Elerond

But even so, if you're a manager and you have a man and a woman applying for the same job, with the same credentials. You as the manager isn't going to hire the woman who gets paid less? You're the manager, you need to keep costs down. You would hire the woman for less pay. That is complicated question. If you as manager see man more qualified in job because of preconceived notions that you aren't even aware then you hire man, but if you don't have those notions and see them both as qualified to job you will hire the woman, who asked less pay because of some factors that make her to value her time less than that man. Both options are things that happen in real life and because of first option I have gotten job instead of more qualified woman (at least on paper, who is my friend, which is reason why I know how much she asked and what her qualifications are compared to mine) even though I asked 600€ more per month.

I want to see those statistics. There's a lot of talk about it, but I've yet to hear about actual examples, only "hear-says". I work in a software company and most of the staff is women. They get paid just as much. Heck, every woman I know in various other companies and jobs and talked about it, never complained that their wages were lower. There are always differences between employes, but there are many factors to that - overtime, bonuses, work quotas, etc, etc.. You can look them up by searching studies about salary differences. I will not quote any specific numbers because they will change depending on what has been studied and how study has been concluded. But there is hundreds of studies done by subject and which politicians choose ones that seem to best support their views about matter. There are probably studies that support you view of things, so you can choose to believe them if you will, but when statics show that one gender in general gets less salary than other, then I would say that overtime, bonuses, work quotas, etc. etc. don't work as only explanation why it is so, but as I said salary differences don't necessary are results from employers actions/malice/prejudice/etc. but factors caused by general society (like women ask less pay, because of some factor, men do overtime more because of some factor, men are perceived more qualified/better workers because of some factors, etc.). But I will say that when statistics from source to source show that one gender gets paid less than other then I would say that there are some other factors in play than your typical work compensation factors alone, but I also think that most if not all of these other factors originate outside of employers. Here is EU's general report about subject, which references several studies about subject. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/140319_gpg_en.pdf

Yup

It is not something that companies do intentionally out of malice, but that happens because of much more obscure factors, which is why fixing it is difficult and time consuming process. Especially when many of those factors originate from things in general social consensus and what kind views people have grown with. For example companies often think that they treat men and women equally but their own statistics often show that women with same qualifications than men get offered smaller starting salary, which many women take as face value as they in anonymous inquiries about subject often value their time less than men, and often you can also find that men get more often and bigger raises than women, but it is also shown that women typically ask less and smaller raises than men. Where we come back to that point where I said that difference in salary isn't necessary because of malice/sexism/etc. from company but because of our societies views about subject and how we raise and educate our children and how our culture influences (like people not even believing in the subject or making light about subject) them. And it also should be remembered that people work 40-60 years of their life so salary statistics are still influenced by politics of 1940s and 1950s, which make subject even more complicate to analyse and to find solution (which all the members of society don't even want to do in the first place).

I am always so happy to read twitter in these days Terrorist threats against Utah State University because they have Anita Sarkeesian as quest speaker in some of their events. Article writer of course remembers to link that threat to GamerGate. http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/10/14/Utah-State-University-student-threatens-act-of-terror-if-feminist.html TotalBiscuit has recover somewhat from his cancer treatments has come back to give defensive voice for gamergate. Washington Post gives their try to explain what GamerGate is and it don't draw very pretty picture http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/

Although I have seen little to none evidence that Grayson gave any coverage for developer in question after their possible sexual relationship, so looking from that point of view there was really no need him to recuse himself or disclose such relationship. But any way in this point of time I feel that that particular case is worst hindrance that GamerGate has, because of way people decided to attack developer in question first and only afterwards start to rise questions about journalist in the question. It becomes in my opinion very problematic thing especially because those attacks against said developer were the tinder for article series in multiple publications that are know as "Gamers are Dead" articles which GamerGate uses to fuel their movement. Which in my opinion creates problematic basis for the movement and gives door for the people to criticize the movement and accuses them for things like women hating and sexism. And movement also isn't helped by fact that one of it loudest voices comes from journalist that writes in publication that has at least previously shown heavy anti-gamer mentality and holds opinions against woman rights movements. And said journalist has written several articles that are seen attacks against sexual minorities. In my opinion GamerGate need to do better PR (produce articles and videos that can't perceived as attacks or angry rants or conspiracy theories. Produce articles and videos that condemn attacks and don't try to defend them by saying that there are attacks in both sides [because GamerGate is social and political movement and there is no oppose side for it, only people that criticize it for one reason or another, but they don't form opposite movement that tries to compete with it] ), find better mouth pieces for their movement and I would also say they should focus their message better (meaning to specify what they mean with corruption in (gaming) journalism and start to give propositions of possible solutions). Because in current form it seems to only accomplish to mud public opinions about gamers and gaming at general.

Morning update from twitter Here article from Social Researcher who analyses in the article why "#Gamergate, as we know it now, is a hate group." http://jezebel.com/gamergate-trolls-arent-ethics-crusaders-theyre-a-hate-1644984010 Blog post from Brianna Wo where she talks how she fear that "current hostile environment could be the new normal" and how she tried to talk with Milo Yiannopoulos about it in interview and why that didn't worked out. She also reveals that she used to be avid Fox News watcher. http://spacekatgal.tumblr.com/post/99950527903/changing-the-new-normal

Me personally probably not, but it can cause parents to forbid their children to come and play with others. It happened in past and I would prefer if it will not happen again, because I think that it is quite unfair towards 6-17 year old kids if they can't go local gaming clubs because their parents think that we will corrupt their children.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gamergate-death-threats-2014-10 It start to feel that we have come back to time when gaming wasn't so socially acceptable hobby that it has been past decade. And I start to wonder when we start to again get concerned parents to our gaming club that think that we are Satan worshipers.

It depend what is meant with degenerate If degenerate is used in context where Josh for example uses it, ergo to mean ability to do things that designers didn't mean players to be able to do or rewarding player's for behavior that designers didn't meant to be rewardable in the game, then I can understand why they don't want to make same design decisions again in their new game. But of course I am not fan of problems where there is only one way to solve them, like content that can be accessed only one way. And I am not also fan of lockpick ability that works as way to get extra income for the party, even if lock-pick skill is not locked only for certain classes, because I feel that is bit lazy design decision. So I don't think that PoE's skill system is best or even necessary good one, as it is is quite simplistic. Stealth is most interesting of the skill, but that is because it's only active skill. Mechanics currently gives player extra money and can save some health in maps where there are traps, but mechanics probably will become more interesting when player gets ability to laid traps. Lore gives you more information about enemies, but that itself in my opinion is not enough to make it interesting skill, but it seems to be most useful skill in conversations, but I am not fan how it seem to become skill that gives characters faster xp gain by fulfilling bestiaries faster. I don't like that main point behind athletics is to make adventure days longer by increasing time that character can travel before they get fatigue statuses. Survival makes consumables more interesting choice to use, which make it probably most interesting skill after stealth and mechanics (given that using traps is as interesting as I hope) . Of course each skill has their uses in interaction events and conversations, which can make them more interesting in full game than what they are in beta, but I think that when number of skills is as limited as it is they all should bigger role in the game and preferably active functions addition/instead of passive buffs.

That is trivial. In every game even against the computer, you have to make better choices than your opponent. However, improving build/skill is more analogous to which playstyle is more effective. This is what I think you were referring to earlier when you said: Well. Let us take some relevant examples here. I apologize that I can't find the exact quotes: There have been some posts by Josh saying that players exploit save/reload for better results on RNG. Now, that is funny, isn't it? I never did. I am sure many did not. The point is that it shouldn't matter what players do. The job for the developer is to only ensure that the RNG is not too skewed. Same goes for bad class choices. As long as the game carefully explains that a Cleric is a wisdom based class, it does not really have to make "make all stats useful for all classes". Is it too wrong to ask, that no changes in the core mechanics are necessary to just accommodate that? Another relevant example: You do know that we can't break down doors/Chests right? Do you know the reason? It is so because that would make the lockpicking skill apparently useless. Now does that even make sense to you? It doesn't to me. Meaningful don't mean equal, but that choice is meaningful. I am not sure if Josh has said something specially about RNG in skill use and using save/load to win always in those situations, but I know that Josh has said that if he gives player ability to do something in game and it negates challenge that he has created to game then it's his mistake and he will try to avoid such situations at best of his abilities, which means for example that he don't use RNG in skill checks in his designs. I don't have any same to confess that I am one of those players that use save/load to win RNG checks when I can do so in the games, because it is just most efficient way to play and I still can find game fun even when I do so, but I don't lament (anymore I have in past) if developers decide to use different solution in their skill checks. Not be able to break doors don't make sense to me in immersion wise, but as way to create challenge, give more meaning for certain skills/builds or because it just causes too much work compared to advances that it would bring in gameplay (reasons in list are hypothetical examples to help me explain my views about subject) I can understand why they didn't include it in the game and even I would miss ability to bash doors, chest and other things it's not something that breaks or makes game for me. I also miss ability to pick pocket people and non-combat spells, and many other things that game will not have, but even I think that they would make game better to me I accept developers explanation that they didn't fit in scope of the game.

Such attitudes sadly seems to be quite common For example when you read new about how police shot unarmed man, who has criminal record or who was suspected of petty crime, you will find comment section of that news article full of people that will tell you that police actions were not only acceptable but recommendable things to do and that man had it coming and world is better place with out him.

Chess does not satisfy this for example. All options (besides black and white) are not equal. Some strategies are inherently better. That is why people have pretty small set of starting moves. Now that is non-trivially analogous to choosing feats/classes/skills. The point is that not all builds in RPGs are going to be equally effective or at least that is going to really really hard to do. Now, it is an entirely different question whether this is a meaningful goal. I personally think it is not. 1) firstly, why the heck does the developer care how I play? He has no business doing that. His job is to make enjoyable, deep and tactically complex combat system. Give me more options! That is what I want from the dev. By trying to "ultra" balance, he is basically ruining the depth as the focus moves from giving me options to making equally effective but restricted builds. Let me choose how I play! 2) This is a point I have been trying to make since ages: That builds are not useless. The implementation of the content is. let us say that there is a skill called "Decipher script" in one of the iterations of the game. Let us say that there is a particular game developer that decides that this skill was useless in an older iteration. How do they deal with it? a) They add content to match the skill so that it is useful now. b) They remove the skill. I think that is the point: If you really feel that certain builds are hampered due to useless stuff they do, then for christ's sake ADD THAT STUFF as a relevant thing in the game instead of removing the skill! 3) I can't speak for others, but finding out which character builds are OP is something I enjoy, There is actual fun in discovering what you can do better with ever build. Min/Maxing is a game all by itself. Chess has depending situation better and poorer choices, but any of those choice aren't less valid by as themselves. Like for example you can't say that moving queen is always better option than moving soldier. Chess' challenge is to make better choices than your opponent. 1) Developer don't give damn how you play but what ways to play they have given you and are some of those ways against of their vision of the game and challenge that they want game to offer for the player. As game rules aren't meant to be comply with players' play styles but set boundaries in which players try to find right way to play withing those rules. I would compare person complaining that game don't accommodate certain play style to that draughts player complains that that they can't use same play style in chess than what they used in draughts. 2. I would say add, delete or modify stuff accordingly what you think will result best end result, there is no reason to save old things or way to do things just to save them if you get better results with new thing or way to do things. And some times can make things better just by removing bad apples from the pie. 3. It may be fun to find most OP build, but it also may be very frustrating when build that you made don't let you to complete the game. Making sure that every build that you can come up in character creation is viable removes that risk that player finds themselves in situation where they need to rest start the game because choices that they made in character creation prevents them to completing the game or makes playing the game frustrating experience. Making are build viable don't mean that there isn't best build, but that there change that there is multiple as best builds, but that work in different roles or styles of play.

Yeah. Constantine's supposed to be a con-man, trickster and probability warper, not an exorcist. Edit: also, there's the issue of making him straight and non-smoking because REASONS. I've only read the early Jamie Delano run of HELLBLAZER, along with a few sprinklings of Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore. He seemed to like women just fine. In my understanding Constantine is bisexual in comics as he sometimes has sexual relationships with men. Although all his serious relationships has been with women.

Some games are easy to balance. Like for example symmetric games like chess, draughts (checkers) and nine men's morris, where biggest problem is to make sure that any players don't get advance because of turn order. But of course balancing becomes more difficult when game is asymmetric and has much more complex set of rules and much larger scope. But even if balancing such games is much more difficult task to do, it don't mean that developers should not be concerned about balance and try achieve it as well as they can.

Not allowing experience grinding is not a bad design philosophy. Experience grinding is not a way of playing, it's a progression mechanic. If killing everything is what you love to do (this is a way of playing), just kill everything the game allow you to do it, they haven't removed that option. Obsidian decided against experience grinding because that's not the kind of progression mechanic they wanted to have in the game. Not letting people play the way they like IS bad design philosophy. If people like experience grinding, let them, unless there is a good reason not to do it. Balance? So what if balance goes out of the window? It is my game and sometimes i dont like it to be balanced, but to become a juggernaut. Come on, i am sure many of you who talk about experience grinding have done the same in many games. It is just another way of playing. Sometimes i feel like roleplaying, and sometimes i simply like metagaming in every possible way. Why giving away one of the options when you can have both is beyind me. Limiting player's ability to do things is not bad design, but whole idea behind games, where you take setting which scope is limited and players actions are governed by set of rules and usually players need to over come some challenges which these limitations create. Balance in game design means that when you give player option to do things in multiple ways they all should be meaningful because otherwise those choices become only decorative things that don't offer player actually meaningful choices for the player. For example if one choice is just much several time more effective than any other choices that game offer, then only reasons why player would not pick much more effective choice is to create more challenge for themselves or they don't yet know that one choice is much more better than others.

Term that we probably should use for experience points is something like "game progression points" when we speak from game design point of view, because that is the actually role for those points in the game. Meaning that XP points don't actually track how experienced players character/s are, but instead they work as way to track how much player has progressed in the game that don't have linear progression path, so that players can give access more and different game mechanics gradually to keep game interesting and it also gives developers/GM ability to adapt gameplay challenges so that those new mechanics don't remove the challenge from the game. Reason why game progression points are called experience points or something similar is because of that those terms are usually used to hide/obscure gamely nature of those points and make them feel more part of the story/aesthetics of the game.

What tweet did he refer to and what article is he talking about? Tweet that he is referring to is that "Oh and **** that Escapist article giving a platform to madmen" Tweets in picture are ordered chronologically so that oldest is on top and newest is on bottom. I changed it so that it would be easier to read. I am not sure which article he refers as he didn't tweet any links, but I would have to guess it is this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12383-Game-Developer-GamerGate-Interviews-Shed-Light-on-Women-in-Games , because of madmen reference. EDIT: I just realized that picture of Jim's tweets has uncensored profanity in them, which is against this forums guidelines which is reason why I removed it from this post. And why I will also remove picture from source as it seem that service don't let me to edit it without changing url.

Guardian's article has tone that gives clear impression that it is against GamerGate, but it don't, at least directly, demand one to be against GamerGate, but article implies that for those people that support GamerGate there is no neutral stance because for them people that aren't for GamerGate are against it. This is given that this is article that you refer http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance Quote is last sentence in the article.

And who made this decision? The Patriarchy? A huge free market. Thousands of competing game designers and you're telling me no looked into exploiting a market that is ripe for the taking because it is not occupied by anyone else. They all got together and said "nope"? Marketing departments of big publishers, especially Nintendo during video game crash. Video Game houses were fighting for existence because of mishandled business so they focused scope which they targeted their advertisement, by focusing marketing games as toys for boys, from where it is has grown to target ads for teen age boys and then young adults. But now video game industry struggles again as it wants to grow and has started to approach wider markets, which has lead to criticism from those new market segments that feel that they aren't catered as well as those market segments that gaming industry focused for 20 yeas. So it was free market that decided that games will focused on boys at least in marketing and then it was again free market that decided that it wants to lure new people in gaming, but as you can't erase past that decision meant that there will be criticism at least for while when gaming industry refocuses itself so that it can cater its now larger audience more equally. Although because general social structures and how societies work such rebalancing/refocusing can take decades as we have seen in film industry. And there will never be point when there will not be criticism.

Twitter update of the day Here blog post that laments about harassment and disbelief that harassment happened from GG identified crowd from somebody who's tweet including link to that blog got retweeted by people that I follow in twitter http://botherer.org/2014/10/13/sigh/ Jim Sterling has more to say about how he perceives GG. Adam Heine, lead designer of Torment Tides of Numenera, don't seem to be convinced about principalities and purpose behind GamerGate https://twitter.com/adamheine/status/521534238886072321

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate Her views paraphrased by me "I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women" "I want developer's to use more active female protagonists" "I want more games that don't focus so much on violence" "I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy" "I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes" Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. The issue comes about in two seperate ways: 1) Anita CAN be radical. Find a video she did on sexist Christmas songs. Have fun with it. 2) Anita lies. Check how she misrepresents Fallout New Vegas (and others) in her women as backround decoration video. Those two combined, you actually start to wonder if there aren't ulterior motives, moreso with the second one than the first. Either she's soooo radical she pulls ridiculous claims out of thin air here and there (unlikely, as other times she IS quite reasonable), or the girl honestly is just trying to profit off of this situation she's found herself in, leading to profit > truth and thus she'll do misleading or half-assed pieces to gain profit. 1) I fail find out what is radical in it? It seems only be continuum to her other work to point out what pieces of media she finds to be sexists. Her reasonings for why songs are in list may be somewhat ridiculous, but I don't see anything radical in the video. She don't demand that these songs should be censored, or that people should take actions against them, but instead she ask to hear songs that she likes, which maybe somewhat silly, but not anyway radical thing to ask. 2) Lying is not radical, it is just at least morally gray way to get people that aren't very interested about subject to support your point of view. Most of people use lying at least some point of their life to get/try to get what they want. Lying don't make person radical or their opinion radical it just shows that their morals aren't necessary as high as they maybe should be. People making profit when life gives opportunity do so I one of the standing principals of capitalism and general thinking of western societies. But for me she seem to do remarkable job not make profit even though she has amble opportunity to do so, but that maybe because she isn't financially adept instead of moral or ideological standings. But anyway may point was that Anita is quite moderate in her public views, as she don't try to cause public uprising, or get things censored or made forbidden by law. Most radical thing is that she wants media products that at least currently have somewhat lacking offering in markets. But if such thing make person radical, then I am and large bunch of this forums users are radical as we wanted products that mass markets didn't produce and funded at least one of such product in Kickstarter. So I will not say that person that don't at least like some aspects of products that mass markets currently offer to be radical even if aspects that she don't like aren't same aspects that I don't like or even like in those products. And way she express her dislike towards those aspects is very moderate compared to way many of us in these forums express our dislike towards products/aspects of products that we don't like. So in short I disagree with Anita's views lot, but I don't think that she is radical anyway that I know. 1) She referred to "I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus" as sexist because it "portrays all women as promiscuous cheaters." wat I mean really. I cannot "wat" hard enough. That combines a blatant misunderstanding of the song's meaning with a ridiculous hyperbole, mixed with a touch of not recognizing history and that Santa Claus stems from Saint Nicholas, who was infact a man. How she could take a song that's essentially about how dumb and adorably naive kids are and twist it into some propaganda song that portrays ALL WOMEN IN THE HISTORY OF FOREVER as dishonest cheaters is beyond me. 2) You're basically justifying her dishonesty by saying "everybody lies." That's terrible justification and by that same logic, we are all justified in commiting crimes and atrocities because others have done it too. No, misleading info is misleading. She's purposefully or negligently (probably via laziness) misleading people to be up in arms about a game that did absolutely nothing wrong and is by no means guilty of the very things she's claiming it's guilty of. Just because she's not leading the charge and personally making a call-to-arms to censor games or something does not mean she's not a contributor. What she occassionally does ("occassionally" because as we've both said, at times her stuff is more reasonable) is basically incite outbursts from people by portraying things far worse than they actually are. That kind of stuff does NOT help people calm down and...yknow, be reasonable. I've not said she's radical; that was a word you brought up (or someone else did and I missed it, I don't know), and no I do not care what label you or others wish to give her. The only label I wish to apply is "problem," regardless of whether she's a problem because she's called a radical feminist, because she's called a member of ISIS or any other claims people might make about her. I only care that the woman has shown she can make ridiculous and exaggerated claims while providing misleading and half-assed information to the public in order to further her agenda. No, I don't cut politicians or CEOs any slack when they utilize such tactics, so I'm not cutting her any slack either. 1) As I said her reasonings are sometimes ridiculous, but that don't make her opinions radical or even those reasonings. 2) It don't matter do she lie or do she not, when we speak about are her opinions radical. Saying people to be radical because they lie is terrible justification in my opinion. In my reply to this sentence "People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate." I said that in my opinion Anita seems to be quite moderate and little bit elaborated why I think so, which you replied that "Anita CAN be radical.", which I took to mean that you think that she holds some radical views, which I disagreed with my reply to your message. My only interest in this has been to speak about how radical I see Anita's views and actions about games. Then back to topic Here is latest installment piece that explains what #gamergate is that has come to haunt my twitter feed http://gawker.com/what-is-gamergate-and-why-an-explainer-for-non-geeks-1642909080 It seems have some what negative view and is aimed for people that aren't interested about gaming or at least don't read gaming sites.

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate Her views paraphrased by me "I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women" "I want developer's to use more active female protagonists" "I want more games that don't focus so much on violence" "I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy" "I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes" Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. The issue comes about in two seperate ways: 1) Anita CAN be radical. Find a video she did on sexist Christmas songs. Have fun with it. 2) Anita lies. Check how she misrepresents Fallout New Vegas (and others) in her women as backround decoration video. Those two combined, you actually start to wonder if there aren't ulterior motives, moreso with the second one than the first. Either she's soooo radical she pulls ridiculous claims out of thin air here and there (unlikely, as other times she IS quite reasonable), or the girl honestly is just trying to profit off of this situation she's found herself in, leading to profit > truth and thus she'll do misleading or half-assed pieces to gain profit. 1) I fail find out what is radical in it? It seems only be continuum to her other work to point out what pieces of media she finds to be sexists. Her reasonings for why songs are in list may be somewhat ridiculous, but I don't see anything radical in the video. She don't demand that these songs should be censored, or that people should take actions against them, but instead she ask to hear songs that she likes, which maybe somewhat silly, but not anyway radical thing to ask. 2) Lying is not radical, it is just at least morally gray way to get people that aren't very interested about subject to support your point of view. Most of people use lying at least some point of their life to get/try to get what they want. Lying don't make person radical or their opinion radical it just shows that their morals aren't necessary as high as they maybe should be. People making profit when life gives opportunity do so I one of the standing principals of capitalism and general thinking of western societies. But for me she seem to do remarkable job not make profit even though she has amble opportunity to do so, but that maybe because she isn't financially adept instead of moral or ideological standings. But anyway may point was that Anita is quite moderate in her public views, as she don't try to cause public uprising, or get things censored or made forbidden by law. Most radical thing is that she wants media products that at least currently have somewhat lacking offering in markets. But if such thing make person radical, then I am and large bunch of this forums users are radical as we wanted products that mass markets didn't produce and funded at least one of such product in Kickstarter. So I will not say that person that don't at least like some aspects of products that mass markets currently offer to be radical even if aspects that she don't like aren't same aspects that I don't like or even like in those products. And way she express her dislike towards those aspects is very moderate compared to way many of us in these forums express our dislike towards products/aspects of products that we don't like. So in short I disagree with Anita's views lot, but I don't think that she is radical anyway that I know.

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate Her views paraphrased by me "I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women" "I want developer's to use more active female protagonists" "I want more games that don't focus so much on violence" "I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy" "I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes" Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical.

BB_Fighter with best inn buff and grappling hook has always succeeded to receive egg without any problems.