aluminiumtrioxid

Why is the concept of striving for efficient communication quaint? Seems like an eminently reasonable goal to me. As for everyone here being my inferior, believe me, I'd be the happiest if the usual suspects could form cognizant arguments one can actually prove or disprove instead of aimlessly flailing around, making vague statements that amount to "hard science = good, social science = bad". (As if biology ever was a hard science...)

...That doesn't really invalidate my observation of this practice being highly inefficient from a communication standpoint. And, to be blunt, even if I'm completely in the wrong and Orogun's comment was entirely topic-appropriate and used in a manner consistent with standard forum practice, my points still stand. It's tiring to argue about the validity of research with people who seem to be incapable of grasping even the concept of confidence intervals. It's tiring to argue about biology with people whose education in the subject seems to be fully based on half-remembered snippets from high school and a smattering of pop-sci articles. It's really tiring to see that the most vocal anti-feminists are completely unable to understand what their ideological proponents even mean when they're using the word "patriarchy".

Quoting someone just to start talking about something completely different when the "reply to this topic" button also exists and carries no baggage of the assumption that one intends to participate in an ongoing line of discussion seems like a highly inefficient communication strategy.

...Said the guy who knows next to nothing about biology and social science. Seriously, if you people had any real understanding of the sciences you purport to champion, these discussions would go so much smoother. If, for example, there was no need to explain the most rudimentary statistical concepts like "why you can't really treat a study with a sample size in the mid-twenties as having any sort of predictive power whatsoever". If the "scientific mindset" didn't simply consist of parroting empty platitudes like "biology trumps social science stupidity". If, perhaps, the science cited would, at the very least, rise above the level of drek that isn't even wrong, like the majority of works claiming to offer a "biological" explanation of high-level behavior. A man can dream... Actually, I was talking about the biological differences between genders that social studies seem to ignore and the link between biology and sexuality. But by all means, continue to assume that you know what I mean. If you reply to something I wrote, you don't get to smugly play the "I've been wronged!" card on the basis that the thing you wrote actually had nothing to do with the text you were directly quoting. But by all means, continue to play victim to your heart's content.

...Said the guy who knows next to nothing about biology and social science. Seriously, if you people had any real understanding of the sciences you purport to champion, these discussions would go so much smoother. If, for example, there was no need to explain the most rudimentary statistical concepts like "why you can't really treat a study with a sample size in the mid-twenties as having any sort of predictive power whatsoever". If the "scientific mindset" didn't simply consist of parroting empty platitudes like "biology trumps social science stupidity". If, perhaps, the science cited would, at the very least, rise above the level of drek that isn't even wrong, like the majority of works claiming to offer a "biological" explanation of high-level behavior. A man can dream...

Get real. With the sexbot 3000 package that includes "making a sandwich" DLC, the patriarchy would not even have time for their thursday meetings in the woodshed behind the pub. Women could be dancing naked in the streets and no one would care. That's... really not how patriarchy works.

They'll be free from misogyny and the patriarchy. Isn't that all that they wanted? Apparently not. Otherwise this would be celebrated, i wonder why.... Maybe because "a significant portion of the general population is now shagging robots" in no way necessitates the elimination of "misogyny and the patriarchy"?

Yeah, seeing these two statements side-by-side, one immediately thinks the fault does not lie with the game.

Yikes! of all things creepy i could never think of that. Hat's off to you my good sir. What's so creepy about regular, garden-variety narcissism?

Well what a surprise, arguments are maintained when more people take part in them, how revelatory. Honestly, whom exactly would have thought this shocking news in any way, shape or form? Hardly the point of the video, but I suppose different folks will draw different conclusions from the same information.

Looks like we got ourselves a robot-lover over here fellas! Hey, sex bots are still a more legal and ethical way for me to accomplish my lifelong dream of having sex with myself than cloning.

It's such a perfect encapsulation of the whole "GG vs. anti-GG" conflict, innit?

You're such a perfect encapsulation of Poe's Law, it's just lovely to see.

More like

As an ignorant foreigner, I was always led to believe this is the case.

Yeah, that's familiar. A proof of how far I have fallen is that nowadays, most of my gaming consists of occasional 20-minute bouts of Blizzard games. Ew. ...I'm pretty sure the squeeing idiots weren't meant as femme fatales. If you meant "female characters in general" by the term, I still think we have a pretty decent selection.

I'd be somewhat more ready to accept that theory if I actually saw examples of it happening.

The argument that you are being punished in the form of taxation for stuff that has nothing to do with you directly isn't entirely without merit, but the rationale is that it's your part of the "social contract" that makes it possible for you to live in an orderly society, much like you have to pay for cops to uphold traffic rules even if you don't drive yourself. The issue at the root is that you are never given an option to opt out of said "contract". And there's the fact that the US government is the poster child of unnecessary spending, so the idea of "allocating resources to make sure that vulnerable people aren't living in hellish conditions = tax raise" sounds like utter bull**** to me.

It's especially bad in light of how Dragonfall provided you with multiple opportunities to avoid combat encounters in its final segment, and a pretty challenging climactic battle in the end. By comparison, HK's "mop up the small ones, everybody wails on the big bad for a turn, it dies, repeat" was a bit of an anticlimax.

The problem isn't with ridiculing, it's with unthinkingly ridiculing even when, upon a closer reading, it turns out that the even the ones doing the ridiculing agree with the point being raised. Last sentence particularly Sounds like a pretty accurate description, with most stealth games rewarding you with more points for avoiding confrontation (consequently, minimizing damage and sharing space). I do find it a more elegant and refined genre than ultraviolent shooters, although obviously the fact that I suck balls at shooters may be a factor there. The ****ing stupid part isn't "they hold minimizing damage as a value and sharing space as a success", it's the assertion that "stealth bodies" (that phrase doesn't even mean anything!) enable us to do this. "No, you numbnut, if you kept the gameplay, but switched out the character model for a Space Marine (sans power armor), you'd have the same result" would be an entirely appropriate response.

The honor part can be slightly debated. Since the entire point of the article is that stealth games offer an alternate ideal of masculinity to the rather childish image shooters project, I think you seem to be in agreement with the author. Almost. Thief is different as the gameplay requires different MO than Gears of War, but it still trancends to the ideals mentioned in my quote to a certain degree. Thus, "alternate ideal of masculinity" instead of "an exaltation of non-masculine virtues". The shadowy assassin, the ninja, the stealth operative - they're hella masculine, says the article, just in an entirely different manner than shooter protagonists are, and this masculinity appeals to the writer. This is essentially all it says. As I've said earlier, a resounding "duh" is the most appropriate reaction to it, don't really get the borderline obsessive need to ridicule it and somehow prove it wrong.

The honor part can be slightly debated. Since the entire point of the article is that stealth games offer an alternate ideal of masculinity to the rather childish image shooters project, I think you seem to be in agreement with the author.

I'm a bit unsure what you're arguing for here; the article is explicitly talking about male bodies as loci for different expressions of masculinity. Gender bias and protagonist personality do not enter the picture. I don't think you're required to show any amount of patience in those games beyond the amount that would only provide a challenge for an ADHD-addled lemming, but I'm willing to take your word for it, it's not like I've played every single modern shooter game on every difficulty, examples that run counter to my personal experience may exist. I definitely do think you need to be perceptive in an entirely different manner in a shooter than in a stealth game, though (as evidenced by the fact that I suck at the former genre and am decent at the latter). Well apparently what is deemed too fast to give an impression of fallibleness is subjective, as evidenced by the fact that Jensen's capabilities gave an impression of vulnerability to the article's writer, of superhuman prowess to you, and of being a bit of a crapshoot compared to the previous installments' nano-augs to me (as they should be). I do not think it's hard to see how one of those pictures can give off an impression of sleekness and being riddled with imperfections, while the other doesn't.

Nailed it. People really need to learn to just leave other people alone and mind their own business. I'm not entirely sure. I mean, it sounds like a really convenient excuse for not giving a **** about the suffering of other human beings while retaining moral high ground. (Not to imply this is what GD's doing, just to illustrate how complex morality really can't be distilled into omni-applicable wisdom in a snappy little soundbite.)

Why ask if you've made up your mind already?