Namutree

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time. I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country A republican? Some republicans didn't want to back the rebels at all. I think you are referring to a neocon. Yeah, they would be even worse than Obama.

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time.

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault. Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad.

.... Obviously you haven't got the faintest clue what socialism is. Obama isn't even ~close~ to being a socialist. He's not even a social democrat. Please, stop posting utter nonsense. Say what? Obama is almost a commie, check his background. Obama's no socialist really. Just a populist with a love of economic protectionism and cronyism. Not unlike the previous president.

That's actually a good idea. I'd be okay with that.

Go replay, without mods if you have them. It's definitely true. It was also the most ridicilous bad developer decision I have seen till date. I have done a bit of research, and I'll concede this point. Between Enhanced Edition & mods I got a bit confused. My bad on this one. But, but, that requires reading. Didn't you say just lines before that that's not required, skippable in seconds and something of no importance? I never said they were of no importance; just not needed. As it stands diplomacy is not needed (unlike combat) in those games. Doesn't mean it wasn't helpful at times.

I certainly hope for any decent RPG to this not being the case. If you can totally skip every dialogue on your first PoE game and win, I will be sorely dissapointed... This is the case with most RPG's. Only in rare cases is dialog in an rpg actually important enough that you must read it. You seem to have missed every single page of every single thread (around 1 or 2 dozen) on the subject. Your budy Stun has been one of the most loud proprietors of this standpoint from the start. Just look through his post-history for a long summary of posts where "no combat XP = run past all enemies"... You seriously need to inform yourself of the standpoints of your own party. As for the second part, see the above quote reply. I could simarly say the same. I find one lone kobold, I smack his puny little face in 2 in seconds... So why should it give XP? Nope. They have only suggested that they'll avoid combat if it doesn't give xp. That position is perfectly logical considering the amount of risk, resources, and effort involved with combat. If combat were quick and easy I suspect they'd be willing to engage in it; even with no xp reward. As for the kobald question; the kobald presents a very minor threat, and gives very minor experience. That makes sense. Talking to a random npc presents no risk, and thus gives no xp. That makes sense too. Man your posts are long... I'll respond to more of it later.

Me too. Honestly I was hoping the villian would use vibro-swords over lightsabers; to help signify that he (maybe she?) wasn't sith, but something new... Maybe something worse!

Gamesutra has been very poor to us. Please read Meshugger's post above. This isn't because they're SJWs; it's because they're jerks. So... Yeah, boycott them. I don't care about Anita/Wu/Zoe because they aren't supposed to represent our interest, and they aren't journalists. Gamesutra is game website; I expect they will treat their own consumer base with respect. They don't.

The fact that they are SJWs is not important. The corruption is the problem, and any group is capable of being corrupt. We've already made post discussing the christian game sites, and how we approve of their methods. This situation could easily be the reverse; where zealous christian journalists were the corrupt ones and it was the SJW game sites that are the admirable model. The 3? What are they; some kind of super villains in a western fantasy? These three are just anti-gamergate critics. Their only importance is what you give them. If we win; they can attack us all they want; after all, we will have won. The day gamergate is about anything but corrupt journalism; is the day I (and anyone reasonable) loses interest in gamergate. From what I understand it's why *most* joined, and it's the only cause that justifies the term 'gamergate'. If gaming journalism isn't the point of gamergate; don't you think it's a misleading term? Gamergate should NOT have a political agenda. Gamergate is first and foremost a consumer revolt. This isn't about politics, or social engineering. This is about corrupt gaming journalism, and how gamers are being mistreated by these websites. If fighting SJWs is your goal; go ahead and start a movement against them rather than join a consumer revolt about journalistic ethics. Also, if gamergate even does have a battle after we win this fight; cleaning up mainstream journalism would be a better net step than going after SJWs some more. Good post Namutree, you make your posts in a very convincing and reasonable way. I admire that character trait I am just surprised you are still part of GG as its already crossed that line you stated where you said "The day gamergate is about anything but corrupt journalists " There are many examples of this from certain members of GG Its odd you can't seem to see it ? So far no website has been boycotted for having SJW sympathies. If any ever do, or if the anti-SJW elements get out of hand; I'm out. So far though; people like Trashman are a small minority. So I don't think GG has crossed that line, or is even headed in that direction. I feel once we win this first fight; SJWs will be off our radar, and people like Trashman will need to find another bandwagon to jump on. Maybe they'll find a movement about father's rights and try to turn that into an anti-SJW crusade.

HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH!!! I loved this video!!!

QUIT TAUNTING ME!!!

I'd just like to state that I in no way condone or associate myself with this statement. /rapidly backs away from Malcador What he said...

The fact that they are SJWs is not important. The corruption is the problem, and any group is capable of being corrupt. We've already made post discussing the christian game sites, and how we approve of their methods. This situation could easily be the reverse; where zealous christian journalists were the corrupt ones and it was the SJW game sites that are the admirable model. The 3? What are they; some kind of super villains in a western fantasy? These three are just anti-gamergate critics. Their only importance is what you give them. If we win; they can attack us all they want; after all, we will have won. The day gamergate is about anything but corrupt journalism; is the day I (and anyone reasonable) loses interest in gamergate. From what I understand it's why *most* joined, and it's the only cause that justifies the term 'gamergate'. If gaming journalism isn't the point of gamergate; don't you think it's a misleading term? Gamergate should NOT have a political agenda. Gamergate is first and foremost a consumer revolt. This isn't about politics, or social engineering. This is about corrupt gaming journalism, and how gamers are being mistreated by these websites. If fighting SJWs is your goal; go ahead and start a movement against them rather than join a consumer revolt about journalistic ethics. Also, if gamergate even does have a battle after we win this fight; cleaning up mainstream journalism would be a better net step than going after SJWs some more.

Take it down a notch.

Why does OE hate us so?

Hell yes! THIS!!!

What a surprise.

Won't let any untrue claim that gamergate has harassed some one stand; joke or not.

Whilst let's be honest here, OJ did it, and there was pretty good evidence that he did it, there wasn't a recording of him getting it done, and he was judged not guilty because the jury was retarded, not because "Poor OJ has been through enough with his wife allegedly hurting him even though there's 0 evidence.". He was voted not guilty because their wasn't sufficient reliable evidence.

The sites that have been boycotted are all game journalism sites; so if there are any misogynist in gamergate they are wasting their time. Especially when we raised awareness and money for a feminist group trying to help women get into the industry. Gamergate is about gaming journalism; not anything else. The proof is in the boycotted sites, and the causes we raise money for.

Eh. I've never really cared about Brianna Wu. The fact of the matter you should. When the most targeted female victim of gamergate is a man, it just means that patriarchy wins no matter what happens. What do mean? Brianna Wu was never a victim of gamergate, nor is she a journalist; thus she doesn't matter to me.

Eh. I've never really cared about Brianna Wu.

Bruce, are you seriously suggesting that colonialism doesn't have anything to do with why Africa is in such rough shape? I can't seem to find this quote from Bruce that Barothmuk has on his post. Oh well...

Oh, and something something "ethics in game journalism". While it's about ethics in game journalism; the unethical journalists in this case are SJWs. Not to mention that SJWs tend to slander gamergate; a lot. So it shouldn't be hard to understand why people pro-gamergate often talk of SJWs as "the enemy", but SJWs are not actually the target as much as these unethical journalists who just happen to be SJWs.