itsamoose

I liked morrigan in both games, but I'm not sure if that's because she was a good character or because I find Claudia Black's voice mesmerizing.

I was thinking more along the lines of something that can't necessarily be defined by a genre such as papers please, or is a unique twist on one such as Crusader Kings' idea where you can't conquer an area without a claim to it. Beyond that, I'm interested in playing around with some games that add some unique rule or situation the player must interact with. I'm not so much interested in the goal of the game, rather ones where the play deviates significantly from what you would expect. At the shallow end I suppose something like Majora's mask would qualify, and on the deeper end something almost entirely abstract. A lack of violence isn't necessarily required, just a starting point for something that is different.

I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who just think games are a way to print money. They see that 60 dollar price tag and think that you can just multiply that by how many copies are sold to figure out how much the studio made. They typically also hold that developers are cavalier in their attitudes, and fully expect that most people who work at well-known game development houses are millionaires. I don't really get the cause of this other than possibly the fact that game development has become so much more accessible and standardized in recent years gives people this impression.

Well put. Throughout the reading I couldn't get exactly what he was going for. I mean what did he expect Molyneux to say that would have satisfied him?

This is the fist I've heard of Godus' development woes, but to be honest I think this is a problem unique to Peter Molyneux and not just kickstarter. He doesn't mind stating specifics, versus PR people who keep it to generalities, which for some reason people tend to take as fact rather than him just taking a conversational tone regarding his game's development. In some ways he's a victim of his own success, in that he is completely fearless when talking about his work and convinces people of his ideas so well that when those ideas inevitably don't pan out the way everyone would have hoped, this constitutes a broken promise. The same way that the Myth of Ken Levine or Cliff Blezinski informs people's opinions of their work in some ways to a greater extent than the work itself. If something works out, that person lives up to the expectation of their myth but if it doesn't they personally are the reason. Also, man is that interviewer passive aggressive as all hell.

Isn't this just Gamergate's MO at this point? They throw accusations around and claim others are falsely accused/over-punished in the hopes that eventually it'll stick or they turn out to be right. For a group with such a selective memory I don't really know what else I would expect.

I haven't seen the episode yet, but I've watched a good deal of SVU over the last couple years. I'm not surprised the ending was tragic, mainly because most endings in the show are messy. Others have been right to point out that the show typically doesn't end on a happy note, and from my experience it is usually more to do with the failures of the legal system despite the detective's best efforts. I'm still interested in checking it out though, typically when SVU takes on a ripped from the headlines style topic the format they follow is to first describe the issue, then try to tie that issue into an investigation or legal dispute, then show how even with the best intentions the justice system as it exists is simply unequipped to truly deal with the problem. SVU Ultimately in my opinion isn't a show about law and order, it's a show about survival. While I imagine Zoe Quinn isn't giving up any time soon, many women have been bullied into leaving the industry, which I would guess is the reason they went with the ending they did. Generally the point of their endings isn't to solve the conflict, but rather to show that real and irreversible harm has been done. Edit: Got around to watching the episode, and my initial feelings pretty much remain the same. I get that people don't like the ending, or perhaps what the ending represents, but that is more or less the point. The show isn't about fixing the problem and putting a bow on it. The ending is in the same vein as all their endings--the victim(s) must now begin the long and arduous process of living with what they have experienced. It is depressing, infuriating, and perfect.

That nearly happened.

I've always enjoyed Michael Abbot's podcast the brainy gamer, although there isn't a regular schedule so they only come out every now and then, and the last one seems to have been some time ago.

What about the combat don't y'all like? Personally I found Origin's combat to be frustrating more often than not, DA2 was better but with poor encounter design, and DA:I seemed like the ultimate expression of those two systems. I get the sense that from the presentation, mainly looking and feeling more like an action game, people assume it should play like one when really it's a rules heavy system underneath. The only problems I had with the combat were that enemies have a ton of HP, and the various foibles that come about when fighting on cliff faces or other spots where the hit detection would fail. There was a bit of a disconnect when the combat system interacted with the world that was really exacerbated by the hundreds of little protrusions all over the game world that would cause an ability to miss or fail to work due to one glitch or another. For example the combat roll ability does move you through space like a combat roll does, but the dodge was only effective if triggered at the right time, even if your character would have gotten out of the way of the projectile's initial path as a result of the combat rules. Overall I liked the combat, but only after I did some looking into the cross class and spell combos and made an effort to trigger them.

I get the sense that the Nightly show hasn't quite found it's voice yet. Wilmore's impetus seems to be to get people to laugh when talking about serious topics, if only to make them more approachable or encourage people to speak their minds. At this point the show is only a couple weeks old so I don't think it's fair to say it's gone off the rails or anything, but it's at a point where it could be a great show or just another comedy central flop. I personally give Wilmore the benefit of the doubt if only because he is being compared against some incredible talent, and is using a format none have them have ever tried before.

I'm not sure I have an answer, but here are a few questions: Are you planning on using this for multiple projects of your own? Would it save you time in the long run? Is this platform agnostic? Could I use this to produce say an xml file that I can use in Unity, Game Maker, Unreal, etc? If so, you could stand to make a bit from selling it on the Unity asset store or a similar place Have you planned out exactly what you want to build or is this more of something you've been building ad hoc? Has any of the code been commented, or is any documentation written? Could I use this for other purposes? Maybe as a slideshow widget on a website? Has anyone else tried using it yet? (or what of it currently exists) Are there any libraries you are currently using that you would have to license to use in Storyboardo? Do you have any of the business related concerns taken care of in the event you want to sell it? (taxes, income and the like)

hear, hear.

Sure it's great to for people to be angry about things like that, but expressing that anger, usually towards an individual, tends to derail the discussion. For me the solution is simple--just ask why. I've found that when someone goes on an anti-feminist, anti-gay or whatever rant, simply questioning the foundation of their reasoning will soften their position. I'll use my room mate as an example because... well... he's pretty bullheaded and isn't a vicious person but fundamentally believes his way is the best way. Whenever he says something mysoginistic, I just question why he is making that claim. Then he usually gets fired up, goes on a rant about how right he is, we go back and forth a bit and he ends the discussion believing he's won. Now move the clock forward a few days and we're having a similar discussion, except this time he is taking the position I laid out in our previous discussion. By doing this I've figured out that I can basically implant ideas in his head to the point where he believes the ideas are his own. In the time I've lived with him he's gone from someone who would see an auto insurance commercial starring a woman and couldn't resist the urge to say something sexist about female drivers, to someone who won't even use gendered slurs any more. From my experience, as a pretty standard white guy talking mostly to others of the same, liberals tend to focus on the negative which is certainly appropriate since it is usually a problem that is being discussed. Though even if personal insults aren't made, references to institutional racism/sexism/whatever tend to make people get defensive as if they, personally, are being blamed for the failure based on their position in the larger structure. As much as I wish it weren't the case, having people throw their uninformed opinions into the discussion in my experience is the only way to really get people to examine their perspective. In other words, you must let them make the mistake and not chastise them for doing so. When this happens you can either take the bait and get angry, or dissect what they are saying and get them to elaborate. I'll admit, I certainly give in to the anger every now and then but I always regret it. To bring it back to your original point, I think the tendency to cannibalize a movement is the result of no one really attempting to inspire the desire to learn in those who otherwise wouldn't on their own.

This is probably a personal bias though it seems to me that most liberal discussion tends to want to go deeper into a topic (he replied on a 233 page thread about feminism), which requires each of the participants have a certain minimum knowledge to be able to contribute that most people don't without a concerted effort. I feel as though in liberal/left circles there tends to be a larger emphasis on semantics, probably out of a desire to not offend anyone or specificity of discussion, but it seems to have the effect of pushing new people away. Then there can be a tendency to chastise people for having a certain opinion, usually a conservative/right leaning one that is offensive for one reason or another. Personally I can't see it as anything other than getting mad at someone because they haven't dedicated as much of their time to thinking about the issue, and as such I've seen a number of people become anti-feminist who could have just as easily been allies. I like the fire behind this, in that people see an injustice and rightfully get worked up about it, but too often this gets out of hand. Mostly what I'm speaking about here has been my experience on social media, so I don't know if this is a left problem or just another type of social media grandstanding though I would guess it's a little of both. I suppose everyone has a kind of gut "fuck you" reaction to being told what is OK to think or do, but it seems as though particularly in liberal circles does this become the focus of the discussion.

I've actually been quite impressed with what has been going on, at least in my social circles with regard to Charlie Hebdo. Sure I've seen some of the anti-Islam type stuff you'd expect, but in large part people seem to be expressing solidarity or asking questions more than anything else. Many of my more outspoken friends have even backed off the rhetoric, which I'll be honest is quite difficult not to be snarky about after some of the conversations we've had, so overall I'm quite optimistic. Although the 2016 political races in the US will begin in earnest this year, so we'll see how long that lasts.

There seems to be an overwhelming desire for people to label themselves. These labels aren't necessarily bad things but I feel like it feeds into a desire to present a heroic version of yourself, as if you are not just a member of that group but it's vanguard. The discussion is immediately and always framed within a few restrictive, often prejudiced or in some way loaded labels. There are a number of people in my social media circle that have become so engrossed in this they use labels like feminist or liberal as if they were an insult. Although I can't say if this is how social media is used everywhere or just in western culture, which is really my only reference point.

To me most conversation on social media starts off promising but quickly gets turned into a shouting match, even by some of the most reasonable people I know. There seems to be this desire to be able to articulate an opinion, and an expectation that you will be rewarded in some way for doing so, and then some need to prove one thing absolutely correct/good and the other absolutely false/bad. Ultimately I feel as though everyone knows how to start or propagate a conversation on social media, but those conversations rarely go to a meaningful place. Something gets posted, next there is some back and forth mixed with grandstanding, then buzzwords, then a barely comprehensible diatribe on one's personal philosophy, etc. No one seems to want to solve the problem, they just want to be recognized for being aware of it without really developing an understanding of it, which often coincides with meme-responses or quoting famous people. This is exactly why I'm on Idle Thumbs, it's the only place I know of where that kind of thing never happens for long, if at all.

Well I can't say I can speak with any personal experience, but I could relay a few points I've heard. When I first got into game development the guy who ended up mentoring me was black, and never missed an opportunity to really get me to think about race in the realm of video games. The first point he made was that race shouldn't be something you make your game about, but rather is a critical element of it. For example if two characters are different, why are they different and what is the end result of that? If you make say 3-4 races in your game and give them measurable, distinct qualities such as stat bonuses then it would seem your game sees race as a resource. This isn't necessarily bad, that is determined by how you have the player interact with the racial elements of your games and what choices players must make in that regard. Secondly one of his pet peeves was that games loved to talk about race, but never had what he called a real discussion about race. That is to say that every character was just kind of race neutral, or if one character had a particular racial stigma but that never guided their behaviors. Take for example Mass Effect, where your companion Ashley has some dialogue talking about how she is prejudiced against aliens, but that topic never seems to come up again. I wish I could remember more of what he said at the moment, I will post more if I can, but I think the most important point was this. Don't be afraid to say or do something racist in your game, because it is the only way to learn. That isn't to say don't change it, but be willing to make the mistake. If you want to portray racism, then portray racism as it exists in the world. Sure it can be overt, but most of it is subtle or compartmentalized. Basically the end result, by his estimation at least, is that you shouldn't look to solve the problem or cast it in a particular light. Don't look to have the most perfect representation of race, just don't present it as one note. In his words: "Present race as you understand it, not as you think it should be understood."

Yeah that's fair. There are certainly some people who use their free speech rights as an excuse to get away with saying whatever they want under the guise of satire. I would alter that to say satire works best when the core of the joke is empathy, but I get your meaning.

Well isn't the difference here just one's ability to communicate? Aren't you damning them for not being able to articulate themselves effectively? I really don't think it's fair to say that satire is only valid when you like it, or doesn't cross a particular line, or when directed at a particular group.

I've listened to a number of comics and satirists related to this attack, and they have all basically said the same thing. Yes satire can be racist or go too far, but that is generally the point of the exercise--taking a problematic line of logic and pushing it to an offensive extreme. Sure this doesn't always work, and the quality of the satire is subject to your own opinion, but I have a hard time saying a joke shouldn't be made because it didn't land with me. Personally I always go back to A Modest Proposal which by today's standards may seem tame but at the time was considered horrific. I remember back in high school my english teacher made us all read it without telling us it was satire, just to see what we thought. Some got it, others thought it was just bigotry. I think the problem is really more one of communication. I've heard George Carlin tell incredibly offensive jokes that I found funny, as well as ones I didn't, but I don't think its right to say the jokes I didn't get or thought went too far shouldn't be made. I generally get the sense that any individual comic or satirical joke is meant to poke fun at a very particular point, but is often conflated with a larger group. Kind of like how a stand up comic will play a character and say something horrible as part of the act, but without that understanding it can be taken to mean the actual horrible thing that was said.