Amentep

Maybe its just me, but that doesn't seem to be out of the norm. Modern popular critical thought seems to boil down to snark and clever one-liners. The sad part is that discourse today is less about presenting ideas with rhetoric and more about one liners, catchy catchphrases and overall just being an ass. We had rhetoric classes at school. One lesson I remember is to leave your strongest argument for last, to make the biggest impact. In practice? Your audience will stop listening at the part they think is wrong or the stupidest and call you out on it. That was my experience, at least. No wonder rhetoric died. :D I'm not sure I really care too much about classical rhetoric so much as I'm against criticism as being solely a bunch of pithy zingers, as if life was a comic strip with the need for a punch line in panel 3. The idea that media (not just games) perpetuating stereotypes as having negative effects isn't really new. Damsel in Distress gets critiqued across the boards. Anita is just looking at it in games for this video (and her second one). Although, to be honest, a lot of the "this {thing} in new media has negative effect" studies have been horribly skewed in how they collect and/or interpret data (whether the {thing} is violence, sex, language, gender portrayals). During a flap over the rise of action cartoons in the early 90s and how the violence in them would negatively effect kids, a review of a random sample of cartoons that played on a Saturday morning found the most violent (in this case violent defined as "actions that could be (a) imitated and (b) injurious) cartoon was a near 30 year old episode of The Flintstones which the angry parents would have watched growing up themselves, most likely. Or look at the flaws in Fredrick Wetham's SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT study (which covered new media Comic Books and Television at the time). That doesn't mean that its not worth looking at the impact negative concepts in media make, I should say, but that we have to be careful to give merit to studies that use some rigor in data collection and interpretation, which means the study has to make its methodology transparent.

Maybe its just me, but that doesn't seem to be out of the norm. Modern popular critical thought seems to boil down to snark and clever one-liners.

I re-watched this one and found myself less impressed by it. The opening is very long (40 minutes to get to the well-familiar origin), the villains motivation is obscure and what evidence there is of it it doesn't really hold together. The best bits are really Parker-Gwen and Captain Stacey towards the end, but it takes a long time to get there. The movie also seems to forget about plot points and characters that they introduced earlier (the cut scenes indicate some heavy reworking of the script during filming too, which probably accounts for a good bit of the lack of focus).

One question that comes up from a narrative sense to my mind on this argument is, essentially, whether the character is a character at all or a macguffin. I'd argue in very early games the "kidnapped" characters were really macguffins to motivate the gameplay and not really characters per-se. This would be true of whether the character was a girl (Mario's girlfriend in DONKEY KONG) or a guy (Donkey Kong himself in Donkey Kong Jr.). In that sense they don't exist as characters and while I understand that some people see that as the problem, I think its actually applying the wrong standards of story to the game and finding it naturally wanting. In essence, I'm not sure narrative or character development is considered a hallmark of early video games to the point that its worth pointing out narrative or character shortcomings. The complaints hold more weight, in my mind, in modern gaming where there is room to develop narrative and character and creating characters to be macguffins for the player to be unnecessary for the most part.

Depends on the fiction. From what very little exposure I have of comic books, I'd say the Ryan Gosling imagery isn't that common. I don't know how common it is in video games either. My issue tends to come more from how the character is represented as a whole, rather than purely based on looks. For example, Isabella is one of my favourite NPCs, who dresses in less than protective clothing (though so dose Varric, the male rogue) and is clearly created to be a sexual person. However, the way she comes across her sexuality doesn't exist simply for the player character to have sex with her. She comes across as having her own nuances and just happens to like sex, and even uses her appearance with her own motivations in mind, and it's applied fairly consistently throughout the game. Lara Croft in Tomb Raider 2 is fine, right up until the end of the game Lara seems to be her usual badass self, until a shower scene.... She looks at the camera, comments "haven't you seen enough" and shoots the camera. At that point it is sort of the game developer stating "Yeah, we made her so that you'd want to ogle her." This had the effect on the Mary Sue writer that loved the first game, and then later ended up feeling as though Lara "wasn't for her" which is unfortunate. As I recall there's also a bit of cultural influence (based on Isabella's dialogue with the PC and with the other NPCs) that implies a different cultural norm where she's form in regards to sex which I think helps flesh the character out a bit from being just a "sexpot" (and I say that as someone who didn't really like the character all that much). Tomb Raider 2 was the game that turned me off the series - but more because of the move away from exploration / puzzle solving and into shooting badguys all over the place. The end bit was pretty stupid fan-service, though. As to the main topic, I'm kind of surprised - and I admit a bit confused - that Ms. Sarkeesian and her work gets the interest (pro/negative) that it does for essentially doing the same kind of things that people do in media studies fields all the time.

Solaris is a pretty good film, but not one I think I'll ever watch very often.

Its evaluation time for my employees. Always fun. Also some other personnel issues to attend to. Blah.

IMO, the ultimate problem with any economic (and political) system is always that it ultimately boils down to being based on people. And the wants and desires of individuals whose own personal motivation and interests run counter to each other. I think the big question has always been which system is the least bad instead of which is the best.

To think this blimp almost became Belgian. Personally I think his behavior is disgraceful and unpatriotic, I hope France prevents him ever returning to the country if he leaves, as from what I understand he still lives n France. Or ensures he cannot get French citizenship again He was living in Belgium prior to Putin giving him Russian citizenship.

Hahha, I thought my browser was broke because the waterfall wasn't animating. Opened the page in three browsers to check and it didn't animate in any of them. I clearly failed the "who is stupid on the internet" test portion of this update.

You're thinking of Oksana Grigorieva who, AFAIK, never married Gibson. Olga Kurylenko was the female lead in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Well I had some time off recently, so.... DOC SAVAGE: THE MAN OF BRONZE I admit, I love the old hero pulps from the 30s and 40s. George Pal (The Time Machine, War of the Worlds) did too. So in the early 70s he set his sites on (arguably) the second most popular pulp hero, Doc Savage, who at the time was enjoying enormous success in the US Paperback market as a series of reprints. It was 1976, though, and even though Batman heyday was roughly a decade past, at some point a decision was made to camp the move up. Whether this happened before or during filming is unclear; some say there is a non-campy (or at least LESS campy) version, others say the film we got was what they made. I'd argue there is some evidence that there's more to the film than we see (in particular all of the sequences with the airplane pilot/assassin seem to be re-shoots and some of the end sequence seems to be re-arranged). The end result is a mess of a movie (the best bit - and most like the pulps in many ways - is Doc and his crew's escape from Captain Seas' ship). The actors do their best (even though many of their characters are changed from their book counterparts - but lets face it, its probably impossible to cast Monk Mayfair) with their parts. I still enjoy the film mostly for nostalgia reasons - it was my introduction to the Doc Savage world when I saw it as a kid, and it led me to the old pulps. OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL Weirdly, as a kid I never read the Oz books. Loved the 1939 movie, but it wasn't until I was in college that I actually tried the book series - which is a fun bit of turn of the (last) century whimsy highlighted by beautiful John R. Neil artwork (and just as good W. W. Denslow artwork in the first book). This movie tries to work from a "what happened before Dorothy arrives at Oz" that is the narrative of L. Frank Baum's original novel. They do a good job trying to fit things in (with a few discontinuities) but mostly concentrate on trying to make a fun film in its own right. James Franco is brilliant as the egotistical con-man magician who comes to Oz by accident and falls into a legendary prediction that could make him rich beyond his wildest dreams - if he doesn't get killed. I thought it had the right amount of whimsy and a good deal of modern special effect action. PAINTED SKIN: THE RESURECTION Sequel to a film I haven't yet seen, but as a separate story they give you everything you need to know; a fox demon escapes from a prison with the help of a bird demon and together begin trying to find a way get a man to pledge his heart to the fox demon as a way to make her human (and thus permanently escape the icy prison, punishment for using her powers to save a bunch of people in the last film). Good performances from Zhao Wei, Chen Kun and Zhou Xun as the primary dramatic triangle and Yang Mi and Feng Shaofeng have some cute moments (and humor in a mostly serious film) as a B story (and welcome exposition on the mythology behind the demons). Some of the fights are naturally impressive; I wish we had more story Huo Xin's command as I think his relationship with his soldiers is underdeveloped (but a minor quibble about a generally good film). MEN IN BLACK 3 Rewatched this one; didn't feel it was as fun the second time around but still enjoyed it. Not really sure where they can go with the film series now, though. SHADOW ON THE STAIRS Set bound 30s adaption of a stage play; has some fun lines but I felt the mystery part of the story wasn't as strong as it could have been (there's a point where I think most audiences will be able to spot the connections and "get" the truth of what happened in the murder). The coda adds a bit of light humor to the darker end but also seemed a bit superfluous.

No it isn't; "actively encourages" means that the game is designed in away in which there is a logically superior way to do things. It is logically superior in terms of benefit/cost to rest after every battle as there is very little penalty assigned to resting (and the penalty that is there can be mitigated by...resting). In an idealized system (and I put that intentionally because I don't think the Ideal system will ever exist) the game would balance the benefit/cost of an action so that what choice the player makes (not resting vs resting in this case) isn't different in terms of worse-bad-good-better (or at least the difference is negligible). There are always Monty Haulers and min-maxers; the point - I'd think - is to not create a system that gives so much benefit to those play styles that other play styles are actively discouraged. I actually disagree with unlimited inventory myself. But if they can balance the penalty for using it (which seems to be access related) it could still be balanced in its own way. I'm willing to wait and see how that is going to work. Anyhow, you can always play the game "your" way provided that your way conforms to the system created for the game. In the IE games I can't use cover to hide my archers for ambushes but it doesn't keep me from playing an archer or even using them effectively in combat; it just means the system is designed in a way that doesn't support logical cover systems. This doesn't make the IE games bad, I still have a way to play an archer within the confines of what the game is designed to do. In your example you can still play the careful party who heals after every fight - you just accept that you have to travel to camp locations to do it. You can still play the tough guy who doesn't heal by not traveling to camp locations, using a minimum amount of healing/stamina potions etc. As above your style will always be adapted to the system as no system can allow you to do anything you want to do. You can still grind quests for XP. You want to beat the boss - fine you go travel and do good/bad in the world. What you can't do is camp in front of the kobold den and whack the kobolds as they come home from the fields for xp - unless someone gives you a quest or it becomes an "encountered" objective/quest. There are no removal of choices - your choices are always defined by what the game allows you to be. When I played KoTOR my first inclination was to not play a force user. But your character *has* to become one. Does the game remove my choice to not be a force user? No because that choice was never there. All games systematically define your actions; my understanding of the whole point of these overhauls is to design a system that doesn't make certain actions logically superior because the benefit/cost ratio is largely stacked towards "benefit" due to unintended consequences in the design that don't balance choice "A" vs choice "B".

Why does a mechanics mere existance "force" someone to use it in a degenerative manner? The answer is of course a lack of self control. Who cares why a person has chosen to play their single player game in a different manner from another? The answer seems to be "everyone not playing *my* game". No the "degenerate" gameplay is one that actively encourages an unintended consequence of the design. The IE gamemakers didn't expect the player to rest after every fight; they didn't say "Wow, this will be fun, every fight the player will press this button! Lets go for it". So to my mind there's no value in not looking at rest mechanics that don't create unintended - and potentially "unfun" - behavior in the players. Your argument that I was responding to is that you couldn't play the game "your" way but had to play it "Sawyer's" way; but my point is you are always allowed to play the game in only the ways the game allows play; the IE was just as limited in options as PE the difference is that if you want to press the sleep button after every fight PE is going to have you travel to a rest location. But you can still do it (from what I understand); the game just isn't built to encourage it as an optimal play style.

But - and this is where I'm getting lost in this argument - why do you want the game to encourage you to "walk back and forth" or to rest after every fight? What about that particular mechanic is worth keeping?

Wonder if the markup on the base tiers has anything to do with them not owning the Numenera IP (whereas doesn't Fargo own the WL IP?). I wonder if their plan is to get the crowd-funding done before WL2 ships or after...?

Every single game mechanic released so far is "healing the symptoms". Rest too much? = Dedicated rest spots. Walk back and forth for loot? = unlimited inventory. Get sad because your level 1 toon misses sometimes? = only 5% chance to miss. Like to heal between fights? = No field healing mechanic at all. Grind for experience? = no kill experience. All of these (except missing) were controllable by the players themselves until "Dur, me cant control self" somehow became a legitimate excuse and requires programs to cater to their compulsive disorders. I don't get the sense that the current "engagement" mechanic is healing a symptom of game play behavior; it's more like a more realistic tactical element that you need to overcome. The other mechanics just seem to be a method of providing verisimilitude while minimizing boredom. Walking back and forth to carry loot is dreary behavior and I'm happy to see that mostly go away. Frequent resting while inside enemy territory is dull and unrealistic. The impression I get is they're looking at the way people actually played the game and trying address emergent behavior that isn't intended in the design of the game. I don't think anyone wants the player to have to carry junk around equivalent to carrying a VW bug on ones back and yet most early RPGs - because of scarcity of resources - encourages people to carry everything they find in the hope of getting a +1 longsword. To my mind there's two way to deal with this - one is fairly complex (involving economy, merchant money, merchant inclination to buy used goods, item condition, creating a junk market, etc) and one is relatively easy (accept player hording and build hording as a viable mechanic that can then be penalized in specific ways to simulate a 'cost' associated with carrying that VW bug on your back but not necessarily a cost that limits the "fun" factor of playing the game).

I dont care about your level of response or your feelings. If you cant control yourself thats your problem, not mine. Well, I guess its mine now that the game has to cater to people like you. I think you do care, and I can control myself perfectly well. Serious question: how the hell did you become a moderator on these boards? You have a bad attitude and I'm fairly certain calling people stupid (you've done it twice now) is against the Forum Guidelines http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/55565-congratulations-gfted1/ - gfted's been around a long time and cares a lot about these forums (and previous ones). Also, to be fair, gfted has always used exaggeration for effect in his arguments; as someone who disagrees with him on these design changes, I certainly don't feel that he's called me stupid with his "Dur, me cant control self" Hulk-talk or his "pretty snow flake" bit. That said if you feel strongly about it, report his posts to the mod team (I think even gfted would agree that that's a better path when confronted with any poster you feel has violated the boards rules than to try to take them on yourself and possibly end up violating board rules in frustration). You can go to the moderator team section and PM a mod directly if you want to make sure a mod other than gfted looks at your concerns.

Actually both ways allows everyone to play how they wish within the constraints created by the game's design. The difference is that the IE games and PE have differing design philosophies as PE's design is being influenced by the developers looking at what they felt did and didn't work in the IE games.

Yeah I'm looking forward to it as well.

From what I've read its a bit more involved than just money and the ultimatum had some history to it - Wuher and Lloyd didn't get along. Wuher supposedly treated the crew poorly; Lloyd was engaged to a crewmember and this led to a Wuher making a comment during a script reading that caused Lloyd to lock herself into her trailer. This led to a production delay that cost the production money. Fast foward a year and Sci-Fi had picked up the show and O'Connel and Derricks had both received raises and Lloyd was requesting one too; Sci-Fi was requesting the show return to its roots with 3 guys and 1 gal traveling, the producers pointed Lloyd as the logical choice since she'd cost the previous years production money and was requesting more money for the current year but the final breaking point was indeed Lloyd reportedly giving series producer Peckinpah the ultimatum of "Kari or me". Note Tracy Torme and Rhys-Davies point to Peckinpah for everything that went wrong with the series

Every single game mechanic released so far is "healing the symptoms". Rest too much? = Dedicated rest spots. Walk back and forth for loot? = unlimited inventory. Get sad because your level 1 toon misses sometimes? = only 5% chance to miss. Like to heal between fights? = No field healing mechanic at all. Grind for experience? = no kill experience. All of these (except missing) were controllable by the players themselves until "Dur, me cant control self" somehow became a legitimate excuse and requires programs to cater to their compulsive disorders. I'm not sure I agree they're "healing the symptoms" since they are high level design decisions to reflect things the developers want to change (whether you think they're an issue or not). A "healing the symptoms" would be to make a low level decision that only addresses the immediate issue (Making it so every rest outside of an inn spawns an auto-hostile encounter would be an example of "healing the symptom" for rest abuse, I'd think. It doesn't change the system, only tries to punish the player for using the non-ideal system in non-ideal ways)

The obsidian order is only for people who added a specific amount to their pledge above what their tier required. I think, he's talking about the "Every backer for this level or more will receive a KICKSTARTER BACKER BADGE on the PROJECT ETERNITY forums" from the level rewards. And AFAIK the official answer is still - its coming along with the fulfillment site.

I think him wanting to make the game is why he got the "Torment" rights (whatever that was) and why he's selling it that way. But previous little of the kickstarter games I've seen aren't trading on some earlier game directly or indirectly so I still have no reservations about supporting the game - if the pitch looks good - because Fargo decided to use the word Torment.

The biggest problem I have for it is is that, for all of Fargo's bluster about how it's great to be free of publishers, he's just doing the same thing that publishers do (leverage a sequel to get additional money). It's one thing to do Wasteland 2 since it's a game he's wanted to make since Fallout was released (it's also a true sequel), but this one just rubs me the wrong way. His actions come across more as former CEO of a big Publisher rather than former game developer. Just my opinion on the matter. Yeah, but it doesn't actually bother me; to my mind there's no real difference between this and WL2 (or the Bard's Tale remake).