Hiro Protagonist II

I'm fairly certain he couldn't care less about my opinion on the matter. What he wants is more kindling for his fire. I could (and I've done this) say "yes, you're right. I hadn't thought of it that way. My bad.", and he'd say "HAH, you're just being sarcastic!", because he thinks I'm out to get him for some reason. I'll not deny that I type a lot, but it's not as if I'm responding to ghosts here. And there we have it folks. As I said in a previous post which has proven to be correct. "It's like you don't want to give me an answer as if that's going to prove me right in some way which couldn't be further from the truth". I was right all along. Lephys is simply refusing to answer the question because he see's it as something I can add more 'kindling to my fire' whatever the hell that means. No, Lephys. As I said, it couldn't be further from the truth. But you keep believing those conspiracy theories. All this does is make discussions like this with you worthless if you refuse to answer simple questions because you see it as losing ground by admitting something so blatantly obvious. Seriously, why not just admit why developers sexualise NPCs? Anita Sarkeesian has a whole heap of videos explaining why. You can even get tips from Anita and say this is why and give an answer. It isn't hard. You even said in a previous thread you don't discriminate on either side of the debate, so why would you be worried by giving some weird perceived ammunition or kindling to the other side of the debate now?

Well you are being ridiculous for these last few pages by doing everything to avoid answering the question. 'Well I don't know, it could be this reason, or that reason, or something else.' And then you go on with exaggerations in your post to go on about 'hiveminds' and 'literally every person', etc. Yep, just plain ridiculous with this evading that you're doing. LMAO. Again why would you tell me what you never claimed I said? If I never claimed I said something, then why go to the trouble of doing all this double speak to claim I never said what I never claimed I said? Oh god. Hilarious. Round and round we go, where Lephys stops, nobody knows. See, you're just proving my point. I keep asking this simple question and you're still being evasive and after all this nonsense you've wrote you still haven't answered the question. Bringing up Disneyworld and anything else that isn't relevant just to avoid answering the question. Evasive and argumentative. I'll ask again. Why do developers sexualise NPCs in Video games? Anita Sarkeesian's videos will help you with this answer. It's not a hard question to answer.

But then you're okay with Lephys' evasive and argumentative debating style of avoiding the question for pages on end, unless they have some ulterior motive to extend the debate in a way that is not applicable? And I'm still waiting for you Lephys to answer the question on why developers sexualise NPCs in video games. Even Anita Sarkeesian's videos will help you with this one.

Also Bruce, I don't know why you left out one of the most important parts of Namutree's post: "To put it bluntly; adding sexuality to a npc is an easy way to manipulate a player's emotions and create a connection to the game world." So you're okay with developers manipulating a players emotions with sexualised NPCs?

And I've explained many times over the last couple of pages the 'why' part of the question, you still dodged and weaved the question and still want to argue. Even when others have answered it. It's not a hard question to answer. I know I never said it was illegal. I don't know why you're saying I never said it was illegal. I didn't realise you were in the habit of telling me what I never said. Sounds rather pointless telling me things I never said. It was you who said 'wasn't aware that it was illegal'. I have no idea why you would bring up legalities in this. Or are you exaggerating again? Who knows! It was you who brought it up first. It has nothing to do with the discussion. And it doesn't add anything to state 3000 times. It's just more of your blatant over exaggerations. Nice selective quoting there. You left the bit out when I said, Anita Sarkeesian knows why developers do it. Have a look at some of her videos and she may be able to explain it to you. Seriously I have no idea why it's so hard for you to give a simple answer on why developers sexualise NPCs in video games instead of 'well I don't know, it could be this or it could be that or something else,'

I think the problem with my question is you didn't read it properly or you're getting caught up on the 'ultra-technical specifics of words too much' and then forming an argument against my question instead of just answering the question. I never asked "Do they they sexualise' or 'If they sexualise', I asked 'WHY they sexualise'. You're ignoring the why, the reasons 'why' they do it. And then you later confirmed you italicised / accented the 'have' and ignoring the 'why' which is how you based your argument. As I said, the question wasn't difficult to answer as it was a rhetorical question. No need to go into 'ultra-technical specifics of words too much' and then argue against it. I never said it was illegal. No idea why you're brining up legalities into this. And no, it adds nothing to the discussion. How does saying you've nearly explained 3000 times add anything? It doesn't. It'd be better to leave the exaggerations and discuss the points without them. As I said. Other people don't have a problem and have answered the question without having to spend pages and pages on it, it's only you. And we're not discussing Peter Molyneux or Fable, we're discussing the sexualisation of NPCs. Even Anita Sarkeesian knows why developers do it. Have a look at some of her videos and she may be able to explain it to you.

As you said, some romance mods can be better than the one's in a game. Maybe something for the promancers to think about instead of dismissing all romance mods.

I don't understand this stance against romance mods by a lot of the promancers. You'll have promancers installing mods for anything else and yet when it comes to romance mods, the one thing (romances) they lobby developers for years for, they shy away from them. And you'll often hear arguments that Obsidian aren't great writers of romances. Well if Bioware's romances are the standard that Obsidian should aspire to I'm sure there are good writers in the mod community who could be up to the level of Bioware.

Yep. I brought something like this up in the DA:I thread. Should Obsidian follow in Bioware's footsteps with rpgs? A couple of people answered and didn't want Obsidian to be like Bioware.

I have a mental image of the OP doing an air punch with his victory. Perhaps the OP can advise which picture resembles his exuberance with his victory on the internet.

I'm pretty sure the BG2 romances were real time events and not game time. You couldn't rest spam to trigger the next set of options. You had to play the game or leave it on and walk away from the computer for an hour or two for it to click over to the next set of romance options, so it appeared to progress through the story. But there was no set time / place in the game that those options came up, which made the options that came up awkward if you were somewhere in the game which would make romance out of place.

I'm surprised the OP didn't bookmark the thread all these years just to come back and post in it. Now I want to see this old thread where he was ridiculed.

Well you did italicise and accent one of the words in my question when it wasn't and then went on to make an argument against it. It's a good idea not to do such things as it takes things out of context. Maybe that's one of the reasons why you have a hard time understanding people. You take it on yourself to italicise / accent words when they haven't been and then make arguments against it. Easier to just answer the question than trying to get hung up on ultra-technical specifics of words, and then make an argument from it. And no, you haven't clarified about 3,000 times now. Oh wait, that's one of your never ending exaggerations that adds nothing to the discussion. It's a simple question you have trouble answering when other people on this forum can answer it. You're the odd one out who's having trouble and I have to wonder if you're doing this just to be evasive. And you have been evasive over the last page. It's like you don't want to give me an answer as if that's going to prove me right in some way which couldn't be further from the truth. Bruce and Namutree have given answers. Seriously I have no idea why it's so hard for you to give a simple answer instead of 'well I don't know, it could be this or it could be that or something else'.

Never used Giant Bomb. Also, is there a link on their site? There doesn't appear to be anything about Pillars of Eternity.

It already did and as such your post is exaggeration.

So you are being serious? Just want to make sure before your post gets blown out of the water.

You're using hyperbole again? The last time I called you out on a quote you did a 180 and turned around and said it was hyperbole. I take it this is just hyperbole as well or are you being serious?

Josh has confirmed in another thread that Obsidian will be using a separate product. So it appears no Steam early access.

I'm waiting for Lephys to answer. Two Pages later and he's still dodging and weaving.

You still can't even answer my questions and still arguing over words. And you didn't just italicized the word 'have' but also accented it to make an argument against it. You quote my post with the two examples I gave with 'why' and 'have' and still ignore it. So you're saying both of the following are the same and have the same meaning? Even though different words have been italicized? Why do they have to do X? Why do they have to do X? Still waiting on that response you haven't given. Also waiting on that question I asked about why developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options.

LMAO. As I said, You get hung up on ultra-technical specifics of words too much, man. And do you think the below are the same? Why do they have to do X? Why do they have to do X? Explain to me why those are the same. According to you, they're the same question and have the same meaning! As I said, you accented one of those words when it wasn't accented to make an argument. And you're still avoiding the question I asked on this page of this thread, why developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options? Wondering how many more posts Lephys will avoid the question.

Well lets see. I ask a rhetorical question. Even Bruce can answer that question. You avoid the reasons why developers do anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romance options. You then later confirm you have accented one of those words in my question to try and change it's meaning so you can make an argument against it. You get hung up on ultra-technical specifics of words too much, man.

A) I know what I'm talking about. You've admitted "you have no idea". For someone who's blames me for getting technical with words, you've been doing this for these last few posts. Seriously, any normal person would know why developers are anthropomorphising and sexualising non-human NPCs for romances. Even Bruce knows. For some reason you don't? B) No, I said, "why do they have to". And there is nothing mandatory about it. They are two different things. Yep, All makes sense. You seem to be the one that isn't. And this has been discussed for the last couple of pages that you don't need 'sexualised' NPCs to romance, especially NPC female characters whose sexuality or victimhood is exploited as a way to infuse edgy, gritty or racy flavouring into game worlds. Sexually objectified female NPCs are valued primarily for their bodies (or body parts) and Bruce seems to be okay with this as he needs to be physically attracted with the NPC before a romance starts. And more so with non-humans being anthropomorphised and sexualised. And I never said they had to be supermodels. Context, man.. Well it's good to have you back because I'm sure we're all waiting for those seven paragraph posts for you to try and explain your points.

A) And there's your problem. No idea what I'm talking about. B) The answer is obvious. They do. And I never brought up they have a mandate. Nothing has fallen apart. Even Bruce has said: "In other words I have to be attracted to someone to have a Romantic interest in, I could not date someone that I'm not on some level physically attracted to." "an appeal on the aesthetic level" "in fact the Devs are doing the prudent thing around game design in this respect" So Bruce is okay with anthropomorphising and sexualising non-human NPCs to appeal to gamers to romance them. This has already been discussed over the last few days and we seemed to have moved on from that point. Weird that you would be bringing this up days later to rehash over the same thing. But I will ask you this which Bruce has answered, why do developers anthropomorphise and sexualise non-human NPCs for romances?

Well they do. And I asked why they have to? The question is rhetorical and the answer is obvious. Because you have people like Bruce needing to have 'sexy' NPCs to have a physical attraction with. Bruce has confirmed this in his posts. If you hadn't read the posts for the last three days, you would know this. I suggest reading those posts.