aluminiumtrioxid

I'm not sure there is no meaningful difference between "full of possible confrontation the gameplay actually encourages you to avoid" and "full of confrontation that's actually unavoidable to progress in the game". Also, I do not think there is no meaningful difference between "extremely dangerous because he always confronts his enemies when he's at an advantage and strikes with killing precision1" and "extremely dangerous because he has a giant gun and even if he didn't, he's still a towering mountain of meat wearing inch-thick metal plates". I absolutely do think "confronts problems head-on and overpowers them with brute force" is a meaningfully different expression of male identity from "avoids confrontation whenever possible and fights dirty when it's not". I mean, I'm pretty sure nobody would argue Odysseus does not represent a completely different heroic archetype from Achilles based on the fact that both men are hardened killers and are actually far above the average human in physical capabilities (remember the archery contest?). 1 Remember, Garret for example, especially on higher difficulties, is at an extreme disadvantage when fighting enemies head-on. Being comparatively squishy and unable to face many opponents very effectively is a staple of stealth protagonists. A fair point, but I think it's hardly debatable that stealth games reward patience and perceptiveness on the player side far more than more traditional action games do. I dunno, we're usually not characterizing video game protagonists like Marcus Fenix or Randomly Chosen Call of Duty Shooter Guy of your choice as "borderline psychotic", even though they rack up a far higher bodycount in their respective games than Sam Fisher does. So why single out the poor wetworks guy? Eh, depends on how you view contextual powerlessness. Is being temporarily without energy for agonizing seconds while it ever so slowly creeps back to full a "total lack of power"? I'd argue it is, in the specific context of engagement during those periods. (Not to mention that due to enemies sometimes noticing you during a takedown, if you went for the "ghost" xp bonus, you were usually trying to avoid knocking enemies out whenever possible, which made your job considerably harder.) I do not think "superhuman and broken" or "superhuman and eminently fallible" are in any way inherently contradictory statements. Not to mention that even Jensen feels ambivalent about his new body, if you choose to roleplay him that way. It can be both a source of superhuman powers and alienation, both from society and the self. To claim otherwise would be a tad reductionist, don't you think? You say that as if it was a bad thing

I don't know, most of the time when I encounter this complaint, it's usually based on very uncharitable readings and taking things out of context at best, and outright twisting the message at worst. Outright dismissing your point wouldn't be conducive to the discussion, but I really could use some examples to see what you're thinking of.

Well that analogy kind of breaks down when the core philosophy of the group in question is "actually, society absolutely does not treat these disadvantaged groups as if they're of equal worth to the rest of them, maybe we should do something about that".

To be fair, well-reasoned arguments rarely change minds. Not that I'm clamoring for the alternative, mind. I mean, if you think your way is objectively superior, it kind of logically follows that sooner or later, people will accept it on their own. Path of least resistance and all that.

Fixed a typo.

Well looking at the epitome of stealth in PC games, the Thief Garret, I neither see illusory, sensitive or self reflective qualities. I think it refers to the things you're supposed to do in the game, not to the main character's personality. Breaking and entering for Garret is hardly a non invasive, pacifistic passtime, and his clubbing of guards and destruction of the Undead is hardly non violent. Sleek, illusory and, while sensitive is not a good word, perceptive, though? Sure, I'm willing to use those words for what most stealth games seem to value. I mean, I think it's hardly debatable that there's a certain elegance to stealth games (and their protagonists) which is definitely lacking in comparison from shooters (and their protagonists). Or, hell, even from third person slasher thingies (I have no idea what to call the genre of the DMC and God of War series). I don't think the statement "Corvo/Sam Fisher/Snake/Garret represent a different expression of male identity than, say, Marcus Fenix/Duke Nukem/Kratos/Dante" is in any way controversial, or, you know, not self-evident. A resounding "well, duh" would be a more appropriate reaction to the article than the flailing some people have exhibited, methinks. I kind of stopped following the series after the first few installments, but that doesn't sound like the Sam Fisher I remember... There's an interesting debate to be had around that question. Intriguingly, while I agree with you to an extent (mechanically augmented body = good), I've heard people (not social justice-adjacent people, to boot!) argue that Jensen's augmentation was wrong, because he wasn't given a choice in the matter and the augmentations were more extensive than needed, thus implying that augmented capacity in itself is not an unequivocal positive in the eyes of everybody. And, well, let's not forget the context of those augmentations either: they're not an upgrade, they've been installed to restore functionality to a thoroughly broken and non-functional body. It's hard to see them as an expression of strength in that context. YMMV, of course. As for "never runs out of energy", we've clearly been playing different games, because I distinctly remember a lot of sitting around in a cover, waiting for my single self-regenerating cell to finally finish recharging, especially in the earlier part of the game where energy bars are somewhat scarce (for inventory management reasons, if nothing else), and you don't yet have the upgrades that let you regain your energy faster. ...Cheap shot much?

Well looking at the epitome of stealth in PC games, the Thief Garret, I neither see illusory, sensitive or self reflective qualities. I think it refers to the things you're supposed to do in the game, not to the main character's personality.

I can sort of see where he's coming from, but that sounds like overanalization, especially when the game's mechanics and narrative are empathically not about "being pushed too far/retaining humanity in the face of it", but simply about being a highly professional agent or a sloppy operative. Having to resort to violence is a failure state in these games.

Wow, that's super dumb.

...As long as they know their place and don't stink up your country with their filth, right? Or am I wrong to think the stance "your freedom to determine your future for yourself extends just as far as I'm comfortable with your presence" sounds somewhat... less lofty than your original statement? That's a pretty big assumption. I mean, you seem to simultaneously hold the opinion that the existence of national and ethnic groups is a factor that reinforces communities, but holds no inherent power and has to be held up artificially by the existence of borders. That strikes me as a really weird position. (And not just because the whole idea of nations as distinct entities is a comparatively modern one, yet people managed to have functioning societies without them for millennia.) As far as I can see, national identity is either a strong enough meme to self-perpetuate even without borders, or it's meaningless in a global society and there's no point in mourning its passing. Again with the assumptions. What do you base this on? I fail to see how that would be a terrible loss. You may want to brush up on your definition of "genocide".

Neoliberalism is a filthy thing, and I find the idea of corporations trying to destabilize entire regions in the name of profit entirely plausible, but do we have actual proof of this going on here? Depends on how you define "benefit", I suppose. I do find it weird that you, a self-proclaimed libertarian, are now worried about the prospect of the erosion of the state. Aren't you supposed to be all about that? ...And this is supposed to be relevant how?

There are subtle differences hidden between the following groups of statements. Can you find them all? Group A: "Germany is purposefully trying to destabilize Europe!" "The EU is conspiring to erode people's national identities because people without a strong sense of belonging to a national community are easier to control[citation needed]!" Group B: "The EU has implemented neoliberal policies, possibly due to the influence of Germany." "The EU's track record with the integration of migrants so far has been less than stellar."

Wait what. Germany is planning on destabilizing Europe so German businesses can buy up capital and the EU can push neoliberalism as hard as possible. You missed the part with political "normalization", meaning that a federalization of the states in the EU and more centralized power. People without a strong sense of national community are more passive and will be easier to control in the power vacuum that it creates....or the leaders are simply completely clueless and we are riding the chaos-train. Both of you sound suspiciously like you're spewing tinfoil-hat nonsense, do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims? (Also, I somehow doubt Woldan meant to allude to that. I'm kinda curious about his insane conspiracy theory as well.)

Wait what.

If they actually manage to write a proper story for this one, I might even consider taking a look.

Yeah, this comparison would totally work if only the darkspawn weren't essentially orcs by any other name. As-is, though, they're anything but "an implacable force of parasitic and alien horror". They're mooks to be slaughtered.

No problem, miscommunication happens, even with the best faith assumed on part of all participants. I thank you as well in turn, for your earlier clarification that you were talking about people who are not members of this forum in your original post.

Does not the above underlined and bolded seem a little incendiary for a general observation I was making about no specific person? It absolutely would be, were my observations specifically aimed at you! However, I never said "Nonek did this particular, not very nice thing", I just mentioned that people who do that sort of thing are not very nice and that it's a very inefficient communication strategy. You know, as a general observation, made about no specific person.

Gloating isn't a very nice thing either, Bruce

Hardly? I mean, nor "blatant hatred and low opinion of everything and everyone", nor "choosing to champion criminality (what is this I can't even) and hatemongering", nor "demonising and dismissing so many people as untermensch without intrinsic worth and value" took place on the last page of discussion, unless those words now mean something completely different than they did yesterday. Well, either that, or the meaning of "point proven" has been radically redefined when I wasn't looking.

What I find quite baffling is how often the people calling for censorship and safe spaces with codes of conduct to ensure everyone act as they wish are the nastiest and most toxic of individuals, and if those laws were implemented fairly (instead of encouraging groupthink and accepted ideology) they'd be the first casualties of that regime due to their blatant hatred and low opinion of everyone and everything. One can see this by their vocabulary, what they choose to champion such as criminality and hatemongering, and how they are so keen to demonise and dismiss so many people as untermensch, without intrinsic worth or value. It's quite funny that constructive discussion now means echoing an accepted opinion, you can see why Socrates fell foul of his peers in Athens. Nonek its not very nice to call people toxic....remember "if you can't say something nice then rather don't say anything at all " Calling people "toxic" doesn't really ping my radar, but snidely passive-agressive dismissals that descend into a level of non-specificity where the point being made is completely obscured in an attempt to maintain plausible deniability are indeed not very nice. Not to mention woefully inefficient from a communication standpoint.

I've never encountered that problem, even on forums that are considered to have the most ban-happy mods ever. Can you not discuss certain topics there? Certainly. Even with that limitation, are there more discussions on that forum than it's humanly possible to participate in? Well, yes. Do you need to discuss every possible topic on a single forum? Not really. My point is, not every community needs to be everything for its members, and cries of "censorship" when someone attempts to enforce certain norms in a site they privately own are baffling. Especially since it's so easy to see what an utter cesspit a community without moderation turns into.

It's fine and good and if they're enjoying it, more power to them, but personally, I find that attitude woefully immature and it pretty much ensures I'll never visit that site. What pisses me off is when people try to sell me on the idea that offending people for the lulz (something I delighted doing when I was 16, but not since) is a universal moral imperative and how dare you want to take that unalienable right away from someone in the name of silly things like "constructive discussions" and "a friendly and welcoming community".

Let's be fair, this forum is very accepting of various opinions as long as they are formulated in a civilized way, which is something I greatly appreciate by the way. Yet I'm pretty sure the mods would not tolerate someone calling for "a good raping to sort [someone] out". So where do you draw the "censorship" line? If a forum is very accepting of opinions that can be formulated in a civilized way, but mercilessly stomps out those that can't (eg. "Hitler was right", just to go for a very obvious example), are they terrible for silencing dissenting opinions? If they're not, why are we envisioning a complete and inevitable breakdown of personal liberties at the moment someone proposes that certain forms of expression become not tolerated in a given community, when we have concrete examples of that sort of thing NOT leading to the envisioned outcome?

That's true, but not because Obsidian or MCA didn't "quite get" the Sith, it's just that they/he used the game (and Kreia in particular) as mouthpiece for his critique on Star Wars' entire take on the black and white "good vs. evil" angle it has going - which of course is much better used in a typical Bioware storyline/setting. Critique is fine and valuable, however some fans do think that KOTOR 2 is the end all be all of Star Wars storytelling, which is very wrong in my opinion. What you seem to be incapable of understanding is that the people who think KOTOR 2 is the end all be all of Star Wars storytelling are NOT "the fans". They're the people who generally dislike Star Wars. From that perspective, "not being Star Wars-y enough" is the best thing to happen to the franchise.