TrashMan

Redicolous. You are assigning motives and a righteous cause to one side and making one side "more" correct, even if they are doing the exact same thing, for the exact same motivations. you are basicly saying: All whites hate blacks because they feel superior - they are bad All blacks hate whites because the whites make them feel inferior - their hate is less bad. Which is bollocks. You don't get to assign motivation. You don't know it. Shooting a child - regardles if I'm a rebel or invader (and I contest that both terms are horribly misplaced) - is horrible and inexcusable. Trying to justify one side while demonizing the other is a dobule-standard. Worse, it's hypocrisy because it's based on something that completley tangential to the problem (monies, numbers) That variable has no place there. Period.

Care to explain why? Because there are no "instituation" you speak off. Racist views are held by individuals and are nto something that is institutionalized. You can speak of a generale populaces general sentiment, but that still doesn't make it "institutionalized". So by your definition a lower-class person cannot be racist towards a higher-class one. I'm sorry, but racism/sexism is not tied to social status OR political power. That can only make it easier to display said racism/sexism/whatever-ism and can make it more apprent, and possibly, stronger. And now you're also using the term "white" for priviliged bigots basicly? And you don't consider that insulting?

And if I told you I'm black, female, low-class, living in a third world country? Would that cange anything? Either people are equal, in which case you treat them equally and no side gets special treatment OR They are not. And guess when, if one side gets special protection, then they are not equal. Some past injustice or "power imbalance" is irrelevant, because this isn't about power. So I don't really care if you're black or white, gay or staight, jewish or atheist or whatever. I reserve the right to myself to treat everyone equally - which also means making fun of everyone equally and/or making no special exceptions with how I approach them. And I really don't care how much one plays victim or screams injustice. Would you have spoke up if all the zombies were fat white dudes? No. "But that's OK because white dudes rule the world!" No.

But you ARE the cahracter. And fixed points takes away player freedom. After all, how do you know exactly from where the assain will come? What if you want your ranger to wait behind the second column to the left, and not the 3rd one on the right? It might not be the right one? I'll risk it. And frankly I should be able to tell if my character is hidden or not. If I can't tell that then the game fails at providing sufficient information. Leaving things up to your character takes it away form the player. It's as simple as that. The only thing the player CAN affect is strategic/tactical decisions (since character stats are used for everything)..I really dont' look forward to those being reduced. Actually there is a big difference. One is scripted and has to be put in dialogue, the other is organic. One is more resource intensive and limiting, the other is not. Simply put, the develoeprs have a limited time and limited amount of dialogue slots - thus they will have to limit the tactics and solutions if situations like this are handeled mostly trough dialogue. If you think you're incompetent enough to bungle it, then that's your problem. I for one have faith in my tactical abilities. Load/save abuse is now a concern? Since when? How is that different from finding the optimal conversation response, then re-loading? a) perfect accuracy? A crossbow isn't a sniper rifle, so it's more likely the bolt would be poisond and he would be shootign for center mass. b) A true assain would probably just poison his food to begin with, or kill him in a more subtle way. c) No, you can't see a breatsplate if it's hidden beneath your robes. Freedom comes with the option to do redicolous things. If it breaks your suspension of disbelief DON'T DO STUPID THINGS. It's simple. It also comes with the option to do very smart things the developers didn't forsee. Limiting my options on how to handle a problem/quest is bad. Period. There is no if's or buts' about this. I don't consider a few extra lines from my party memebers to be an acceptable tradeoff for the loss of agency.

Bioware being Bioware, if they do 40K, you KNOW how the party is going to end up lookign right? They want United Colors of Benneton parties with "unique" characters. In your party you are going to have a Black Templar, a Eldar Farsser, a Tau, a Slaneeshi Deamonette, a Grey Knight, a Dark Eldar, a Thousand Sons Chaos Marine and a Space Wolf marine....probably a vindicare assasin and a Necron too. Maybe a forbidden love affair between a Primaris Psyker and a Clulexx assasin?

Would you understand why someone might take offence with a game where you played as a German and the zombies happened wear yarmulkes and have names like Abram, David, Rebecca, and Rachel? (Edit: Actually, it might be possible to pull that off. You'd just have to be really, really good at wildly over the top humor. The South Park guys might be able to do it, even if they too fall flat on their faces from time to time. You'd be making brutal fun of racists by turning all the knobs to eleven. But the zombie game you're referencing isn't like that at all; it just reinforces existing, entrenched stereotypes. Punching down is not the same as punching up, see.) (Another edit: rephrased the question for more precisely communicating intent.) I consider the whole thing and excercise in human stupidity and overreaction. No, I don't see why people got so offended. In fact I think they should be ashamed they got offended! (and people will get offended I said this. and I will take offense at their offense of my taking offense at their offense) The game took place in rural africa among small villages - whom else are you supposed to encounter there other than blakc people? It made sense for the setting/loaction. Could they have used another location? Yes. Should they? No. I'm honestly sick an tired of all of these overreactions and "hoyl cows" that musn't be touched.

So, you would consider, say, the Westboro Baptist Church 'politically correct' then? I'm not following the WBC so I have no idea what they have been up to lately, but I'd assume yes. The irony is that everyone is trying to force their views on everyone else, yet only some views are labeled as "politicly correct" and are tolerated. Which views are those changes with time, but make no mistake - it's alwas the same basic dance going on, just the dancers change. Of course, we like to belive that our current views are the most righteous and greatest and enlightened and correct, while everyone else in history was wrong, and when they were enforcing their views, it was for all the wrong reasons.

Time sensitivity can be implemented in may ways. And my gripe was with your (another) Ad Extremis. Remember, it is you who brought in timed dialogue - no one else mentioned it or even wanted it. A RPG isn't a race. And direct comparisons make little sense. Individual quests may be time sensitive - that doesn't mean they all auto-fail. They might just become more difficult. OR they might fail. So if you want to make a comparison, it more like a driving game without opponents and with a very generous time allowance, so you CAN stop and go exploring or off-roading, but if you do it all the time you might run out of gas. So no, the gameplay isn't mutually exclusive.

A set of beliefs and oppinions that are enforced one way or another as superior and more right than anything else, coupled with complete intolerance for differing views.

Why? Nothing forces them to be pollitically correct except publisers trying to be as inoffensive as possible to as big an audience as they can. Indie games have not the same restrictions, older games did not have the same restrictions, books and movies don't have the same restrictions. And still manage to sell very well. Why AAA publisers try to be as PC is beyond me. P:E will be publiser free, and only digital. So nothing restricts Obsidian. I'm not saying that they sould go out of their way to make the game as disturbing as possible, but they should not go out of their way to make children unkillable either for example. Aren't you forgeting something? Public pressure? All the PC white knights who are going to gleefully attack such a game with all their might? All the negative ratings it would get because of that? Or are you forgetting what happened to some other games and movies? IIRC, the resident evil that took place in rural africa, and there was outrage that zombies were black (zombies being white in previous games went by unnoticed). You either get alogn with the program, and your'e going to be brainign a hatefull bigot/chauvinist ot whatnot, and that is not the kind of publicity a company wants. Many would avoid the product simply because of association.

More sticking ones head in the sand? I've been researching global warming for months. It's friggin happening. We do have a pretty big impact.

@ Walsingham - because it's still fun despite the redicolous amount of fanservice. It's so wrong that it's at times right. But if that offends you, you better stick with Bakemonogatari, as it doesn't have nearly as much fanservice. Here, another memorable scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXqUme6gOkQ

Highly unlikely. While a game that doesn't go all "united colors of Benneton, peace, love and tolerance = greatest thing ever, perfect ending" would certanly be something new and I'd love to see it, it will enver happen. Games have to follow the Political Correctness bandwagon.

It has a LOT more fanservice. It's plot is overall weaker. Bakemonogatari is definately better, but Nisemonogatari still has it's funny moments. The Toothbrush scene living in infamy forver. But there's more. I have my toothbrush and I'm not afraid to use it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr9VFfsr9xM Then there's also this: http://funnymama.com/store/130401/163659_v0_600x.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vJpUO94P0U 4chan is the devil. DEVIL I SAY!!!

Erm...no. Transistors don't use the so-called quantum state. Actually no computer does. Quantum computers are theoretical.

I want a setting in which I can say whatever I want. I can be a champion of minorities and the shining beacon of Political Correctness , and I can also be super-extra-racist, sexist and religionist. Or something like that.

And higher birth rates will be the death of the world. Birth rates have to be normalized.

Well, as someone who has studied quantum theory at college, let me just say that it's...iffy. It's rather "weak" as the only "proof" is a wonky experiment that I simply don't get how is suposed to prove anything.

hurr...can the threads be merged?

Ah...City Hunter. A classic. Check these great AMVs of it:

Amen Brother.

Either it's awfull lot of details or it's not. It can't be simple and complex at the same time.... or can it? Having all of those things decided trough dialogue is limiting. After all you have ot decide who wil lstand where and do what. That's a LOT of lines for even a simple plan. And all of that the developers have to script. It's just a pain in the a** that in the end leaves you with less options. You want to place one guy on the balcony? Who exactly? Where exacty? Should he attack immediately if he sees or wait? You're going to end up having to limit thing - like for example positions. The game can recognize if you have a spell active. The game can also check your armor rating. Like it needs to be super-scripted? Have the assasin fire a powerfull arrow and auto-roll a 20. No cutscene, no nothing. If you have heavy armor or magic shield, you should be fine. Or maybe the assains notices something is wrong and backs down, the quest takes another route. Again, the team doesn't actually have to comment on everything. You seemed to be hanged up on the idea that the team should discuss everything and come up with a plan Oceans 11 style. While something like that certanly might be "cinematic", it is also limiting.

Silly example. Such conversation appeared in games where you have basic tones or general concepts/paraphrases as answers, not actual sentances. Nor do I particulary like "if you did X, you might as well do X+100" line of reasoning. How long would it take you to explore a mine anyway? With kidnappings, the kidnapers usually give enough time to let whoever they are getting the money from gather the monies. Now is missing a quest such a big deal? You can miss quests based on other factors, so I don't see why time shouldn't be one too.