus decades of RPGs *were not* balanced around combat xp based systems. So what you're trying to say is that the last two decades (20+ years of iteration on this system people) meant absolutely nothing in the progress department of being able to close various xp loopholes that you have to go out of your way to abuse? Instead, the "solution" is to implement a system that comes with an entirely different set of xp based problems that we have not used for the last 20+ years. Maybe we should give up the title of "smartest species on the planet" and instead redeem the title "absolute dumbest species on the planet." Yes, combat xp advocates just love to talk about these "entirely different xp based problems", but always fail to provide examples of it. If you can, do so. If not, shut the hell up already about it. Besides, if I look upon the RPGs of the last two plus decades, I can pretty much tell you, they didn't do much to close these loopholes. If they'd have done so, we would likely not have this conversation. Perhaps you should go and actually play them instead of talking nonsense?

You're still assuming that player skill doesn't play any part in the outcome, which, I'm convinced, is likely not true. As currently envisioned there is no missing, so no matter how fractional the damage may be, no matter the player stategy, no matter the gear used, a death by 1000 cuts is still death. What would be a good "cost" for diplomacy IYO? You can still paralyze your opponents to cut their throats while they can do nothing about it, slow them down and pepper them with arrows as they are making a futile effort to get close to you, set up traps and lead them to their deaths, summon cannon fodder creatures to take the brunt of the damage while you're sniping them from afar... actually, there are quite a lot of strategies aimed to prevent the enemy from being able to even attack you. Having to bribe people to get information which opens up new (not necessarily dialogue) options jumps to my mind immediately. Also, certain creatures may require you to sacrifice a portion of your life force when dealing with them. Maybe your "strong" soul allows you to sense the general mood or personality type of the person you're dealing with, thus allowing you to better anticipate what you should say to them, at the cost of some soul energy or whatever. Some nobles may be unwilling to interact with you unless you have a suitably regal appearance, thus forcing you to spend money on getting fine clothing. Et cetera.

You're still assuming that player skill doesn't play any part in the outcome, which, I'm convinced, is likely not true.

Awwww, she's beautiful :3 Helm, you seem to keep avoiding the points I've made. Also, the exact amount of resources you lose in combat will mostly be determined by your skill as a player, so saying that "you gain the same amount of resources you've lost by choosing to fight" is a faulty argument.

Your cat is a retard. Shall I descend to your level and announce "no, yours is!"? Or can the conversation continue in a spirit which would not make even a 10 years old laugh at how infantile we are?

I provided you with specific examples of extra effort which are not present in the objective-based exp system. You failed to explain why those examples don't hold water, nor did you provide examples where combat+objective exp require less effort to implement than objective-only. I wouldn't consider "umm, surely there are extra costs of implementing objective-only xp, like... umm... yes, there must be" a meaningful counterexample. Maybe you should point out how the rest of your arguments are more effective than the example you chose, yes. *Heisenberg's cat protests* Your cat is a disgrace to the species, and I have no desire to associate myself with it in any way.

I have provided my arguments; you have consistently failed to adress them, and masked your inability to do so with poorly-executed sarcasm. Still waiting for the counterarguments which can actually hold water.

*Heisenberg's cat is wondering* The use of strawman arguments and deftly avoiding to provide meaningful counterarguments instantly make someone a master of rhetorics. Protagoras would be proud.