aluminiumtrioxid

I wanna be a kung-fu necromancer. Setting should support kung-fu necromancers. Maybe I'm not a necromancer who does kung-fu, but a guy whose kung-fu does necromancy? I'm not sure how it would look like tho. (I guess I could take inspiration from Exalted, where you can beat people to death by looking at them innocently [black Claw Style], singing at them [silver-Voiced Nightingale], or by manipulating the pattern of reality itself to turn them into a tree with retrograde amnesia [border of Kaleidoscopic Logic]).

Actually, during the recent 12x Class Mission XP event, people were going 1-55 in a matter of hours, with the record being like ~8 hours last I checked. That probably includes spacebarring through dialogues so double that number if you want to get a fair representation of the actual amount of content. Everything else are MMO time sinks designed into the game to sustain, as Althernai surmised, the subscription model. Not all non-class quests are garbage in the game, and with the skipping dialogues thing you mentioned, I think the actual number would be closer to 30 hours per class (with about half of the quests being non-specific). Assuming that one's completely ruthless in trimming content, of course.

Yes, there are... but they are buried beneath a veritable mountain of garbage. SWTOR makes me very sad because if they had taken the core content and made a single player game out of it, it had the potential to be something original and great: the logical extension of the idea from Dragon Age: Origins, with the different origins all having an entire story of their own (rather than only the introductory chapter and then a few random variations as in DA:O). Instead, they made it into an MMO and a pretty bad one at that, with all of the time-wasting nuisances that design around a subscription fee entails and a great deal of cut-and-paste (and paste and paste and paste...) content. Yes, if it had been a single player game with the crappy parts of the content and the necessary evils of the MMO format (like respawning enemies) thrown out, it would be amazing. (And still about 60-80 hours long per class.) On the other hand, the Imperial Agent storyline is shaping up to be a better spy story* than Alpha Protocol (a game for which I hold a deep and abiding love), and if I'm looking at the fact that I didn't pay a single dime for it, it's extremely good value for its price. *Which doesn't mean Alpha Protocol isn't a better spy game - another sad consequence of the game being an MMO is that the mechanics couldn't have been specific to each class, so no sneaking around and shooting everyone in the face with tranquilizer bullets

Well, Bioware's definitely in decline, but they've redeemed themselves a bit in my eyes... not with DA:I, but with TOR. Under the clunky MMO mechanics, there are some very cool stories hiding in that game.

I'd rather prefer if we did Wushu in a completely different exotic pulpy setting.

That's actually not true, since reporters can work on multiple stories. They also don't work in a vacuum, so that reporter A isn't reporting on something doesn't mean Reporter B couldn't be. Let's assume for a moment that people don't have infinite time and energy. If we're willing to accept this, it's not a huge leap of logic that despite being able to work on multiple stories, there is a finite number of stories they can work on at any given time. Therefore, assuming a maximum workload - which can be expected, given how astonishingly ****tily games journalists are paid, and the fact that bills usually don't just magically go away -, choosing to report on a given story does mean that a different story won't make it. But this is actuall orthogonal to the point I was making, which is "assuming that all opinions are equally valid and worthy of being heard is dangerous, especially when one concludes that because of this, privately owned entities are somehow morally obliged to give platform to inane bull****, even at the cost of covering other, perhaps worthier subjects". There's an assumption in what he says that a test assumes something that it doesn't speak. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to create anything - well, anything with words in it, at the very least - without some amount of cultural context seeping into it. It might not be intentional on the part of the creator, but the author is dead, and has been dead for the better part of a century or so. I could be wrong, but I don't remember Roger Ebert advocating that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed. I remember (or misremember) reading something from Pauline Kael indicating she wished certain people would stop making movies, but I don't necessarily remember her specifically saying that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed. Could be wrong, of course, but my readings of both (unlike some games journalists) were that they were advocates for better films by promoting what they wanted to see and being critical of the things they didn't. They didn't go out and try to stop a film being distributed or made. And I think that's the key difference - a lot of the game buying public (rightly or wrongly) are of the opinion that there are some game journalists who only want games made that they approve of (which is why we are where we are). Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered.

What a nice post.

That's a commendable attitude. Everybody's a feminist who says they are. (Consequently, 90% of feminism is utter rubbish, because people in general are pretty dumb, and the sole criterion (is this the singular of criteria?) of "apply label to yourself" doesn't exactly ensure that the intelligence distribution will be skewed towards the higher echelons in the subpopulation.) But unless you can tell us how exactly she lectured you on privilege, this anecdote remains quite useless.

As you so kindly told me. In the words of Chrys Ingraham: "As Althusser has argued, 'A word or concept cannot be considered in isolation; it only exists in the theoretical or ideological framework in which it is used: its problematic' (1982:253). To determine a text's problematic is to reveal another logic circulating beneath the surface. It appears as the answer to questions left unasked. It is not that which is left unsaid or unaccounted for, but that which the text assumes and does not speak. What is required, then, is a process of analysis capable of inquiring into the power relations organizing the allowed as well as the disallowed meanings in an effort to expose the artificiality of the theories and ideologies organizing the use of particular concepts." Well, that wasn't very helpful, was it? (The fact that it used "problematic" as a noun probably didn't help matters much.) Truth be told, "problematic" isn't a word that gets defined very often in feminist discussions. Thankfully, we're not here to define it; we're here to determine how feminists approach problematic media. Here's how. It's full of horrible, intolerant stuff worthy of book-burning anti-intellectuals like "think critically about it", "consider the history and context of the media" and the worst of all, "you’re not a bad person for liking something that is problematic". (Brought to you by about 5 minutes of googling, just so you know that this isn't some extra-special Secret Feminist Teaching they only share with those deemed most worthy.) Edit: oh wait, I've mentally switched the two quotes. You weren't asking what feminists mean by it, you were stating that "they mean it must be scoured from the face of the earth is evident by listening to any feminist". Sadly, if this is what you take away from it, you're not stopping and listening as I've said, you're just taking the words and twist them according to your own bias. Have you tried, you know, just asking them what they mean by "problematic", instead of trying to infer from stuff they say (and which you probably don't understand)?

No... When they call a thing problematic they mean it spreads negative ideas and shapes minds. Thus people are too stupid to as rational adults not draw the wrong conclusion. That you need your chosen entertainment environment to moralize at you as if you are not mature enough to not require guidance. [citation needed] Edit: I mean, I'll hazard the guess that maybe, just maybe, I - being a person who regularly talks with feminists and doesn't dismiss their every idea right out of the gate - might know more about what they mean when they're saying certain things. Edit edit: I mean, you're technically right - the first two sentences of your post, at least -, but missing vital context. Small things, like every significant advance in the field of cognitive sciences in the last five decades or so.

This bears repeating. I know of exactly zero historical empires that haven't been built on atrocities.

No, whenever they're calling something "problematic" they generally mean a very specific thing that doesn't reflect on anyone or anything but the actual thing in question. Which you'd already know if you ever stopped for a minute to listen to any feminist ever. As for the "deciding which opinions are ok to be heard" part, I don't think it's a difficult concept to grasp that whenever a journalist chooses to report on something, they're simultaneously not reporting on something else. Let's assume you're a subscriber of a news source: would you prefer to hear about [insert big-profile game that interests you and a lot of other people], or some dude whose ideas might or might not be completely inane (but based on the fact that he was blacklisted, I'm leaning towards the latter)? People generally don't get successfully blacklisted solely for being obnoxious jerkwads, they also have to be obnoxious jerkwads without anything useful to offer in order for it to stick. For a tabletop example, see the difference between Zak Smith (a dude who's generally seen as the devil in socially conscious geeky circles - undeservedly so, in my opinion -, but has consistently delivered imaginative, powerful and great content) and James Desborough (whose biggest contribution to tabletop gaming - discounting "being a misogynist jerk" - is a tentacle porn card game). As I said earlier, Steam is not your friendly neighbourhood mom & pop-store, it is THE store. Therefore they're not allowed to have an opinion on a game because...?

You get to blame people with having poor ethics and being biased for no-platforming someone when you have actual proof that the person from whom they've denied a platform had more worthy ideas than the person whose ideas they decided to publish instead. Not before. Herein lies the core of our disagreement, doesn't it? I think a store deciding to not sell a game only reflects on what said store wants to do with it and how they feel about it. I don't think my viewpoint is an especially illogical one.

This has nothing to do with tradition but with it's historical usefulness.Modern application of torture goes all the way back to Algerian civil war when it was very effectively applied by French paratroopers. "It's been historically useful (in a different set of circumstances, which have changed since)" is pretty much what I meant by "tradition". As I've said, torture is a useful tool for a limited set of purposes. (I also firmly believe that the utility gained by holding ourselves to standards where torture is not an option outweighs its usefulness, but that's a different matter entirely.)

And who the hell appointed them the arbiters of worthy opinions vs. unworthy? Regardless they are not a platform, they are multiple platforms and should not be colluding on a common narrative. They're all privately owned platforms who decide to do whatever they goddamn well they please with their own resources. I fully support your right to not give them your patronage, but also their right to do as they wish with their own property. This is how capitalism works. Mr. McIntosh has severe problems with judging the game based on a single trailer and no other info available, but the sentiment that profiting from the sales of an unethical product is itself unethical is not an unreasonable one, I think. "Not communicating" is impossible, after all. Everything sends a message.

Tradition is a powerful force. And, as I've said, torture is useful for confirming the info you've gained from other sources. Just like violence, it's a powerful tool with a very limited application, and severely underperforms when used in an inappropriate manner.

Research has repeatedly shown that the people who generally have the most confidence in their ability to tell truth from lies perform the worst in tests where they're asked to assess a person's honesty. It might be possible that their hypothesised "superior ability to suss out fact from fiction" only works in a waterboarding-related environment, but I somehow have my doubts about that. As far as I know, torture is only useful for confirming intel you already have.

While I find exactly this mindset unethical and dangerous. Not all opinions are created equal, and claiming that a person's ideas are worthy of receiving a platform without knowing what those ideas are might not necessarily be wise. Based on his arguments, I'm thinking that he believes that games are inherently a poor platform for social criticism? Essentially the idea would be that a game can't critique violence if its violent gameplay is fun. Since you can't have a game that has "unfun" central mechanics, the only way to criticise violence would be to make violent action inherently unfun in the game. He doesn't believe games must be fun, therefore you totally could have a game where unfun violence is the central mechanic. I happen to agree with him. I also happen to think that he's full of ****; MGR: Revengeance, f'rex, succeeded perfectly in delivering its - for that matter, rather heavy-handed and simplistic - anti-violent (or, at least, anti-war) message while having a superbly entertaining combat system. I'd even dare to say the game's message was enhanced by how entertaining the combat was. That's pretty clever, but I'm not sure those who'd appreciate - or are likely to notice, even - that sort of message are the sort of people who'd buy the game based on its trailer.

What a horribly shallow article. Still, I've gotta admire the impressive mental gymnastics that's necessary to see "this is the cause behind the collapse of western civilisation!" into it.

Is the slippery slope argument, if they are not allowed to speak because it bothers us then will be allowed to speak when it bothers someone? I don't know how you managed to take away "it bothers me, therefore they shouldn't speak" from "I'm not one for censorship" and "given that it's pure garbage that would fail on its merits, banning it isn't even necessary".

Ah! In that case, we should maybe open a different topic for discussing general publisher unpleasantness? I'm genuinely interested in the experiences you spoke of earlier. In all fairness, though, I felt physically ill watching the gameplay trailer about gunning down unarmed civilians desperately begging for their life, and wouldn't really fault anyone for assuming a game with the slogan "My Genocide Crusade Begins Here" was developed by neo-nazis. I'm not one for censorship (letting the scum of the earth freely speak their minds offers an easier opportunity to keep an eye on them, after all), but I wouldn't really think anything of value would be lost by taking it down. (Then again, why take it down when it can be left to fail on its own merits - or rather, lack thereof?)

...I didn't contest your statement, I contested the attitude of putting too much emphasis on the media side of the equation. Which is very prevalent in this topic. And in the interest of constructive conversation, I'll now swallow back the snarky comment I wanted to add, and ask "What would you have the Moral Guardians do?" instead.

[emphasis mine] The publishers are not the subject of your post, I am and the other people here are. If that was not your intention as you claim in hindsight then the mistake is entirely yours for saying the wrong thing. I'm very much interested in talking about how crap video game (and other media) publishers are (and they are, even as a low level indie dev my experiences with publishers and PR agents has been nothing but torture and the way they respond to media hype, buzz and criticism is a major part of that), but that was not what the conversation was about. I don't think it's an attack to point out how it's strange (a pretty values-neutral word as far as I'm aware) to talk in length about how the SJ agenda is at fault for publishers firing people if they draw the ire of people espousing said agenda while only tangentially mentioning the part the publishers - the people actually doing the firing - play in the thing.

You: The SJ agenda has, ironically - and sadly - resulted in less minority representation in games. Bruce: Could you explain this, please? You: The decision-makers are afraid that they'll lose their jobs if they screw up representing minorities, and therefore rather cut minorities out of the games than risk that. Me: Man, publishers are kinda ****. Maybe we should talk about that. You: You are misrepresenting me! Me: *blink blink* ...okay... Seriously though, I can't believe nobody noticed how the evil Moral Guardians could easily be foiled by appointing a very visible minority project lead to... well, act as a project lead in a game with visible minorities, given that said Moral Guardians would look utterly ridiculous if they - largely white males - started to criticize how a member of a minority chooses to represent members of their own minority. If there is will, there is a way; problem is, in the current landscape, there is usually no will.

Well, duh, when most of you hold the same utterly ridiculous views, it's hard not to generalize. If the thread contained even a single post about how every single decision contributing to the utter creative bankruptcy we're seeing was made by the publishers, not the games journalists everybody's so busy blaming for all the ills of the gaming industry, maybe I wouldn't feel like assuming most people posting here are not blaming the publishers who do everything in their power to stifle creativity, as opposed to the gaming journalists who... well... called gamers bad names, I guess? I'm willing to believe you meant to do that, but it came across more like "but really, it's the fault of the SJWs". The fact that you wrote the whole post to explain why you think "the SJ agenda has caused games to have less minority characters overall" might have to do something with that impression.