aluminiumtrioxid

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.

...Duh? I mean, that's the thematic statement the entire game makes.

I'm entertaining the thought of GMing an Alpha Legion-centered Black Crusade game at some point in the future. Think any of those could be useful as an inspiration for that?

Frankly, what I've seen of Abnett so far has convinced me that the man is painfully mediocre. Especially when you're comparing his work to the insane fever dreams of Watson. On the other hand, I've heard from people who make complaining an Olympic event that the Ravenor series is actually kind of entertaining. So I'm kinda curious. Any recs? I'm also getting through China Miéville's Kraken, which is rather tame by the man's standards so far, but still has its moments from time to time.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall Censorship is never a solution and is more often abused to silence dissenting opinion than for anything worthwhile. Ignoring people only takes a bit of willpower and then there are always technical solutions. I can hardly imagine that sort of rhetoric fly on this particular forum either, yet somehow we're not screaming about Obsidian's fondness for censorship and silencing dissenting opinions...

So, work's been a bit hectic this week, and I didn't really have time to prep for our next session. Which will therefore be postponed until next week. If someone else wants to GM in the meantime, I'm game.

I liked the exploration in New Vegas. It actually felt like a post-apocalyptic desolation.

The article ignores quite a few games (due to its focus on E3) and quite a few factors (like a shift towards the kind of games traditionally marketed to boys having female protagonists), hence my remaining unconvinced. Since, due to not following any gaming news sites, I have no idea what's the difference between the reporting on E3 2014 and 2015, the core argument of the article rang hollow to me.

Yet nobody kicked up a stink when people exclaimed on the Pillars subforum that the existence of guns in their fantasy is a dealbreaker. Why is being upset over having/not having guns in a fantasy game in any way a more valid preference than being upset over having/not having the option to freely choose your character's skin tone? I mean, both of them can be seen as silly on some level, yet only one of those complaints triggers a wave of harrassment in response.

The word I'd use to characterize his opportunistic self-induction into gamerdom is "spineless", but not being a polemicist, I allow for different interpretations to be held by others as valid, so...

But who said developers should be bound by such restrictions? A brief timeline of the events as far as I understand them: - A blogger who goes by the moniker of "MedievalPOC" is asked the question whether it's reasonable for a game set in medieval Bohemia to feature people of color. He responds by a lot of tangentially related art history and scholarly works about the demographic makeup of various central european countries between the 8th and 15th centuries, concluding that historical accuracy allows for, but does not necessitate the inclusion of non-white people in a game set in medieval Europe, making said lack of inclusion an artistic choice on part of the developer. He also snarks a bit about how - in the developers' words - “the ultimate character customization tool ever invented” includes zero customization options beyond "caucasian male". The word "racism" or "sexism" appears nowhere in the post. - Somehow, down the line, "allows for the inclusion of various groups of people of color" - like Romani or Cuman people - gets distorted into "there's evidence of the existence of a major black population in medieval Bohemia". Related harrassment ensues, for some reason. - Kingdom Come: Deliverance gets 1 million dollars' worth of funding, strongly implying that the "controversy" - if it can even be called that - hasn't really impacted the influx of kickstarter money in any meaningfully negative fashion. Also worth noting: the blogger in question voiced no desire to see anything changed in the final product. This, of course, has not stopped Daniel Vavra from claiming there was "a witch hunt" against him, which is "affecting [his] artistic freedom" (even though, by his own admission in the very same interview, he is "not going to change [anything] because of outside pressure"). So far, I've seen no evidence of such. - Despite the aforementioned facts, Vavra is still treated like the victim here, whose artistic freedom is being infringed upon; moreover, anybody mentioning that the possibility exists for historically accurate games set in medieval Europe that feature people of color is immediately assumed to want to restrict developers to such depictions.

That was kind of the point of the original complaint, though. You could totally make a realistic medieval game set in Central Europe which features people of color. That they chose to focus on a specific locale and time period where people of color were not present is an artistic choice. Therefore "can't, because Historical Accuracy!" rings hollow as a defense.

Not really. I remain unconvinced.

Art historians seem to disagree. Although, to be fair, that's from a different period than the one the game is set in, I think? Keep in mind that history isn't one of my strong suits, but couldn't the very same thing be said of male protagonists as well?

Well it's not like it matters much; even if there were ethnic minorities (isn't that... kind of meaningless in a medieval context, by the way?) in medieval Bohemia, the creator's free to say "well this game only covers an area of 9 square kilometers*, it's entirely plausible that there are none in this specific area". *I think?

Sure, but that works both ways- if it's low on the priority list to complain about having a black or female protagonist because it doesn't effect how the game plays then surely it is low on the priority list to complain about not having a black or female protagonist because that doesn't effect how the game plays either. On the other hand, I can kind of empathize with the desire to be represented a bit more, because games with a fixed black or female protagonist are kinda rare. (Although, to be fair, there seems to be an explosion of female protagonists lately. Dishonored 2, Horizon Zero Dawn, Hellblade. Progress?) Isn't it, though?

Nice use of argumentum ad populum. Also funny how he's railing against the idea of skippable combat while praising Planescape for having its "writing, characters and storyline overshadow the gameplay to such an extent that combat ceases to be the primary focus of the game". Then again, expecting internal consistency from a guy who's perfectly happy ****ting on gamers when it's convenient, then switching sides in a heartbeat when the wind blows from the other direction was never very realistic.

That was exactly the thread that caused me to permanently tune out from your crusade. In all fairness, that's exactly the sort of carceral feminism even other feminists point and laugh at.

...Then why bring up the subject if it's not directly relevant to the discussion at hand?

Why indeed? Away with them, I say! Away! ...Oh, um, wait a sec. Who was advocating for those things in this discussion?

...That's really not how satire aimed at particular styles of expression works. Has it never occurred to you that when you're specifically trying to satirize word usage, emulating said word usage "well enough, in terms of general direction" is just not gonna cut it, because it's the very thing you're trying to get right? Also: "Hah... NERD" is a great way to end a debate on the playground, but it kind of loses much of its impact when discussing things on a video gaming forum

Its weird my girlfriend called me condescending...in fact I have been called that by people before. I don't think its true ? What do you think ? Well I dunno, congratulating someone on knowing the word "tautology" does strike me as a bit... patronizing I did not know the other four though, so who knows, maybe my knowledge of the English language is limited enough to count "knowing the word 'tautology'" as an achievement...

I do have a problem with the risk-averse big-budget model; it's been stifling creativity in the medium since its inception. That's not a good thing, and it won't magically turn into a good thing just because we now have the tools to circumvent it. (Also, while I don't consider myself to be an expert on movie history, didn't Hollywood operate on a similar principle until the... I think seventies? when the bubble suddenly burst and studios were forced to return to low-to-mid-budget productions with a strong authorial vision?) In any case, it's not the existence of big-budget games that irks me, it's the public perception of "gamers" as people who consume those big-budget games exclusively (and to the exclusion of all other activities).

Ugh, those people are the worst.