itsamoose

I watched A most wanted man last night. There were some great performances in it, particularly by Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Robin Wright. It was pretty standard most of the way through, but I absolutely loved the ending. If you liked Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and similar low key Spy movies, I think you'll enjoy it.

In looking over some of the arguments against the Iran deal, most of it seems to come down to the fact that the US isn't getting everything they want immediately. Part of me expects this, just from what I have seen from certain sectors of US politics in recent years, but I would think that by implementing this deal we would then have a foothold with which to tackle other issues like the funding of terrorism and American political prisoners in Iran. It looks very unlikely that Congress will be able to stop the deal, needing 2/3 to overcome the veto but they'll make a lot of noise in the meantime and even more so closer to the election. I guess the one thing I don't understand all that well is the situation on the ground in Iran. I have been lead to believe the government which was so hostile previously, and really their world view, is slowly starting to go away in favor of a more liberal one. They seem to be backing off their anti American rhetoric, and at the very least their president doesn't openly deny the holocaust happened. As has been pointed out this might cause some tensions with our middle East allies, but I just don't see the argument that this would lead to a worsening of the situation in the middle East. What exists now is untenable at best, getting worse every day, and has more to do with sectarian tensions than political ones. I just feel like no matter what we do that fact simply won't change. For those outside the US, what is the general outlook on the deal?

I don't have a great grasp on this stuff either, but here is my read on the situation as I currently understand it. Prior to Greece's Euro entrance, lots of banks bought up all their debt, knowing that once they were entered into the Euro the value of that debt would almost instantaneously increase and could be sold off for a profit. Now if Greece is kicked out of the Euro zone again, that debt would transfer to the other members of the euro zone and take on a price similar to those seen of the debt in other countries. This has 2 main benefits for the powers that be. 1 is obvious, the value of greek debt purchased prior to their exit would become similar to the value of French or other countries' debt which currently sells at a higher value. Secondly it would help to bolster the arguments for austerity in the other Euro zone countries as their governments are now responsible for covering the payments of said debt. Assuming my read on the situation is correct, it's a similar situation to 2008's credit default swap related crisis. The currently low value Greek debt could be packaged with comparatively high value debt, thereby increasing its value, as well as the value of the default insurance policies or eventually cause those policies to pay out. I could be completely wrong here, as I only have a basic understanding of these kind of financial instruments, so don't take any of this to be absolutely true.

I played a bit of the iron banner this weekend, and I found thorn to be my biggest bugbear. I did eventually learn how to play around it, but even then there was sometimes just nothing I could do but watch my health bar trickle down. What I found so bothersome about it is really just that a DOT in a modern FPS is really annoying. It significantly delays health regen, can't be cancelled or dodged (the only defensive maneuver besides healing), Makes the weapon much more powerful comparatively, and has that psychological effect that anything you do is futile. I've never played PVP all that much aside from this weekend, but it did seem like that in most typical situations against thorn I would lose, and against other weapons it was more even.

I haven't been following Greece all that closely, but from what I understand they were in a massive period of growth that the 2008 crisis not only ended but reversed dramatically. Then it's been a slow and steady decline ever since, exacerbated by the loans taken out during that period of growth, difficulty collecting taxes and political divisions within the country. I read into this about a year ago, and at that time sections of the country appeared to be almost controlled by a series of gangs with various political ideologies (anarchists and others), although never having been there I can't confirm if this is true. I'm not all that well versed in economics but my understanding is that there are no more delaying tactics available, as well as no public support for them, and Greece must either be bailed out or default on their loans, possibly leaving the euro in the process.

What does AGG stand for? A quick Google search told me it means cool, which kind of turns the intent of that tweet on its head.

I wish that were the case, and for some it probably is, but there are also a significant number of people who are dead serious about him. Probably not the majority, since the reason he gets so easily elected is the result of Jerrymandering, but still they are not insignificant and highly motivated. I've got a friend who is a really conservative Christian (currently losing her mind over this decision) and I'm often surprised at how dead serious she is when it comes to some of these wackadoodles and their ideas.

I can't get over how ridiculous all the dissents are, and Scalia's just takes the fucking cake. In his dissent you can almost imagine him sticking his tongue out after certain lines like "Ask the nearest hippie". It is rife with logical fallacies, if like me you're the kind of person who looks for that kind of stuff, it isn't hard to find. I think the whole piece is exemplified by this little gem used to describe his colleagues: Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). What a Shit. It sounds like the Copy for a segment on Fox news, and virtually nothing like a legal opinion. He goes on to reference Hitler, define Hubris in the most pretentious way possible, and just generally stamp his feet about the whole thing. This is petty and stupid to have been written by someone in high school. I don't know of a phrase to describe what it is coming out of a supreme court justice.

In the case of a game that seeks to promote the values of the confederacy I agree with you. That begs the question in what way does Ultimate General: Gettysburg, or any of the other US civil war wargames, promote or in any way support slavery? They are modelling battles in a particular period of history, using the best representations of those units available, but I don't think that's to say they are supporting or promoting their cause. Meanwhile there are a number of albums on iTunes where the artists say things like "the south will rise again" or represent the flag constantly, but in order to take those down Apple would suddenly have to contend with celebrities. They can pick on game developers because they don't have the same level of celebrity or the voice that some of these other artists do.

I really don't like this apple thing, to me it's just another example of games being judged by their aesthetics rather than the content or message of the game. Apple doesn't like political messages in games, but they routinely allow games where you topple dictators, kill gods, free slaves, conquer territory, etc. It seems like so long as there aren't any direct comparisons to history to be made, or direct representations of that history, you are fine. As has been pointed out, they aren't banning movies with the confederate flag, or albums depicting it--they are just going after an easy target. I get wanting to remove the flag from statehouses, or stop selling things that fetishize it, but what is to be the result of this other than games about a particular period in American history not being made? I really don't understand why companies that own these massive distribution systems aren't willing to look at the specifics of things. Apple is probably the most egregious example of this, but it happens elsewhere as well. Yes it would be a difficult task, but I haven't heard a good argument made as to why it isn't worth doing other than the cost. If Apple is going to continue making money on the sales of apps in their store, and being as large as they are, don't they have some responsibility to make sure they are only taking this kind of action when necessary?

Edit: Moved to Fashion Thread

As far as places to read about race issues, Ta-Nehisi Coates continues to be excellent. Everything I've read by him so far has been awesome, so take your pick.

I think we need them more than ever, and even if we don't I still want to hear them.I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but I think part of the problem is people's general reluctance to talk about these things. Personally I never thought about race critically until a few years ago when I met a guy who simply didn't allow me to stay silent. I said some stupid, downright racist things in retrospect, thankfully he was patient with me, and to this day those couple of months remain a transformative experience. If we want things to get better, we can't be afraid to make mistakes.

I don't necessarily agree it isn't our place to influence culture, mainly because even if we don't overtly try to influence a particular culture, we inevitably will. You bring up an interesting topic here, one I've thought about a bit in recent years, and I always try to look at culture through the lens of how it is used. Just going from recent examples whether it be the Washington Redskins team name, confederate flags in the southern US, child bride legalization in Iraq and others I often see people try to defend shitty behavior by citing it as their culture. On the other hand though, I've also seen things like headscarfs being outlawed under the guise of some moral imperative. I've never been out of the US personally, so I'm not all that familiar with other cultures beyond what I've heard. Though from my experience I don't see westernization as necessarily bad. There are a number of western ideas I fundamentally see as better, as well as elements of other cultures that are better than ours. I would say that if there is an element of a culture you don't like, as in it genuinely harms people rather than just being different, it is perfectly acceptable to try to change that from the outside. To me it's more about the way you go about that, which I suppose is a much different question.

Fox is basically tying itself into knots trying to deny the shooting had anything to do with race. This seems odd, and quite frankly is, until you look back at how Fox has handled most racially charged issues in recent years. Baltimore, Ferguson, you name it whenever and issue crops up where race comes into play they usually spend most of the time blaming the liberal media (read: anyone but them) for inflaming racial tensions where they weren't before. They love to suggest the problems are just made up, and to be honest that plays to a certain crowd. It's basically become their catchphrase for these types of situations, and an event like this just shatters that narrative. It is easily the most frustrating thing in US news media.

The new classes with the Taken King seem pretty cool, for whatever reason I really enjoy the third person stuff in Bungie games and more of that seems awesome. I haven't played destiny in a while, so for those still playing it, have the new expansions really changed all that much? I stopped playing a while ago when I got frustrated with the advancement system, and tired of running the same 3-4 strikes over and over again.

Reddit announced that it is going to ban subreddits that facilitate harassment. So far it seems like they've only been taking action against those that are specifically aimed at making fun of people, and it doesn't seem clear where that line is drawn. http://www.vice.com/read/reddit-is-banning-communities-that-facilitate-harrassment

In order to get two classes to talk to one another, the easiest solution is usually to just put a variable of the class whose methods you want to call in the other. For example: public class Cargo { public int Capacity = 10; } public class Ship { public int Size = 100; public Cargo CargoComponent = null; public int GetAvailableSpace() { return Size - CargoComponent.Capacity; } } I think what you're getting tripped up on is the difference between classes, components and objects. I've walked a few people through Unity related stuff and this seems to be a pretty common thing, and assuming that is the issue, here is a quick breakdown. Classes are blueprints for objects: They tell you what data and functionality an object will have Components are a type of class: Object in this case means a script object, or rather a bunch of data wrapped up into a single container. Objects are instantiated versions of classes: This seems to be where I think you are having some confusion. Gameobjects (what typically is called a Unity Object) are instantiated versions of the gameobject class. However, each of the components on the gameobject are also objects (they are C# objects). A gameobject is simply a special type of object that can hold references to an arbitrary number of components. I included an image in case this doesn't make sense, or I can clarify if all I've managed to do is make this all seem weirder. So a component is a class definition, and when you attach that component to a gameobject an class instance is created. Essentially when you write a class you are creating a class definition. When you attach a class to a gameobject you are creating a class instance, which is what is actually active in the game. There are exceptions to that such as static members and functions that don't require a class instance to function, but those are really an entire topic in themselves.

We could, but don't. To bring it back to journalism, I hold critics accountable for how their audiences view and discuss games. Even if you don't believe critics can affect the way their audiences see games, I assure it does affect how developers see them. Time and again the only kinds of criticisms I see levied are those are concerned with minor improvements, and to me it is no surprise that all we get are minor improvements. I've read article after article about the need for more types of romance options, but to be honest I've never read one that questioned the need for romantic relationships. Romance options are kind of the easiest target here, but that exists for a number of other elements as well. We criticize a feature, but never question the need for that feature whether it be a gun or jump button. Its not hard to see the increased popularity of social justice minded journalists in the last few years along with the increased awareness and willingness to discuss social issues on the part of games enthusiasts. That's great, and it should continue, but at the same time maybe part of the reason we see a lot of the same type of games is because we don't see a lot of criticism willing to question the existence of something in a game. It's not that one is more important than the other, it's that one happens and the other doesn't. If people had a greater capacity to question whether or not Third Person Shooters are valuable, if that mechanic wasn't taken as a given, I'd argue that games like Mass Effect would look much different than they do. What is interesting to me is that for devs I've spoken with at length who are willing to question these things, representation of minority groups is never an issue in their games.

I'm frustrated that when this all blows over, like it will in the next week or two, we'll go right back to square one. Then another game will come out with a similar problem, similar complaint, be in the public consciousness for a couple weeks and go right back to square one. Then some developers will do the bare minimum to satisfy the criticism, but not really challenge themselves to do more than that. Then a group, say I don't know let's call them gamergate, will come out against all of this, claiming censorship or the like, and attract people to their cause. This is exactly what has happened to the perception of feminism, and has been happening in US politics for a while now. Remember the controversy about evolution being taught? Well that battle was won, but then every subsequent battle trying to bring progressive change to public institutions has been lost. Some states like Texas have removed hip hop and rap from their history textbooks altogether, and have even had the notion that the US was founded as a Christian nation put into them (flat out wrong). Poll taxes have fallen out of favor, but voter ID laws (really a poll tax by another name) are popular. I'm afraid we'll keep fighting the same battles over and over again without really getting anywhere but thinking we are. I mean your previous comment stated that a in depth and nuanced conversation about representation can't really be had when there are so few examples of it, which is exactly what has been going on in this thread for the last couple of pages and in the articles that have been linked throughout. You're probably right in pointing out that I'm kind of just swinging at windmills here, and I don't want that kind of criticism to go away. What I want is for it to keep going, and for the conversation to not be limited by some perception that we just need more time or have to wait for the next thing. When I see people say things like progress happens in steps, I can't help but read that as nothing else to see here. Also it's worth noting that I tend to never be satisfied, and am always pushing for more to be done because I don't know of anyone else who is. Anyway, this is pretty much turning into a rant so suffice it to say I agree with the criticism, and wish it went further.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a cop out to me. Ghandi's marches were not a step toward civil liberties, they were a radical change in the way people protest their governments. The ending of segregation in the US was not a step, it was a radical restructuring of society and government. The iPhone was not a step in mobile device development, it was a radical change in the way everything on a mobile device works from the marketplace to input. Gunpower weapons were not a step in the way wars were conducted, it completely changed them. The internet was not a step in the way people communicate, it has and will continue to radically change the way society functions. Through the lens of history it seems as though progress was made in steps, but at the time those steps are actually radical change away from the status quo.

Exactly the kind of discussion that needs to be taking place in games. I believe our society today, not just in games, gets obsessed with trying to do things better but only within a framework of the way things are currently done. While I generally agree with these kinds of criticisms, too often they are seen as substitutes for going deeper rather than the jumping off point they should be. Take the Witcher 3 complaint as an example. Let's say about 25% of the game's characters were people of color, equally sprinkled throughout the game. This wouldn't guarantee the game addressed issues of class, community, group dynamics, xenophobia, intolerance, and all the other good and bad things that are a product of the world itself being diverse. It wouldn't turn companion characters from a rogue's gallery into a family unit of sorts, it wouldn't prevent characters from being defined (as far as the player is concerned) by a single personality trait or past happening. The player in all likelihood would still be able to effectively make decisions for people having to do with deeply personal moments of their lives. After all (Dragon Age Inquisition spoiler about Iron Bull) For as far as games have come in recent years in representing people of different groups, they are all still ultimately my plaything to do with what I wish, for whatever reason. This may be callous of me to say, but to the criticism that there aren't enough groups of people represented in a game the solution is always the same--represent more groups of people. On the surface the solution is simple, though the success of it is up to the individual and prone to variations-on-a-theme style creation. Basically one team finds out what works, or what is acceptable, and that is copied over and over again. Ultimately I think this is people getting fired up about an issue that, while important, is a product of the deeper assumptions of game design not having been questioned.

It wasn't my intention to try to equivocate, rather to question why more fundamental assumptions of game design/story design don't get criticized the way surface level elements do. To go back to the relationship example, the complaints are often that there aren't enough types of romantic relationships in a game. Simply through the sheer amount of work involved, many games view romantic relationships as the greatest kind of relationship, or at least those worth the greatest amount of your time. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to value dating around, and generally encourages a single monogamous relationship. This complaint doesn't question whether or not these assumptions are valid, and instead accepts those assumptions.

For me the question isn't so much why does criticism exist, but rather why do certain criticisms exist? Or in other words, why aren't people criticizing some other aspect of the game? As a corollary to that, what could be done to address the criticism? Additionally, why is the criticism levied at individual aspects of the game and not at some of it's deeper assumptions? For example in games with black characters, racism is rarely ever encountered, particularly the kind of subtle racism all too familiar today, why?. Why are significant relationships in games typically limited to romance options, and why is sex always the ultimate culmination of this relationship? Sure criticism needs to exist, but I also think that just pointing out that a certain thing wasn't done isn't really helpful beyond recognition. I don't know of any places, save this forum, where these kinds of criticisms are levied or discussed in any detail. Now certainly this isn't the doing of a single person, and I don't know that there is necessarily a single reason you can point to as an explanation for why a particular criticism is popular. However when the criticism is simply "there aren't any black characters in the game" that will end up getting addressed by the studio as adding in a black character. It doesn't mean the developers will attempt to tackle any of the difficult issues of race, gender, identity, etc and often don't because including that one character makes the criticism go away. It doesn't mean a typically underrepresented character will take a larger role in the story or have more production time devoted to them. To me this kind of criticism is complaining about features, not criticizing the substance of the game.

I don't get the sense that people are looking to see a checklist fulfilled, but time and again this kind of design is what gets praised for it's inclusiveness. Mass Effect 2 has 1 black character, as does Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect 3 has 1 Hispanic character, etc. Furthermore, it is rare where people of color hold positions of authority in games, and usually fit into well known archetypes. Now certainly some of this is doing what you know, but just like the lack of representation can be said to be demeaning to people of color, isn't slotting them into well defined roles just another version of this? When I hear people complain about some representational issue in games, I tend to see a hidden meaning there were they want them to be represented, but in a way that is palatable to them. It's OK or satisfactory to have the black police sergeant, but I've never heard any complaints about the lack of black monarchs. There are a number of examples of ancillary characters represented in this way, but almost always the main characters are not.