TychoCelchuuu

Mostly just the sad face.

Google "System Shock Portable," but frankly I've always found that buggier and less easy to use than DOSBox, which is a very easy program to get your head around. System Shock runs just fine in DOSBox without any tweaking on my part.

I've always thought that a woman who strips for you when you beat the game is sort of a bad trump card for people to pull out but what do I know.

Talking about whether the "underlying misogynist meaning" does or doesn't "actually exist" is the wrong way to go about it. Meanings don't "exist" in works of art in the sense that thinking about it this way assumes - that is, developers don't pick a "meaning" and then embed it in the game, leaving it up to us to dig through the game and discover the "meaning" in a process which we can do correctly or (as you claim in this case) incorrectly. It's true that developers may intend for a game to mean something, or many things. It's also true (and probably more likely) that most developers (especially the developers of a lot of the games in question) don't intend for them to mean anything aside from "this is cool" or "this is fun." But what a developer intends their game to mean is entirely separate from what a game does mean. What a game (or what any other work of art) does mean depends not on what the developers wanted it to mean but on what it means to people who experience it. (This is all just repeating what BigJKO said, really.) A better way to put your point is that, when Sarkeesian thinks that these games mean certain things (in this case, "games seem to continually give us a justification to kill or at least fight our wife or girlfriend, and this is creepily suggestive of domestic abuse") she's off-base, because the games in question don't mean that. This, I think, would be a much stronger point, although I think you would still be incorrect. I think you would be incorrect because I think it's pretty clear cut that if a shitton of games are going around giving us stupendous reasons to visit violence upon our character's female partner this is blatantly justification of violence again women. The closest we can get to making this look okay is to point out that games do this to men, too: "hey, look, you have to kill your best friend and he's a dude also!" One response would be to say that games do this to women much more often, but I don't know about that. I think a better response would be to say "sure, let us assume games are equal opportunity when it comes to giving you narrative reasons to hurt someone you love. But of course in our society we don't really have any issues with people, men or women, beating the shit out of the men in their life that they ostensibly love. But of course we have ridiculously unacceptable levels of domestic abuse that gets perpetrated against women on a daily basis. So in the context of the real world, a work of art that gives us justification to smack down our best friend is just that, whereas a work of art that give us justification to clobber our girlfriend obviously smacks of domestic violence."

thecatamites is back on twitter.

System Shock > System Shock 2 > Minerva's Den > BioShock > BioShock 2 > * > Infinite.

I'd keep trying - it's worth beating. In any case here is what is definitely a story spoiler about the end, so only click on it if you've definitely given up forever because you hate video games (and assuming we're talking about the panther dude, like Colourful Stuff says it's more a matter of figuring out what to do than executing it):

I believe Splinter Cell Chaos Theory did the music thing? Can't remember.

So like the cube is open now and stuff. No word on what's inside yet.

TIE Fighter, Monkey Island 2... oh iMUSE, how I love thee.

Better archive now up. Thank goodness.

Sam and Max.

The Bible says go for it! "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out." - Mark 9:47. Straight up ticket to heaven right there. It would be silly to pass it up.

Just because Nintendo has to take action doesn't mean it has to take control of ad revenue. In this case protecting its trademark is as easy as giving YouTube content makers permission to monetize their content. This would stop infringement by making it hard/impossible to infringe.

come on, if you're not going to take the thread seriously don't even bother to post, i mean i dont even see any gaming stuff in those pictures (except that copy of halo 4)

On a scale of 1 to yes, how much does this podcast spoil Thomas Was Alone? I want to get around to that game some day.

Meeting anyone who you know of but who you don't know is weird. The Internet just adds another realm that lets you know of people without getting to know them.

New Vegas with Josh Sawyer's mod (on Hardcore), Don't Starve, Gods Will Be Watching, System Shock + System Shock 2, NEO Scavenger, DayZ, Dwarf Fortress, and the upcoming Sir, You Are Being Hunted spring to mind.

I found an archive (via this interview) happily. Reminds me of Virgil asking people to burn The Aeneid after he died.

So what you're saying is that your girlfriend has perfectly normal reactions based on the relative sensibleness of FPS control schemes. Makes sense to me! I'm an FPS master (well, I might not be any more - I was amazing when I was younger) but using a gamepad to control an FPS is silly. Also your YouTube video description says the game is Half-Life 2. edit: she just said she's the head of every fucking guild in Skyrim! Skyrim's a first person game! Unless she played in third person but does anyone do that?

i 134|2/\/3|) 1337 5P34|< P|2377Y \/\/311 \/14 (0U/\/73|257|2i|<3, if 7|-|47 (0U/\/75. |3U7 i 5upp053 i7 |)035/\/'7, |23411Y, |33(4U53 i7'5 ju57 4/\/ 41p|-|4|337.

Right, I don't think in language at all. When I think about, for example, getting up from a chair to wash a bowl in the sink and then get an apple, I don't think to myself "maybe I will get up from this chair" etc. The thoughts aren't in any concrete linguistic form. When I do more complicated reasoning it's the same thing - I come to conclusions first and then put them into language.

Philosophy has mostly moved past the idea that anything has "roles," which the exception of stuff we create. For example, the role of scissors is to cut papers, but what is the role of human beings? Back when people thought God created us, that might be a source of an answer, and lots of other philosophers had other views according to which natural things had roles they were fit for (Aristotle is perhaps the most famous person to hold a view like this - views in this category are called teleological, from the Greek telos, meaning "end" or "aim" or "goal"). You might think that humans exist to rule over the other animals, cats exist to be assholes to mice, etc. Modern philosophy (or, much of it, at least) thinks that (at the cosmic scale) nothing really exists for reasons, except for boring scientific reasons, which are just descriptions of how things came about. Evolution through natural selection has resulted in the living creatures we have today, including ourselves, but this doesn't mean we are for anything. We just are.

A popular theory is that life formed at hydrothermal vents.

Luckily philosophers have been thinking about this for hundreds of years, so rest assured, if this sort of thing drove people too insane, there would be a sort of canary in the coal mine effect. The philosophers would go nutty first. This sounds really interesting; do you have a link to it?