Amentep

Telling of what? That people are angry at feminist for infiltrating and subverting online media, they shouldn't be allowed to be angry and criticize. "Inflitrating?" "Subverting?" What those quotes were telling of is that GamerGate is little more than another crackpot conspiracy theory. Such language does little to disabuse me that this is gaming's equivalent of the Red Scare. "We GamerGaters do not avoid women...but we do deny them our essence..." Well, I don't know about those people but I'm sure if I judged huge swathes of people based on internet comment sections of tabloid websites it would make everything seem like a conspiracy theory. There was an article on the local newspaper website about something I was interested in seeing the reaction of the community and the comments quickly descended into political conspiracy theories and blatant racism. Which sounds pretty much like what happened on this "Ralph Report" (except switch racism for sexism). I suspect that people underestimate the number of people with an axe to grind and the number of people who just like **** stirring.

Yeah I dug Agent Carter as well.

I picked the hearts almost all the time. It was funny.

There actually no lore issues with female Thor in the Marvel Universe. Mjolnir has the specific legend of "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." Semantic argument over the lack of gender neutral pronouns in the English language aside, the intent was, and always has been, that whoever was deemed worthy by the enchantment could hold the hammer and be Thor. Hence Beta Ray Bill. Is Thor a title? I thought it was the guy's name. Thor Odinson is the son of Odin. Named Thor. The Hammer Mjolnir has an enchantment that only the people worthy of it can pick it up. And in so doing, they are granted the power of Thor. Back when the title started, Odin had punished Thor by making him human and exiling him to earth (where he had the alias of Dr. Don Blake) and if he proved himself worthy he could unlock his Thor powers. Which he did, regaining powers and memory, but the enchantment to Mjolnir remains. So its a desert topping and a floorwax. I mean its a name and a title. Thor Odinson is Thor whether he has his hammer or not, but anyone who has his hammer and can pick it up ("worthy") is also Thor. So Beta Ray Bill was Thor until Thor took his hammer back and Odin had a similar hammer made for Bill that gave him Thorish powers. Which brings us to our mystery woman who picked up the hammer and has become Thor in the current title after Thor Odinson became unworthy and unable to pick it up again. The only other person besides Thor to go by Thor while wielding Mjolnir was Eric Masterson, and it was because Thor was bound inside his body, and when Thor was split from him and banished, he just kept up the illusion that he was still Thor, only revealing he wasnt to Captain America. Beta Ray Bill was still Beta Ray Bill, Steve Rogers was still Steve Rogers. Having Thor's powers doesn't make you Thor. It doesn't necessarily make you Thor - except when it does. BRB had all the powers of Thor and could have easily went by Thor if he wanted to.

I think its possible. The next Thor film is Ragnarok. I could see them replacing Thor (particularly if Helmsworth is at the end of his contract) and having someone else get the power via the Hammer. Or even just doing a switcharoo for a film as part of the plot.

There actually no lore issues with female Thor in the Marvel Universe. Mjolnir has the specific legend of "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." Semantic argument over the lack of gender neutral pronouns in the English language aside, the intent was, and always has been, that whoever was deemed worthy by the enchantment could hold the hammer and be Thor. Hence Beta Ray Bill. Is Thor a title? I thought it was the guy's name. Thor Odinson is the son of Odin. Named Thor. The Hammer Mjolnir has an enchantment that only the people worthy of it can pick it up. And in so doing, they are granted the power of Thor. Back when the title started, Odin had punished Thor by making him human and exiling him to earth (where he had the alias of Dr. Don Blake) and if he proved himself worthy he could unlock his Thor powers. Which he did, regaining powers and memory, but the enchantment to Mjolnir remains. So its a desert topping and a floorwax. I mean its a name and a title. Thor Odinson is Thor whether he has his hammer or not, but anyone who has his hammer and can pick it up ("worthy") is also Thor. So Beta Ray Bill was Thor until Thor took his hammer back and Odin had a similar hammer made for Bill that gave him Thorish powers. Which brings us to our mystery woman who picked up the hammer and has become Thor in the current title after Thor Odinson became unworthy and unable to pick it up again.

I paced it pretty well - I went back to the keep a lot. The problem is, I tend to be a weekend player. Ie if I don't have anything to do I might rack up six hours on Saturday and 5 on Sunday. So any mission that takes over 5 hours won't complete until the next day. 4 of these means your commanders can't do anything until the next day. So yeah, just by virtue of how I played there was no way I could finish the table missions without starting the game up, setting all the commanders to doing a 5-6 hour mission and then turning the game off until the next day; the story & sidequests were always going to outpace the table.

I still don't see the appeal of Ghost in the Shell (based on the translation of the original manga and a sub of the first movie from 1995). But I also agree with Tale, I don't see the story translating well to a live action western film.

I remember that one. When I was 16 in the mid-80's, it seemed pretty awesome. Not that I thought it was the best even then, but hey, it was sci-fi/fantasy-ish, so I dug it. I have a soft spot for it, I admit. Michael Pare. Nancy Allen. WWII Time travel. Car chases. Explosions.

Indeed, there does seem to be a lot more focus on persons and personalities than on facts and issues that facts raise. If someone's done something that is legally actionable the solution isn't posting it on the internet, but getting the information into the hands of the proper authorities. If its not legally actionable than its just character assasination (denounce the person to denounce their point rather than addressing the point itself). IMO.

Its his earliest credit on Moby Games - http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,13496/ - Under Quality Assurance. One of two games from 1991 (no clue which actually came out first).

Okay... Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) - I liked it but couldn't help but feel that it was a bit of a grab bag. Some things were done very well, others not so much. In particular, I felt that Tauriel and Thranduil's final scene was ultimately clunky; they'd set up this conflict between them and instead of going for understated they go OTT (Tauriel) and on the nose dialogue (Thranduil). Some nice set pieces, but why couldn't they have just resolved the Smaug stuff last film given how little it impacts the story. Pretty sure there are some major cut scenes (at least I hope Beorn just doesn't get relegated to the one scene showing him). Meet Boston Blackie (1941), Confessions of Boston Blackie (1941), & Alias Boston Blackie (1942) - Chester Morris is affiable enough, but how many times can they do "ex-con accused of complicity in crime he didn't commit has to solve the crime to save himself"? Three so far... "Confessions" has a very annoying minor character who seems to exist only to complicate the plot and annoy the audience. The last one has a clever circus disguise angle. The Verdict (1946) - Sydney Greenstreet plays a disgraced prosecuter who was responsible for the conviction and hanging of an innocent man. When another murder happens he and Peter Lorre investigate. Fun mystery film with a good performance by Greenstreet in particular. Three Strangers (1946) Greenstreet and Lorre team up again in a film co-written by John Hughes. Those two are brought together by Geraldine Fitzgerald to make a wish at an idol on Chinese New Year. They legend states if three people who are strangers wish for the same thing then it'll be granted by the goddess of luck. They put their wish on the National race ticket of a down-and-out drunk (Lorre). Greenstreet a prominant lawyer agrees on a lark. Fitzgerald, a true believer, wants her husband back. As each story progresses we see that the initial impression of each character isn't quite what it seems. The conclusion is unexpected and yet satisfying as well. Star of Midnight (1935) - William Powell plays a varation of Nick Charles to Ginger Rogers not quite being Nora. Fun mystery, some surprising twists. Dialogue's not as breezy as the Thin Man series, but Rogers keeps things light while Powell swims through alcohol (glass by glass) to solve the mystery. Fast Company (1938) & Fast and Loose (1939) - Rare book dealer and ameture detective Joel Sloan (Melvyn Douglas, Robert Montgomery) and his wife Garda (Florence Rice, Rosalind Russel) get involved in rare book crimes and murder. Another THIN MAN-type series, fun enough (although I think the second is superior - the chemistry between Montgomery and Russel plays better). Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death (2015) - Not as strong as the first film; this one seems unable to really build the same feeling of creepyness the original had and instead relies on a lot of variable jump scares. A few bits are good, but mostly an average haunted house film. The original or The Awakening would be better alternatives, IMO. The Philadelphia Experiment (1984) - Michael Pare is sent from the past (1940-something) to the future (1984) due to an experiment in radar cloaking. Nancy Allen befriends him and tries to help him. But the experiment threatens to destroy the world and the government has to get Pare to go back to save the future. A fun 80s run-around based on the long running conspiracy theory. Not terribly ambitious, but its diverting enough with car chases, explosions and 80s style action. And Pare and Allen are always watchable actors in even the most modest fare.

There actually no lore issues with female Thor in the Marvel Universe. Mjolnir has the specific legend of "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." Semantic argument over the lack of gender neutral pronouns in the English language aside, the intent was, and always has been, that whoever was deemed worthy by the enchantment could hold the hammer and be Thor. Hence Beta Ray Bill. The new Thor is a woman who is worthy, and thus has Thor's powers. Thor Odinson has become "unworthy" for unclear reasons. There are already several other female Thor analogs, including Valkyrie, Thor Girl and Thor himself (transformed into a woman as in one of the original legends as I recall). On a previous thread Malcador said: "Science is gendered?" aluminiumtrioxid said: "How many women do you know working in STEM?" I said "Is that STEM's fault?" To which aluminiumtrioxid said "Does it need to be anyone's fault in order for it to be recognised as a fact?" To which I respond: The inference I took from your statement was that Women not working in STEM when combined with the statement about science being "gendered" was that STEM had a default, gendered male state that actively repelled women. Perhaps this inference was different from the intended implication, I don't know. But I think it fair to point out that if there are a lack of women in technical fields, there's more evidence that shows that the cause involves how students are engaged (or not) in those subjects than an inherent quality within the fields themselves.

So I finished it. Thought it was fun. Guessed some of the twists, didn't guess others. Will probably play again in awhile, but for now I'm trying to catch up with some other games that I've had on the backburner. Ultimately I think the game if good but they really have a pacing problem with respect to the mission table. First - why can my commanders (who aren't going on missions themselves) only do one thing at a time? Also using real time is fine and dandy in theory but I did a lot of dithering and a lot of the last mission table quests yI got are 5-6 hours to complete which at the end of the game is a bit silly (there's nothing left to do in the game but the end and we're still waiting for 6 hours to complete some side quest?) . Given the plethora of Power Points available to me, I can't help but wonder if they should have implemented a system where you could expend power points to shorten the time to complete a side quest (this is the part where someone tells me that was actually the case and I just missed it).

Can't imagine Qunari would be that much better - isn't an elf to a qunari about the same height differential as a dwarf to a human? Although now I'm wondering what a Dwarf Inqisitor-Iron Bull romance would end up looking like in the cut scenes...

There's a lot of discussion about how teachers will support boys vs girls in the STEM subjects in schools in subtle ways (say calling on boys more for questions in STEM classes than girls) and some studies on it seem to indicate a bias may exist. Even with that, however, its not STEM that's the problem, since its a neutral entity in the equation. The problem would be how STEM classes are taught (or more specifically if there's a favor bias towards supporting boys in STEM subjects over girls) but that isn't inherent to STEM and is certainly correctable on the part of educators.

Its pretty clear from reports that he had mental health issues that were never addressed. Family said (if I read it correctly) that he refused treatement and in none of his previous run-ins with the law was there a mental health intervention.

How many women do you know working in STEM? Is that STEM's fault?

As an aside observation, am I the only one who thinks that - with the inclusion of the Qunari race - that Dwarves are getting the short end of the stick only being able to be two classes? In DAO the "mage origin" was the same for human or elf so essentially you had human-elf-dwarf warrior or rogue and then mage as origins; not the case in DAI where each mage is slightly different and while the influence is seemingly minor it seems odd that now three races get three classes while the dwarf is stuck with two. Know there are lore reasons why Dwarves don't get the mage, but I do wonder if the dwarves are going to slide to the "race option no one plays" in future games, particularly if there's no real tie to the Primary Dwarven culture in the story.

Yeah, I last (and first) saw it in probably Christmas 1979 or Christmas 1980. So nostalgia all over.

So I restarted and decided to go Rogue. Went with daggers...and I respec'ed to use traps rather than stealth because I kept dying with stealth. And I'm liking it a lot. There are still a few creatures that I had trouble with at lower levels (but it seemed fewer than stealth) most notably fire attacks from rage demons if I could get out of the way. I just beat the Hinterlands dragon at level 11 with the character. The chain toss allowed me to move around the dragon away from the head, the dagger throw inflicted Sunder and a dagger type does well with criticals (plus I have it so that daggers thrown against one enemy up their damage with each hit). Too bad he's immune to poison (but it was helpful taking out dragonlings). Had more trouble keeping Vivian and Iron Bull around than I did with the main PC.

I'd argue fighter was, however, and I thought that I'd add to your explanation with a further clarification I thought important but perhaps was unnecessary. However my point is that it is possible for a critic/reader to read into the book their own cultural content that was never the intent of the author (or even, perhaps, in the author's cultural context) because what they're seeing isn't a reflection of the author or of the book but instead of themselves. I'm not sure what point are you trying to make. Yes, it's possible to analyze products of culture incompetently, just as much as it's possible to analyze chemical compounds incompetently. Does it mean analysis in itself is bad? I don't think so. My point is that we have to realize that criticism in and of itself has a bias. It is not a neutral entry into discourse; it carries the same potential baggage and influence as the work in question did/does. I dunno, there have been a number of gunning down people movies. Straw Dogs, Death Wish, Falling Down... Now you can argue that games making the player part of the process makes it different from viewing violence as a spectator, but American culture is facsinated by violence. But I'd also argue that games journalists (as opposed to the weird "I write about games but am not a journalist" crowd) shouldn't be advocating for anything other than better games. Which a good discussion could be had whether Hatred is the right move for the game industry towards that goal, but as far as I can tell that discussion was never had. Interestingly enough, I did some digging, and all the articles I've found at the usual suspects - Kotaku, Gamasutra, y'know, the "SJW sites" - have said "this game is pretty much a desperate attention grab, a cynical attempt at riding controversy in order to avoid the only question that should matter: 'is this game fun?' - but it has every right to be published". Censorship! Bias! They're all book-burning anti-intellectual fascist nazi scum! And that's fine, I was addressing your "the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game" comment, which clearly isn't the reviews you mention above but other reviews (potentially hypothetical, as was my response).

Karen Gillian (Amy Pond from Doctor Who) got the lions share of the press for the film. Sackhoff has a nice turn, but its a small part really. I liked the film other than the characters not realizing the basic flaw in their plans (but I felt the film set up why Gillian's character wouldn't see the flaw). For me I watched: THE CASE OF THE VELVET CLAWS (1936) - Its easy to see why Mason creator Earle Stanley Gardner hated the Warren William series; they take the basic idea of the books and mix them with "Thin Man"-esque boozy comedy and romance. They're fun if taken as a Warren WIlliam mystery series of the (he was in several good ones in the 30s and 40s) but fail as adaptions of the book. This one also includes a weird running gag about everyone catching a cold. Also this film series may be the most I've ever seen character actor Olin Howland in my life (typically a comedic side-kick in westerns; his last role was the old man who find the meteor in the original THE BLOB) MACABRE (1958) WIlliam Castle (The Tingler) gives us a story of a man - a doctor - whose daughter is kidnapped. A phone call says she's buried alive. The town hates the man and won't help him (and/or are suspects) so he must figure out what happened with only the help of his trusted nurse and his former father in law. Its a gripping tale, well told and easy to keep an audience guessing. Also has an unusual flashback scene explaining the towns animosity towards the doctor where Jim Backus delivers a beat down to him. This is the first movie by Castle to use a gimmick, this one an admonishment of the audience to "watch over" each other in case someone becomes too frightened by the movie. It also asks for no one to tell the end reveal, which I shall honor. THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF PUSS IN BOOTS (1969 aka Nagagutsu o Haita Neko) - saw this once as a kid and hadn't seen it since. Pero, the swashbuckling cat, is chased by a trio of assassins out to kill him for not eating a baby mouse. His daring and helpful nature ends up with him trying to help a miller's son whose brothers are cheating him by getting him married to a princess - who happens to have caught the eye of a magician ogre. Lots of run around and silly fun stuff. Miyazaki was an animator on the film (as was several other soon to be famous animators). Its easy to see why Pero became the mascot for Toei Animation. SON OF KONG (1933) - rushed into production, this sequel has some things going for it (Robert Armstrong back as Denham, Helen Mack as a new character who gets involved in the story). It takes a long time to get back to Skull Island though and the animation feels rushed (which it probably was since this film came out later the same year as King Kong did).

That's actually not true, since reporters can work on multiple stories. They also don't work in a vacuum, so that reporter A isn't reporting on something doesn't mean Reporter B couldn't be. Let's assume for a moment that people don't have infinite time and energy. If we're willing to accept this, it's not a huge leap of logic that despite being able to work on multiple stories, there is a finite number of stories they can work on at any given time. Therefore, assuming a maximum workload - which can be expected, given how astonishingly ****tily games journalists are paid, and the fact that bills usually don't just magically go away -, choosing to report on a given story does mean that a different story won't make it. But this is actuall orthogonal to the point I was making, which is "assuming that all opinions are equally valid and worthy of being heard is dangerous, especially when one concludes that because of this, privately owned entities are somehow morally obliged to give platform to inane bull****, even at the cost of covering other, perhaps worthier subjects". Sure, there's a finite number of stories. Because of time. I just want to make it clear that we're not dealing with a binary if/then statement. I think too often our discussions on this thread become alarmingly binary and/or reductionistic. There's an assumption in what he says that a test assumes something that it doesn't speak. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to create anything - well, anything with words in it, at the very least - without some amount of cultural context seeping into it. It might not be intentional on the part of the creator, but the author is dead, and has been dead for the better part of a century or so. However my point is that it is possible for a critic/reader to read into the book their own cultural content that was never the intent of the author (or even, perhaps, in the author's cultural context) because what they're seeing isn't a reflection of the author or of the book but instead of themselves. I could be wrong, but I don't remember Roger Ebert advocating that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed. I remember (or misremember) reading something from Pauline Kael indicating she wished certain people would stop making movies, but I don't necessarily remember her specifically saying that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed. Could be wrong, of course, but my readings of both (unlike some games journalists) were that they were advocates for better films by promoting what they wanted to see and being critical of the things they didn't. They didn't go out and try to stop a film being distributed or made. And I think that's the key difference - a lot of the game buying public (rightly or wrongly) are of the opinion that there are some game journalists who only want games made that they approve of (which is why we are where we are). Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered. I dunno, there have been a number of gunning down people movies. Straw Dogs, Death Wish, Falling Down... Now you can argue that games making the player part of the process makes it different from viewing violence as a spectator, but American culture is facsinated by violence. But I'd also argue that games journalists (as opposed to the weird "I write about games but am not a journalist" crowd) shouldn't be advocating for anything other than better games. Which a good discussion could be had whether Hatred is the right move for the game industry towards that goal, but as far as I can tell that discussion was never had.

Great link, thanks! That was my memory of Ebert's & Siskel's position.