Keyrock

Cool, young Ciri at Kaer Morhen. It would be pretty sweet if we got to play through some of her witcher training, maybe even her sorceress training.

Did you learn your lesson and are you ashamed of your pen1s?

CDPR has confirmed that the second playable character is indeed Ciri, and also that you will not be able to switch between the characters at will, but rather you will play as Ciri during specific parts.

You've got it all wrong, KaineParker. This whole thinking for yourself thing has got you all mixed up and discombobulated. This is why our enlightened and highly superior San Francisco moral overlords have deemed fit to grace us with their magnificant wisdom and faultless judgement. Set your mind at ease, turn off your brain, and just simply follow their lead and parrot everything they say and everything will be much better for everyone.

Last physical console game I purchased: Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker a couple weeks ago Last physical PC game I purchased: Probably Rage in 2011 Edit: Crap, I just noticed this topic was necromanced and I posted in it months ago. Oh well.

That was a shockingly bad performance by Aaron Rodgers. Cowboys Eagles Packers Lions Seahawks One of those teams, at either 11-5 or 10-6, is going to miss the playoffs. Meanwhile, we're guaranteed that a team at no better than .500 will get in.

Awesome win for the Cowboys, the playoff race in the NFC is still super tight (damn you Vikes for not beating Detroit, you had so many chances) so they needed that win badly.

The Factory of Sadness is at maximum production. Meanwhile, in the NFC South

I'm continuing my playthrough of The Talos Principle. It's really good. Really really good. It's probably the best puzzle game I've played since Portal 2. It's been a really long time since a game has made me think this much. This goes both for trying to solve the puzzles and for pondering the philosophical musings. I'm also very apprehensive of climbing the tower. I've long had enough red sigils to at least go up to the 1st floor, likely several more floors by now, but I still haven't tried to do it. I kind of feel like I will eventually, but I'm... scared. It;s weird, I get conflicted whenever I think about it. There is a conflict between faith and curiosity that's one of the central themes of the game. Word round the campfire is that there are multiple endings to the game. What choices/parameters determine the endings I do not know, but I suspect that choosing faith or curiosity is one of them. This game does not have manual saves, it checkpoint autosaves and it does so quite often (whenever you do something of note). Normally, i'd criticize a game for lack of manual saves, but I actually am going completely the other way here. Not only is the lack of manual saves not a hindrance here, I think it's a benefit. In fact, I think it's critical to the game. The ability to manually save would allow you to metagame. While it's not something I like to engage in these days (I used to when I was younger), I generally am in favor of it being an option. However, i will make an exception in this case. There is a good bit of philosophical debate and conflict at the heart of this game and allowing metagaming would cheapen that conflict, reducing its impact. The fact that any choice I make is permanent for this playthrough, no going back to 5 minutes ago, I'd have to start completely over, adds weight to those choices and makes me think long and hard about them and makes them feel more permanent. I think this sort of thing is necessary if you want the player to struggle with philosophical conflict.

Should I or shouldn't I try to ascent that? Egyptian land, not only cool looking, but also lets Croteam reuse assets from Serious Sam. You'd think the Blue Screen of Death would be ****ed out as a joke by now, but I still got a chuckle out of it.

My theory is this, and I'm just some schlubby, basement apartment dwelling, Dorito Greek salad encrusted, neckbeard ****lord, is that all we, the reasonable GG supporters, need to do is stay strong, stay positive, refrain from engaging in the harrassment/doxxing/etc the opposition engages in (there will always be outliers, nothing can be done about that beyond denouncing and policing to the best of our ability), and continue the battle, no matter the cost, no matter how long it takes. In the end, the extremist zealots will always continue to shed their misguided moderate supporters the longer the conflict continues, continue to alienate the undecideds, and continue to burn bridges. The media smoke screen will only continue for so long. They'll keep supporting the corrupt scumbag radical far-left core as long as they feel there is still any chance of winning, as they have a stake in this. See, the thing is, media corruption and SJW infiltration goes far beyond just video games media, it's present in all media journalism, and, dare I say, all media in general. While the mainstream media doesn't give 2 ****s about what happens to video games media, if GamerGate succeeds it sets a precedent. SJW scumbags have rolled over individuals and corporations for years and years. I didn't reply in time (too far back now), but I found it funny when Bruce tried to dispute that excluding prostitutes from GTA would start down a slippery slope. We're not starting down a slippery slope, we're already a good way down the slippery slope. Myself and the other GG supporters (the rational ones, anyway) aren't trying to stop us from beginning down a slippery slope, we're putting our hands and feet out full force in an effort to stop, or at least slow, our slide down it. I personally (and this is just my personal belief, don't attribute this to GG as a whole) believe the totalitarian state is inevitable (Sucks, I know), we're already way too far down that path to prevent it fully (congratulations Bruce, it may not happen in your lifetime, but your Fascist "Utopia" will happen. Rejoice!), but that's not going to stop people like me from doing their best to delay that as much as possible. Bruce's hilarious assertion "we only want to remove female prostitutes, nothing more, that's it" made me both want to throw up and laugh. As if I hadn't seen that bull**** argument before, literally hundreds of times. Oh, only make this one little concession, that's it, nothing more. What difference will it make? 6 months later. Only make this one concession, what difference will it make? Maybe I'm being melodramatic and pulling **** out of my ass, or maybe history is littered with these exact kinds of "little concessions" on the road to totalitarianism. But it's only video games, who cares? Today video games, tomorrow a dress code, next year religious rights, the year after history books are rewritten. The year after all opposing history books are erased/burned. Ahem, sorry, I got off on a tangent. Apologies. Anyway, as I was saying, SJWs will continue on their present form of attack, that is, belittling, harassing, and shaming. The thing is, that tactic has proven, time and again, to be ineffective against us gamers, sling your mud, we don't care, but they'll keep doing it because there is no other option. SJWs are so convinced they're right, they're righteous,and they're better than everybody else that they cannot allow the thought that their tactics are faulty to enter their minds, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Since, in their minds, they are better than everybody else, their tactics cannot possibly be faulty, thus the only recourse is to double down on and get more aggressive with the same tactics. While more aggressive versions of the same tactics may break a few of the weaker spirited members of the GG resistance, if we hold strong and stay the course, it will ultimately have little effect on us, but it will increase the likelihood of them shedding moderates (appauled by the tactics and exposed to the reality of the people they support) and burning bridges. It's only a matter of time as long as we stay the course, stay positive, and not allow ourselves to be brought down by the feces being hurled at us. Over time, the SJWs will continue to get more and more radical in their approach, shed more and more moderates, alienate their neutral supporters, and burn bridges, until nothing but the rotten evil core extremists remain. At some point, the mainstream media, sensing the battle lost, will turn against them and denounce them in a last ditch effort to win back some of the people they've alienated. When that happens, the SJW extremists will lash out at them, labeling them as traitors (ironically, a very fitting label), which will only cause the mainstream media to denounce them more, perpetuating the vicious cycle of self-destruction. What I'm saying is, it's only a matter of time. As long as we hold strong, we cannot lose. They'll sling more mud at us. So what? I've got so much mud on me any more hardly matters. They'll get mainstream media to print some more hit pieces. So what? We've been the targets of over a dozen hit pieces already, what are a dozen more going to change? Stay strong. Stay positive. Keep the charitable efforts going (and not for publicity, but because it's the right thing to do, no mainstream outlet will cover it anyway right now). As long as we don't give in, the SJWs will sabotage themselves. Their elitist egos will make sure of it.

The ol' it's fine and even positive when we, the "good people" do it to the "bad people". Of course, we determine who the "good people" and the "bad people" are. Well, no chance that kind of thing could ever be abused and go awry. How could that possibly ever lead down a dark and dangerous path? There are certainly no precedents in history of people using such power of judgement and dishing out punishment with impunity for "the greater good" and it turning into horrific atrocities. Nope, not a single one. But hey, it's not like these "good people", these champions of justice could possibly be wrong in their assertions. They know what's best, for all of us. They can't possibly be wrong. That kind of power with impunity could only be a benefit in their hands. It's not like any of history's great monsters ever felt they knew what was best for everyone and used their power for "the greater good" with impunity, just like them.

I have a Steam copy of Serious Sam 3 to give away (I got it free with The Talos Principle and I already own it). Drop me a PM if you want it. First come first serve. Not sure how gifting works in Steam, but we'll figure all that out once a recipient comes forth.

I'm interested, because I'm obviously too stupid to grasp the nuances of this debate, You said it, I didn't. I would have used a different word, something along the lines of thick headed, but I'm not going to argue with you. They are expressing a satirical version of a United States city. I can only speak of my own experience and those in the United States (I was too young when I lived in Poland and West Germany to notice such things), but it applies well since every single GTA game since GTA3 (when the games went 3rd person perspective and took off) has taken place in the United States, or rather a satirical representation of a US city (Liberty City = New York, Los Santos = Los Angeles, Vice City = Miami, etc.). I am 38 years old, I have lived in the United States for 28 years. I've visited every single state on the east coast, a few toward the midwest, and California (mostly Los Angeles). In my entire life I have not met or even seen a single person who I was convinced of, or even suspected to be a male prostitute. Not one. Not a single one. I have seen hundreds, maybe thousands of people I was convinced were female prostitutes. Do male prostitutes exist? I have been told they do and I do believe that, on the other hand I have never actually met one in real life. Ever. Not a single time. In satire perception is reality. So the point is that GTA shows female prostitutes and not male prostitutes because in real life people see female prostitutes but they don't see male prostitutes (or if they do it's extremely rare). Edit: For the record, I would not be opposed to seeing some male prostitutes added to the game. It's not a big deal to me, because, as I've written, I've never seen one in real life, so not having male prostitutes in GTA is in no way jarring to me, but if they added some in, I'd be fine with that.

I think we should compile a list of the best active NFL player names. I'll nominate a few to get us started: Barkevious Mingo Frostee Rucker Ha Ha Clinton-Dix

/reaches for wallet When's the Kickstarter? How can I support this? I am looking forward to working through law practice and gaining skill in whose ass to kiss and sensing which political machine to back. Eventually I can work my way up to the Albany Regency and exploit the bejesus out of the spoils system.

I started playing The Talos Principle. I had played the demo earlier, so I already had an idea of what the game was like, but the full version, even in its very beginning stages, is already meatier than the demo was. In reviews, the game has been often compared to Portal. That seems like a reasonable comparison. The mechanics are obviously not the same, but you have the same 1st person perspective (you can switch to third person), puzzles sometimes require using items in non-straightforward ways, and there is a disembodied voice that talks to you from time to time, at least 2 of them, actually. Maybe my favorite thing about puzzle games is getting to a seemingly impossible situation, getting stuck on it for a decent while, unable to clear a mental hurdle, then finally having that aha moment where your brain breaks out of the rut its been stuck in, changes the way it approaches the problem, and the plain as day solution appears in front of you. Those moments, for me, rival (and sometimes surpass) even the greatest moments of overcoming an obstacle with twitch skill or careful tactical planning, and even early on I've already had multiple moments like that in The Talos Principle. I especially enjoy trying to hunt down the stars (extra goals beyond the sigils you are mainly collecting). Getting the stars often requires outside the box thinking, sometimes outside the puzzle thinking. The philosophical musings are also quite interesting, though they seem sort of, for the lack of a better term, scattershot so far. Hopefully, as I progress, they will start to congeal into a more unified whole. I'm starting to have ideas and theories, but they're based off minuscule scraps at the moment.

The Talos Principle

Minorities have been victims of society - are they off limits? Women have been victims of society - are they off limits? The differently abled have been victims of society - are they off limits? The poor and homeless have been victims of society - are they off limits? If the answer is yes to each, then you've got a game of white, rich men who have no disabilites... And therein lies the sad irony of the Social Justice Paradox. By attacking and harassing developers that include these (and other) groups in certain types of video games or portrayed in a bad light, Social Justice Warriors are making it impossible extremely inconvenient for said developers to include these groups in certain games. The very people that purport to be championing inclusivity in video games are putting up obstacles to inclusivity in video games. Edit: Ninja'd by TrueNeutral.

The Talos Principle launch trailer. It releases on Steam in about 20 minutes. PS4 version due early 2015.

@Gizmo - I love your festive Fallout power armor avatar.

I'm not sure I'm explaining my point properly, I try through a series of questions. Do you think hookers are victims of abuse in RL? As someone who is not a prostitute myself, nor do I closely know anyone who is a prostitute, I don't feel I can adequately make that judgement. I would guess that some are, maybe even many or most, but, unlike SJWs, I don't like to speak for other people and make assumptions for them. I can make guesses, but that's the best I can do. Just because it's possible to kill someone in a game doesn't mean you have to do it. Beyond the first hour or so of me playing GTA 3, way back in the day, and experimenting with the game to see how far the game would let you go, more out of curiosity than anything else, I've generally tried to avoid killing civilians, going so far as to drive carefully to not run people over unless it's a time sensitive mission and I am forced to drive like a maniac, and I certainly don't target specific varieties of civilians. If I wanted to, I could go around and only kill Hispanic looking people. I don't, but I could, the game allows for that. Similarly, if the game included children I could specifically go around and kill children. I wouldn't, but I would not have a problem with the option being there. GTA, while satire, attempts to portray a somewhat realistic society, touch on real issues, and do it in at least a somewhat realistic manner (as opposed to something like Saints Row which is almost as far removed from realistic as possible), in an effort to make social commentary. If you want to portray a somewhat realistic society and make social commentary you need to portray all of it. You can't shy away from the squeamish stuff or the distasteful stuff. Squeamish stuff and distasteful stuff exists in real life, it affects real people and is a part of real issues. GTA is a game, a sandbox, that allows you to play in a variety of ways. If you want to play as a savage psychopath, you can. You can also try to play as someone who is trying to do good and stay out of trouble, but gets dragged into situations where they have no choice but to do horrible things. That is your choice as a player. I also believe, and I'm not a developer on the game, so this is purely speculation on my part, grain of salt and all that, that Rockstar tries in its games to relay some of the horrors of crime in its games and speak about the sacrifices (whether in loved ones or ones own sanity) people make when they descend down the dark path of crime. (In this sense, I think Sleeping Dogs did a much better job of conveying the horrors of crime and the inner conflict of the person having to do horrible things to survive and move up in the hierarchy). Killing children is terrible, but it happens in real life too. How you react to killing children in a game is up to you. Would some people revel in it? Potentially yes. It could also serve to horrify the player and make them despair over the horrible thing that happened because of the crimes they've committed. If children were in the game, as they are in real life, then whether you go out and kill children in the game is up to you and how you react to it is dependent upon you. It's your choice. I'm pro-choice.

He actually makes a compelling argument and raises some cogent points Did you read the whole article because he answers your question, see below where he explains the difference between killing a hooker and killing other people "What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life. This is where GTA 5 shows a lack of judgment. I take issue with the portrayal of sex workers being abused and murdered, because sex workers are already victims, and it's just not right to take your fun in abusing victims. I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time. This means that GTA 5 takes its pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse. In what kind of world is that not worthy of debate, above and beyond the ignorant cry of "if you don't like it, don't buy it"? " He is basically advocating for Rockstar to remove the killing of hookers as they are already victims and it makes sense to me after reading that article. Its not unreasonable The game in no way encourages you to kill prostitutes any more than it does any other civilian. The "pleasure" the game offers for killing prostitutes is in the mind of the specific players deriving pleasure from killing virtual hookers. The game in no way indicates or encourages deriving any more or less pleasure from killing hookers than any other type of civilians. Some people may get off on killing virtual hookers, others may get off on killing virtual businessmen. The game does nothing to make that distinction, it is purely in the mind of the specific individual playing the game. The game is a crime satire. Criminals do nasty things, including killing people, thus the game allows you to kill people, anybody. Hookers exist in real life, thus they exist in the game. You suggestion to remove hookers from the game would, by definition, be discrimination. Same thing if you made them invulnerable. You would be treating them differently or excluding them altogether based solely on their profession. You may not find discriminating against people based solely on their profession to be unreasonable, I do. He is not suggesting you can't kill people, he is simply saying its in bad taste to kill groups of people who are already victims of society For example why not allow children to be killed? Okay. I don't. Don't put words in my mouth. How many male prostitutes are there compared to female prostitutes? I don't have any numbers to fall back upon, but I'm guessing the percentage of male prostitutes is minuscule compared to female prostitutes. So, if GTA wanted to do a relatively realistic portrayal of the real world and there are, say 200 female prostitutes in the game, there might be 1 or 2 male prostitutes. Hardly seems like it's worth making a male prostitute model that you're only ever going to use once or twice and is an insignificant civilian character. It comes down to it not making sense for the budget. (As an aside, Saints Row has male prostitutes. Score one for Volition) As for children. I would personally like to see them in the game. I imagine Rockstar and Take Two didn't include them because they already get enough flak for other stuff in the game, which is a shame. Here is the ridiculous vicious circle of the SJWs. Can't have group a in this game, they're already victims in real life. Outrage! Can't have group b in this game, it reflects poorly on them. Outrage! Why aren't games including group a and group b? This is discrimination! Outrage!

He actually makes a compelling argument and raises some cogent points Did you read the whole article because he answers your question, see below where he explains the difference between killing a hooker and killing other people "What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life. This is where GTA 5 shows a lack of judgment. I take issue with the portrayal of sex workers being abused and murdered, because sex workers are already victims, and it's just not right to take your fun in abusing victims. I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time. This means that GTA 5 takes its pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse. In what kind of world is that not worthy of debate, above and beyond the ignorant cry of "if you don't like it, don't buy it"? " He is basically advocating for Rockstar to remove the killing of hookers as they are already victims and it makes sense to me after reading that article. Its not unreasonable The game in no way encourages you to kill prostitutes any more than it does any other civilian. The "pleasure" the game offers for killing prostitutes is in the mind of the specific players deriving pleasure from killing virtual hookers. The game in no way indicates or encourages deriving any more or less pleasure from killing hookers than any other type of civilians. Some people may get off on killing virtual hookers, others may get off on killing virtual businessmen. The game does nothing to make that distinction, it is purely in the mind of the specific individual playing the game. The game is a crime satire. Criminals do nasty things, including killing people, thus the game allows you to kill people, anybody. Hookers exist in real life, thus they exist in the game. You suggestion to remove hookers from the game would, by definition, be discrimination. Same thing if you made them invulnerable. You would be treating them differently or excluding them altogether based solely on their profession. You may not find discriminating against people based solely on their profession to be unreasonable, I do.

The time travel RPG Meantime interests me quite a bit. I start getting giddy at wacky possibilities of a western take on essentially Chrono Trigger. Van Buren, not so much. Acquiring Van Buren doesn't make any sense to me. To what end? InExile already owns Wasteland, an IP they just recently successfully revived. Why create another new post-apocalyptic RPG IP when you already own a successful post-apocalyptic RPG IP? The only thing I can think of is Fargo & Co. possibly taking the story and ideas from Van Buren anf essentially incorporating them into Wasteland 3.