aluminiumtrioxid
-
Posts
1482 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by aluminiumtrioxid
-
No Gary Johnson? I'd be more inclined to vote on principle if there were not three SCOTUS judges over the age of 80. I do NOT want any democrat picking judges. Why not?
-
Oh yes, the completely regular everyman who's implied to have acquired his current position by poisoning, whose first quest is tasking you to murder his rival in cold blood, and whose reward to you is a worthless bauble that provides you with an avenue to con the most powerful man in the city. Now, the funny thing is, in the AoDverse, this is the completely regular everyman. Has no apparent goals beyond retaining his current position, believes in nothing besides looking out for number one, goes for the most amoral and - more importantly - inelegant solution possible to resolve his problems*, and lacks any ability for long-term thinking (has it not occurred to him that conning the city governor may not be a very good idea, because a/ it threatens with consequences he's unprepared to deal with - at minimum, losing his livelihood, b/ having spent a considerable portion of his life on the political battlefield, said governor is pretty likely to have a decent bull**** detector, c/ apparently wandering loremasters are common enough that two of them showed up in close vicinity to the town just in the last month [not to mention the countless number of resident alchemists, which given that calling his bluff requires something like Alchemy 2 or 3 doesn't make me confident about the prospect of it holding up for very long], and d/ anybody who can correctly identify the item as a worthless bauble has no reason not to tell the governor?). *For ****'s sake, the guy has been established as a master alchemist and poisoner extraordinaire, yet instead of trying to at least maintain some semblance of plausible deniability, for example by employing the very same poison he's famous for, he asks some guy who just waded in to his house to slit his rival's throat and try to stuff the corpse somewhere it won't be found for at least a week? ...And all of the problems I detailed wouldn't be quite so infuriating if they weren't done under the guise of "realism". If "groups of armed groups" (sic) were indeed burning down villages (just established as super-rare sources of vital sustenance due to the scarcity of water and most of the ground being toxic) on a weekly basis, they'd soon starve to death due to just having burned down the only place in miles where they could get food from. Which, granted, neatly solves the whole "armed sociopaths wreaking havoc everywhere" problem, but isn't quite compatible with the world's current state as presented (namely, armed sociopaths being eminently alive and thriving). The "everyone is a murderous idiot with no impulse control or long-term thinking" approach simply isn't realistic, at which point we must arrive on the conclusion that it's not an attempt at simulation, but an artistic statement. Thing is, I'm not sure "people are ****" is a very insightful or inherently valuable artistic statement to make. -
I'd argue the game itself was cynical, not the characters in it. I mean, literally every NPC I've met was a sociopath with no impulse control and a complete lack of long-term thinking. Compare and contrast with the Witcher series, which incidentally also depicts a crapsack world, but people seem to actually have motivations beyond "acquire more personal power".
-
I do wonder, will the gratingly pointless cynicism of AoD return, or can we expect a tonal shift?
-
At this point I'm not sure even the participants know what the argument is about anymore (I sure as hell don't). Maybe it's time to get back and re-examine the statements that sparked the discourse? I mean, if I understand this correctly, what Numbers is taking issue with is Gfted's rather dismissive attitude towards the role environmental circumstances play in human behavior, yet for about a page now, the discussion has been about anything but that, which might explain the mounting frustration on both sides with counter-arguments that seem to be aimed at matters the participants consider to be vestigial to the original point.
-
I can imagine many, many situations where murder seems like a downright rational reaction, to be honest.
-
The concept of unforgivable crimes sounds terribly wasteful and not at all practical to me, from a societal viewpoint.
-
Ahhahahaha, poor misunderstood, vilified investment bankers whose greatness their lessers simply couldn't tolerate. Suddenly so much about you becomes clear.
- 512 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Rapepidemic
- Islam
- (and 8 more)
-
Bu-bu-but I was told it's actually about ethics in gaming journalism! When we had an active thread here, I expressed my concern that the GG supporters would post about "personalities" and their "transgressions" that had little to nothing to do with games journalism and was told that really wasn't GG. Now it is? Nah, it totally isn't. But it was a useful fig leaf covering the real sentiment of "take your filthy politics out of my games (and put in my filthy politics instead)". (I was led to believe cyan is the semi-official sarcasm font in these forums?)
-
Bu-bu-but I was told it's actually about ethics in gaming journalism!
-
Oh my sweet summer child... It was an ok place when i first started reading it half a year ago. Plenty of idiots, but also a lot of reasonable people. Now though it seems that idiots took over and the sub turned into a bunch of fanatics whose sole purpose in life is to fight their "enemies", whoever they might be. Basically a mirror image of people like Harper. I dunno, whenever I ventured there, even when it was purportedly decent, basically none of the front page topics had anything to do with ethics or journalism. This, obviously, didn't quite give the impression of them upholding the so-called "pure" gamergate ethos.
-
Oh my sweet summer child...
-
...Define "monster"? Like D&D ...a bestiary basically. Beholders, Wyverns ....different beasts Well the bestiary lists about 160-ish creatures. None of them are particularly like beholders or wyverns, though.
-
...Define "monster"?
-
torment is set a billion (or some such silliness) years in future. "caucasian" is therefore meaningless. Basically this. On Numenera, a billion years' worth of evolution, purposeful genetic tampering and changes even weirder in origin mean that the residents simply don't map to current racial phenotypes. On the other hand, you can totally be a blue space babe (well, you can't, since this is a CRPG with a semi-fixed protagonist, but in the tabletop version, you can). I think it's pretty clever.
-
Not quite. They want equal opportunity while recognizing equal opportunity isn't going to be achievable just by giving everyone equal opportunity because societal inertia and subconscious biases still exist. Thats a good answer and I can proceed with my next point Would you agree that a SJ objective can be achieved through a system changing but it doens't mean the people who support the system need to agree to it. So for example lets say in Hungary women weren't allowed to go into bars single, due to protests your government passes legislation that allows women to be able to visit bars alone even though some people would still object to this But the outcome in this case is not about everyone agreeing as it was settled through legislation. Would you support this type of SJ result? Well of course I would. I mean, would this be any different from literally any other anti-discrimination law?
-
Not quite. They want equal opportunity while recognizing equal opportunity isn't going to be achievable just by giving everyone equal opportunity because societal inertia and subconscious biases still exist.
-
If, aside from dramatically underdeveloped reading comprehension skills, the gamer persecution complex that has been, over the decades, steadily fed by the complaints of right-wing moral guardians like Jack Thompson, and a negative bias against anything that has the whiff of social justice to it (causing it to be interpreted in the least charitable light possible), there is no reason for them to feel that way, I hardly see a need to condone it as wrong. Has the article been written in a way that pretty much made it impossible for civil disagreement and mutual respect to dominate the tone of the discussion? Surely. Was it, perhaps, needlessly inflammatory? I can see that. But was it morally wrong? That's an interesting idea, which, I feel, is fundamentally at odds with the dominant perspective of GG that the creation of more content, by itself, can never be morally wrong. I hear you, this is a much better way for me to try to make my point as opposed to that long post as we need to agree on certain stages of the whole GG development in order for me to progress to my final point And funny enough I already share your view on most parts of this topic but I want to share something new with you ...thats what this about for me. Just giving you a different perspective But before I continue do you want to have this debate and I don't mean to sound condescending but maybe you just don't feel like debating this again in which case I wouldn't want to wast either of our time? Go on, share your perspective.
-
The proper reaction is to add him to the fire Stop holding Muslims to any standard you right-wing racist. The spurious, irresponsible and frankly harmful claims about the existence of a middle ground between wishing fiery death on someone and uncritically agreeing with anything they say are an obvious ploy by the Enemy, and we'll treat any who spread them as an agent provocateur.
-
As long as the female antagonists being brutally beaten, butchered and murdered are also wearing equally practical outfits, I see nothing wrong with that. The idea that female characters are delicate little flowers who need to be protected at all costs isn't a particularly... "SJW-compatible" one.
- 115 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Canada
- criminal harassment
- (and 5 more)
-
If, aside from dramatically underdeveloped reading comprehension skills, the gamer persecution complex that has been, over the decades, steadily fed by the complaints of right-wing moral guardians like Jack Thompson, and a negative bias against anything that has the whiff of social justice to it (causing it to be interpreted in the least charitable light possible), there is no reason for them to feel that way, I hardly see a need to condone it as wrong. Has the article been written in a way that pretty much made it impossible for civil disagreement and mutual respect to dominate the tone of the discussion? Surely. Was it, perhaps, needlessly inflammatory? I can see that. But was it morally wrong? That's an interesting idea, which, I feel, is fundamentally at odds with the dominant perspective of GG that the creation of more content, by itself, can never be morally wrong.
-
To be fair, looking at the current state of gaming, it often seems like the devs themselves know the least how to make their games Spoken like a true ****
-
-
We disagree on stuff pretty regularly, but I don't think I've ever been this completely opposed to your post. What the heck? Weird comment exalting mass murderers as the moral betters of people who make ****ty cartoons for a living aside, I find it hard to argue against the rest of his post.
-
In a 1984 way, sure.
