achaye

The 80% steam sales may be pretty off, as I recall somewhere where GoG sales are quite strong for this game. As of this moment, it's still hovering in the top 3 places. Regardless, I hope PoE sells a bajillion (that's 10 to the power of zatillion) copies so that PoE2 will be a game that requires 400 yottabytes of HD space and 20 zettabytes of memory to run, because each inhabitant of the game world is actually a fully-realized AI entity per every game instance, and will react depending on the game state and your decisions prior. Make it so.

Yeah, I don't get that statement either - regardless of what position the authors of the posts in this thread take, I've yet to encounter a single one accuse Firedorn or Obsidian of being transphobic (though truth be told, I have not read every single post in the thread). What I have seen though are plenty of disturbing, clearly homophobic, misogynistic, or transphobic remarks throughout this thread and others, from posts whose authors may or may not consciously understand that such statements are homophobic, misogynistic, or transphobic. Such discriminatory mindsets have as much to do with culture (certainly a force not lacking in homophobia and transphobia) as with ignorance. For example, I read in one of these threads where the author, whom I cannot remember, states that he (and it's almost certainly a he) only considers "genetic" females as females (that is, no Y chromosome, period), and continues on on how someone born "male" but identifying as "female" is unnatural. This completely undermines transsexual individuals and is a bigoted mindset, even if no ill-intent is on purpose. It's the same kind of reasoning that people used to think interracial marriage was "unnatural," or that women working rather than taking care of kids was "unnatural," or currently, that homosexuals are "unnatural." Gender isn't as black-or-white (or more apt, male-or-female) as people think. The whole notion of genders, in fact, is actually pretty archaic. All I have to do to refute the author who opined that only "genetic" females are females is to tell him about androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). People with this condition can be born "genetically" male (XY), but due to certain developmental quirks, their bodies do not respond to androgens, and have a range of female secondary sexual characteristics, ranging from a small amount to having full-blown female curvatures and fully-developed breasts. This is why I am so vocal about these issues and am proud to be a SJW, a term I've only recently become aware of, thanks mostly to the GamerGate crowd (seriously, how can detractors think using such a term will be insulting? Who ISN'T for social justice? I guess homophobes and bigots in general). If people can't see why the limerick is clearly transphobic (and misogynistic), considering that things like AIS exist, then there is still much to be done to increase the awareness of the general public.

But pointing out your repeated homophobic slurs and insults does. Go on, keep using homophobic slurs and insults, it's the fastest way for others who are lurking and reading to understand how much crap an already-maligned minority has to take. But seriously, you need to stop it with the homophobic insults; it's no different than the misogyny that permeates when someone uses "you [verb] like a girl" as an insult.

Calling someone's behavior unnatural has quite the negative connotation - it does not simply mean "not found in nature" (again, the irony is completely lost to them). It has a negative connotation because it implies that a person is disturbed and uncomfortable with the behavior, even if the behavior does absolutely no harm to anyone. Hence, bigots screaming about interracial marriage (and now teh gays) being "unnatural" is, in fact, quite bigoted.

Holy cow, are people so oblivious to their own bigotry that they don't understand that calling someone else's behavior, as long as it does no harm to others, unnatural is..... wait for it.....bigotry? Don't answer that, because it's a rhetorical question, of course they're that oblivious. A behavior doesn't NEED to be found in nature to be considered "natural," and what is natural doesn't always mean it's moral. Case in point, hitting up Netflix after a hard day's work at Google is, by all accounts, not found in nature, but is by all means, a perfectly natural and acceptable behavior (it's not immoral). A male having sex with another male, something found in nature all the time, is also perfectly natural and acceptable. So if you're calling someone else's perfectly ok behavior (that is, it does no harm to others) unnatural, that's pretty bigoted. Just like before interracial marriage was legally allowed (and for quite some time after), the same bigots screamed at how unnatural it was. Now they're screaming about how homosexuality is unnatural (the irony is unfortunately lost on them).

Sorry, but I don't take anything from American Enterprise Institute seriously, being generally a far right-wing think-tank, and having the likes of **** Cheney and Kenneth Lay amongst its former trustees, for the same reason I don't take anything from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh seriously. If you truly wished to understand the "why" in a.) and c.), you could have just looked, it's so ubiquitous. In one study, boys were given higher scores in math when the teachers knew their names (and can therefore pin down the gender), but when the identities of the test-takers were anonymous, the girls scored higher. In another study, but the reverse, STUDENTS evaluated male professors better than female ones. The subjects of the research were likely not consciously trying to be discriminatory, but that's the whole point of institutionalized, systemic sexism right? That culturally, women are unconsciously deemed inferior to males. I'll see who Mercedes Carrera is and what her deal with STEM is.

... which entirely ignores gender-based preferences of the research field based on their interests. Seriously, I'm a mechanical engineer. In the first semester of ME, only 5% of the students were female. How are you going to put more females in STEM positions if they literally don't exist in the first place? A 50:50 quota for females in mechanical engineering would mean that 90% of graduate male engineers would be unemployed. And saying that female students match or overperform their male counterparts is equally as sexist as saying the opposite. I prefer to see men and women as equal in their performance, not one clearly superior to the other. You can't just compare the male-to-female worker ratio in academic positions without comparing it to the number of students in the first place. If you're a mechanical engineer, then you must have taken your fair share of math, of which statistics may or may not be a part of. The fact that, as you yourself agreed with, "there is sexism and unequal payment in science," and of which much literature in research shows, is indicative that it's NOT simply due to "gender-based preferences" for a particular field. The male-female payment gap may be about the same in STEM fields as most other fields, but a LOT of research (again, many are linked all over posts I've made everywhere, plus tons more on academic sites online, and on print) shows that sexism against women in STEM fields is really severe. How many times have you heard "boys are good at math and science, girls are good at baking," reinforcing gender roles and stereotyping from literally childhood? Add to the ridiculous amount of harassment current female STEM employees receive, it's not exactly a most welcoming field, a sort of "Good o' Boys' Club." Even if everything was up to "gender-based preferences," with our population size, anything more than a fraction over 50/50 is statistically significant. You know what's not statistically significant, despite preferences? Whether someone likes ice-cream. There's no research out there on it (not to my knowledge), but I bet my house and life savings that the % of women that like ice cream is equal to the % of men that like ice cream. Because ice cream doesn't f****ing discriminate.

All the "studies" you linked basicly reference the same research paper. This particular research paper mostly focused on the economical aspects, i.e. likelyhood of being selected among equally qualified male and female applicants, payment, etc. Not only did it feature a surprisingly low number of samples to really be representatitve (only 64 per gender), but it also showed that the differences in payment and likelyhood of getting the job between males and females in science is not larger than in any other field or industry. Yes, there is sexism and unequal payment in science. Is that a problem? Yes. Is it any different in any other business or branch? Nope. Does that have anything to do with the gravestone poem outrage? Hell no. I want to thank you for at least clicking on one of the links, which is probably more than what anyone else has done, but it is not simply referencing the same research paper: that's literally only in the link in the first sentence of the Forbes article. Other points in numerous sources in those links: - 25% STEM positions occupied by women, despite female students matching or overperforming their male counterparts in primary/secondary higher education - UK is at 13-17% STEM by women - clear prejudice shown against women in STEM in the linked Verge article paper. - etc It was only brought up in response to Luckmann downplaying criticism against things he finds trivial, but which many find as discriminatory, such as the sexist shirt during the historic comet landing. You're right, it is wholly irrelevant to the limerick, but if it's brought up, I'm going to address it if I feel like it.

Sorry, I've been juggling like half a dozen of you guys, and my adjectives may be off, (and I lack the effort to go back and edit my previous posts), so let me state, unequivocally: the limerick is a blatant piece of transmisogynism, because it has no purpose and no context by which to elevate a deeper understanding of ridiculing trans-individuals.

I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields?I would tell her to Wo-Man Up. Seriously though, really, you seem to be under the assumption that just because I'm face-to-face with someone, I would have a problem talking to them like a reasonable human being. I would, in fact, not. I'm not familiar with her level of hysteria on the subject, so where it would go from there, I have no idea, but that's really beside the point. She doesn't get an automatic shield made out of implied offense any more than you do. Incredible, though not surprising. I doubt anyone even read the numerous links I've posted of systemic sexism against women in the science fields, which includes plenty of actual sexual harassment, so it's not surprising that you would not be empathetic to their plight, that you would just tell them to "wo-man" up. Spoken like a true individual in a position of privilege. Most of your links you've posted are not actually sources, they're just articles that discusses issues, sometimes from basis of a paper, and invariably from a biased POV. The belief as to whether there is systemic ( ) "sexism" against women in the science fields is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and you're basically just hurling accusations and trying to deflect whenever anything you say is actually directly addressed. You then deflect again and start talking about how people probably aren't even reading your links about the systemic sexism in the science fields, and then call me non-empathethic to their "plight" because of my "privilege" ( ). By this point, this is where I'd expect all the other people that support your general position would start facepalming and whine "stop defending us..." to themselves. Except that this behaviour is so common amongst self-appointed SJW:s (which I always found ironic, considering that "SJW" is dripping of irony since it's creation as a concept, yet people now wear it willingly like a clown suit) that I honestly would be surprised if your cohorts aren't sitting by the keyboards cheering you on. Ah, ending with more insults, it's a classic repertoire of your posts in this thread, I've noticed. I don't really understand the whole "self-appointed SJW" stuff, as I've never even heard of the term prior to the whole gamergate mess; I'm just someone who is well aware of discrimination and social injustices, having been on the receiving end of it (in real life), and not just of the simple racist name-calling type. Somehow, that I care about social justice, makes me "self-appointed" and to be ridiculed? If you deny that systemic sexism does not exist, or that you do not believe in male privilege, there really is not much to discuss, no more than what a geologist can discuss with a flat-Earth creationist. I only participate in these threads to show, for whoever is reading, that there are people that do care about addressing things like sexism and social injustices, and that *GASP* they're friggin gamers.

Please, I am not that sinister. You asked me if "the game should be completely overhauled and cut to pieces because there are parts that contain things like rape?" No. I am saying that I am against rape, and that rape portrayed in context is actually helpful to show the injustices that linger (and, unfortunately, often times thrive) in the world, hence, the point about Schindler's List. I am against genocide, and Schindler's List is a very good film at portraying genocide in the proper context, as it properly shows the inhumanity of the Holocaust. I've not heard of a single Holocaust survivor (or relative of a Holocaust survivor) be offended by Schindler's List, because it's filmed in the proper context, so your point about someone having lost a loved one due to a murder is moot. The limerick, unlike Schindler's List, is nothing of the sort; it's just a cheap, thinly-veiled, transmisogynistic jab.

I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields? I would tell her to Wo-Man Up. Seriously though, really, you seem to be under the assumption that just because I'm face-to-face with someone, I would have a problem talking to them like a reasonable human being. I would, in fact, not. I'm not familiar with her level of hysteria on the subject, so where it would go from there, I have no idea, but that's really beside the point. She doesn't get an automatic shield made out of implied offense any more than you do. Incredible, though not surprising. I doubt anyone even read the numerous links I've posted of systemic sexism against women in the science fields, which includes plenty of actual sexual harassment, so it's not surprising that you would not be empathetic to their plight, that you would just tell them to "wo-man" up. Spoken like a true individual in a position of privilege.

Got it, it's good to know that as long as it's a joke, it's never offensive to anyone. Let me brush up these racist Mexican and Asian jokes that I saw on the internet and tell it to my Mexican and Asian co-workers tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine with it, because you said so. I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields?

With pleasure. Ever hear of the word context? I assume you abhor genocide, and denounce it. I do too. So how is it possible that both of us can agree that Schindler's List is considered theatrical art? Now compare that to a limerick that is obviously transmisogynistic.

I totally agree. In this thread alone, those who are empathetic to feminist causes, or who are critical of the limerick, are referred to as "feminazis," "idiots," "lunatics," "crazy f***s", and "loons" and also have "mental health issues" and "general loserdom." You're right on the dot with the childish mudslinging.

So you're saying that we should all just accept an obviously transmisogynistic poem in the game, despite the fact that there are trans individuals playing the game? That ought to make it welcoming for said trans players. Or that it's perfectly appropriate for a high-ranking scientist present for a monumental, historic moment to be wearing attire that portrays women as sex objects, despite the documented misogyny that already discourages women from entering the science fields? That must make women comfortable working around you! And somehow, those who point out such sexism are depicted as having a "lack of empathy and perspective" by apologists such as yourself. Please do enlighten me.

I read some of these posts, and it's incredible: So the SJWs who fight against the current status-quo of a patriarchy and privilege, are "feminazis," "idiots," "lunatics," "crazy f***s", and "loons" and also have "mental health issues" and "general loserdom." The status-quo folks who hurled the insults then proceed to tell the SJWs to take a chill-pill and not be so offended. Got it. It's no wonder so many high-profile individuals and organizations, including major video game associations, have been avoiding (more like outright condemning) the GamerGate folks like they were the plague, which undoubtedly many of the posters in this thread share similarities with, if they're not outright already a part of it. Please continue with the blatant insults and sexist remarks (god I pray that you guys do not stop) for all to see. You have no idea how much you're helping people be against your viewpoints, far more than anything that SJWs can do.

It's already great that early buzz says the game is critically phenomenal, but that it's sitting at #1 is even more awesome beyond belief, showing that such games do have a market and can be financially successful. There has, hitherto, been nothing quite like the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape Torment in, well, over a decade. From this phenomenon, I hope other publishers learn that 1) An immersive, single-player RPG with lots of writing can be successful 2) DRM doesn't do jack squat. Man do I hope the expansion will be huge, and that the success of PoE 1 will result in the eventual production of an even more grand PoE 2.

There's a Gog vs Steam topic in the Backer Beta forums too, but I'll chime in here as well. GoG all the way. I don't really understand the convenience factor from Steam. I don't want my games to auto-upload. I don't care about achievements or online network of friends. I don't want to have to go through a separate 3rd party program just to install my games. GoG's DRM-free download-->install is BY FAR the most convenient for me. The big triple-A companies are really, really, really stupid for not wanting to put games up on GoG (or DRM-free on their own sites). Square-Enix and Ubisoft lost money from me not because of piracy, but because they didn't offer Tomb Raider 2013 (and likely the next Tomb Raider), Dragon Age Inquisition, Rayman Legends, Child of Light, and Grow Home DRM-free. That's at least $150 right there from this potential customer (and many of his friends share the same aversion to DRM). Meanwhile, CDProjekt, GoG, and Obsidian are raking it in from me big time.

I see this line of reasoning quite often and I think it's misleading for someone on the fence if they keep seeing Steam=convenience over and over again. I, for one, find Steam extremely inconvenient; why must I install a separate program just to get a particular game that I want? GoG hands down is WAAAAAY more convenient for me: download --> install. GoG all the way for no-nonsense DRM-free downloads. Big companies are really, really, really, REALLY stupid for not wanting to put their titles, triple-AA or otherwise, on GoG (or offer it DRM-free on their own sites). I don't know how many people out there are like me, but many of my friends refuse to buy games if they're not DRM-free (or at maximum, a simple CD check. We're old-school). I've been itching to play the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot for some time now, as well as Dragon Age Inquisition, Child of Light, Rayman Legends, and a few other titles. I guess stockholders for Square-Enix and Ubisoft don't want me to give money to the companies they're invested in (though they did get my money for Rayman Origins day one, guess why?). Praise be to CDProjekt and GoG.