Amentep

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.

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. There's an assumption in what he says that a test assumes something that it doesn't speak. One of the things that I have with criticism in general is that often times what crictis see as a tacit intentional omision is often only a projection of their own assumption that it should exist there in the first place (or a projection of their own feeling about the work on actors in the work for that type of media). This may just be me that feels that way; I think in terms of criticism we always have to take it for what it ultimately is - one person's opinion. 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).

It's been updated. http://m.imgur.com/a/kTgTs Based on his arguments, I'm thinking that he believes that games are inherently a poor platform for social criticism? Essentially the idea would be that a game can't critique violence if its violent gameplay is fun. Since you can't have a game that has "unfun" central mechanics, the only way to criticise violence would be to make violent action inherently unfun in the game (which, I guess, means Mirror's Edge is a critique on violence since I seem to recall most complaints about that game was all the gameplay but combat was fun).

This does seem to be a slam against someone they don't like. The difference between the TYT anchor laughing and running out of a room and the other host is apparently she "gets paid more". So I guess its okay to act unprofessional* provided you're not getting paid a lot. Furries as a subculture don't have a large identity penetration into the mainstream AFAIK so I'd imagine the average person probably hasn't heard of them. *If you think having any emotional reaction to a story is unprofessional. That said, I actually think the other anchors may have set her up - one specifically prompting "what are furries" and then the other whispering something to her. Seems a deliberate attempt to make her break up on camera.

^I admit that I have a problem with how Orson Scott Card was run off of jobs. Sure I disagreed with his opinions, but that doesn't mean I think the man should be forced out of his career unless he "converts" to the "approved" opinions.

I really agree here. There is a movement to make the creative effort about the creator irregardless of the creation. Now I have no interest in Hatred (or most shooters in general) but if the game company wants to make it fine. If the game company is proven to be racist facists, the consumer can decide if they want to patronize them or not. Most historical creators could never survive the standards applied to today's creators. Lovecraft was a racist, for crying out loud. He was also a product of his time and place, as are we all. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, illustrating her view of Voltaire's views in The Friends of Voltaire

Since he says he's "40", the poster himself hasn't experienced at leaest one of the era he's referencing. It'd mean he was born in the 1970s; McCarthyism and the blacklisting of suspected communists was in the mid-1950s and would have been experienced by his parents and/or grandparents. He goes on and mentions freedom from the religious right, which is vague enough to be a reference to the big religon in school/school prayer decisions that were made in the early 60s (Engel v Vitale, 1962 and the Abington School District v Schimpp, 1963) which he wouldn't have been around for or the fights over rap music (like the furor over Ice T's "Cop Killer") or even video games (Jack Thompson's crusade, though, wasn't really "religious") which he would have been around for.

^I'd argue that Sci-Fi is harder to write (as to not fall into "science fantasy" one must be up on current science theories and able to make good extrapolations). I'd also imagine editors find fantasy of all types easier to deal with because not understanding some scientific theory isn't going to get their publishing house ridiculed by scientists on the internet with fantasy but will with sci-fi.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm under the impression that Hatred isn't finished, hasn't been released (or else why would it be up for voting on Greenlight?) so how would you know that Hatred is none of those things you list? BTW, Lolita was turned down by 6 major US publishers for content concerns before Nobokov turned to France where the publisher ended up being one that mostly did pornographic novels. France banned it a year after its publication after the UK customs started seizing shipments into the country of the book. It took 4 years for US and 5 for UK publication. The UK publication ended the political career of the publisher. So pardon me if I fail to see how "merit" somehow makes something censor/ban proof... You far too clever to make such a fatuous argument that Hatred may reach the intellectual and emotional heights of Lolita, its just a violent FPS....that's it Since that's not what I did, I don't see what your problem was. Point (A) we can't comment on what HATRED achieves because the game doesn't exist for us to mark its merit or lack of same. Point (B) even great works can end up not finding distribution. Lolita is by far not the only work to have a troubled publishing history because of its content. Point © it'd be a travesty for Lolita to be banned "because it was a great work" didn't stop it from being banned. It doesn't stop modern attempts to ban it. And this, ultimately is my point - while publishers (like Simon and Schuster with Nobokov or Steam with Hatred) are perfectly in their rights to decide that a creative work doesn't fit their publication profile, I start having a serious problem when consumer side activists start trying to dictate what should and shouldn't be distributed/available for me in any fashion. Because its a slippery slope. Its all fine and good while you're in power and banning the things you don't like, but what happens when you're not in power and people start banning the things you do like?

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm under the impression that Hatred isn't finished, hasn't been released (or else why would it be up for voting on Greenlight?) so how would you know that Hatred is none of those things you list? BTW, Lolita was turned down by 6 major US publishers for content concerns before Nobokov turned to France where the publisher ended up being one that mostly did pornographic novels. France banned it a year after its publication after the UK customs started seizing shipments into the country of the book. It took 4 years for US and 5 for UK publication. The UK publication ended the political career of the publisher. So pardon me if I fail to see how "merit" somehow makes something censor/ban proof...

Still seems dodgy; the original Brazilian site only seems to name a police officer. Typically you'd expect some other identifying details (when the arrest happened for example), the hospital involved (listed in the earliers report I can find as "City Hospital").

How that wouldn't also kill her I have no idea Reads like one of those email chain stories/urban legends. No name of any person involved, no name of the poison/toxic substance, nor the name the hospital. Only a city is stated. I call fake until further documentation can be provided.

Egads, there's so many factual inaccuracies in that "article". That'd be SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT by Dr. Frederick Wertham. It - and to a lesser degree PARADE OF PLEASURE by Geoffry Wagner - are the main literary sources for the anti-comics stance in public culture. However comics had come under fire in the 1930s, so it wasn't a new accusation and the Senate hearings were also a big player in the situation. This isn't true, yes superheroes had "hit" again by the mid-1950s. But the best sellers were still crime and horror comics. DC was doing well with war and sci-fi. Marvel scraped by on giant monsters with weird names. But besides appearing to be responsible companies guarding the youth of the day, another part of the reason why the CCA was formed by the companies it was formed by was the CCA was a timely piece of industry ballyhoop that allowed EC and Lev Gleason's competitors a free license to put them out of business in the middle of a "scare". The main companies behind the CCA - DC, Marvel, Archie, Dell - essentially wrote the rules so EC and Lev Gleason couldn't continue to make and sell their books. Note DC had been self-censoring since about 1940 with their "no-kill" policy. Diamond is a monopoly (one that the government has declined to pursue) but the real reason is the loss of comic distribution outside of the comic shop, meaning their market penetration when compared with other things is miniscule. Marvel was in bankruptcy when it gave Sony and Fox their sweetheart deals. They were in bankruptcy due to management at the time and a debacle with Marvel distributing their own comics (which is part of why Diamond is now a monopoly). Diamond does not set the price of books. Mattel never owned Marvel. Marvel bought a company called Toy Biz which then got control of Marvel, then the toy market collapsed and Toy Biz was reorgnized and sold off (to Mattel) while Marvel remained in the hands of its private owners.

Note "in order to remove things". To censor means that you expurgate it but deliver the final approved product to the end user. This is not what Target did nor is it the goal of the petition. Bans keep things from the end user. **** Wanted to comment on this from the other thread: There's an inherent problem with this, which is that from studies I've heard of the vast proportion of male prostitutes work in the male-male sex trade with much fewer actually doing male-female; given the current climate, I'd imagine giving players the ability to kill them will be seen as some sort of comment against homosexuality