SuperBiasedMan

I read that article before, it was a horrible thing to read and first realise the biased inertia that meant the default male archetype were chosen as pilots mostly because the alternative was not considered* and then to realise I myself never really questioned why male astronauts were chosen. * And politics about an airforce affiliation.

Hell yes. I hope you somehow worked the name horsebag in as your crew title or something.

I have to correct my initial post "requires time investment" and then say that it is more the time investment. I can't really commit to multiplayer sessions with other people at the moment, and playing alone requires more effort to figure out systems and is also not as fun a prospect for a game so heavily predicated on planning.

#SofterGate

I love the idea of a phone collector with no knowledge of these origins who will outbid anyone interested in KR0 itself. Any chance one of you local American thumbs is planning to ring the number and hear what happens?

An unsatisfying update to my issue, I found out that it's an issue with using the LookAt function (which adjusts an object's rotation to point it at a certain point) that makes it rotate the collider into a different plane and renders it useless. My googling reveals that it's a bit of a mess trying to use LookAt in 2D space, so I'll probably manually code a system to calculate the angle. Which requires a bit more thought back to Maths class and rejiggery in the 3D space as I sort through other people's solutions but at least I understand it totally now..

Listening to the Payday 2 talk put me on an arc from remembering that it was a game I saw that didn't sound interesting, to getting really hyped and then hearing it required investment and nearly €30, so at least for now Sean's storytelling was enough for me. Also the Digital Breckon saga was an amazing reminder of how we miss having him on the show. On the note of sci-fi being overly human centric, it's a recurring disappointment for me. A recent egregious one was when I played Out There on Android. It's a strange game, compared to FTL sometimes but I think the links are tenuous. You're a sole human, way out in space having just woken from statis. The entire game has you piloting a ship that's roaming from galaxy to galaxy, attempting to survive and heading towards a destination to the bottom right of the map. On the way you regularly encounter aliens, and you'll go onto their planet and talk to all these different species. As you play the game again and again, you slowly learn the words of their language and can understand them. And they're just constantly either asking for resources to trade, asking if you're a friend or foe or they think you're a god and offer you a special resource. There is no other interaction whatsoever with these aliens, apart from some quite unsatisfying endings. And for something that presented as philosophical and thoughtful, it was a hugely simplistic model of how to interact with... anything. Let alone a plethora of alien races.

In the wake of GamerGate I've actually just followed literally everyone who's being suggested to me that is clearly denouncing it both because I feel like it's supporting them and also because I want to retain the voices that will criticise stuff when it arises.

Of course you trust your life on the idea that everyone will abide by the Geneva Conventions at all times. ...and yet they're still blue, slightly lizardy skinned.

I thought bullshit crossed the pond to us, but maybe not all the way to Britain? There is bollocks, it's largely the same as bullshit.

"These portraits? I just painted some people I found on Google images. You're saying they found em and made prints or something? Yeah right dude."

Genetically engineered to be the perfect woman.

I actually did get it to randomly vary the mass a bit, but it still seems like the fish literally never rotate except for when I have them coded to rotate to an angle within the start function. I mostly feel bad that I've been the one to ask the last three questions in a row, haven't I? Though it's funny to now imagine a devblog where each post explains a problem to be solved but instead of laying out how I solve it, it ends with me saying "But I dunno how to do that. Can any of you reading this help?"

I'll stop posting here eventually, I promise. But right now I have a conundrum and I think it's either too easy to appear on google or too much to ask for it to be simple. Basically I have a 2D rigidbody (the player) that reacts to collisions with both its normal velocity and angular velocity. I also have a bunch of other 2D rigidbodies moving around the player and often colliding with them, but these other rigidbodies don't get affected by angular velocity, they're just constantly facing the angle I first set them to when they were spawned. I haven't turned on fixed angle. I'm not actually sure why this is occuring, if it's normal default behaviour and I'd need to enable the angular response or I somehow adjusted a setting to make them rigid this way. Anyone else got thoughts on what I could do to fix this or ways I might have accidentally screwed myself with it?

Ooh, that might be a good excuse to make my slenderman rip off game where instead of slenderman it's Jimmy Carr that's stalking you. I doubt I'll have a bunch of time to dedicate to it but it should be simple enough to bash out for the week one.

singlespace is hardly mocking, they're taking issue with how most of us are discussing GamerGate and the members involved.

The forum occasionally autosaves posts. It might have autosaved over it with that post, but try clicking the "View Auto Saved Content" at the bottom of the window when that happens.

Does anyone else enjoy making goofy looking characters in games? I know I do.

That is the one I was referencing, and now I have the Vlambeer one to watch too!

I haven't actually played the Yawhg yet, but if I'm right about the feel then maybe you could try playing the Walking Dead or the Wolf Among Us as a collaborative thing? The timer makes that a little harder but it's a fun experience to go through as a pair, reasoning out the choices together and reacting to the beats as you go.

These damn beautiful games. They're gawjuss. I especially love the juiciness you've crammed into yours JKO!

It took literally minutes after her post for Felicia Day to be doxxed. That's not the most stringent data but it's a shitty indicator for sure. I have little else to add except to ask you not to only sympathise with GamerGate, they are people with misguided goals and a persecution complex, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also sympathise with the people being seriously attacked, threatened and harassed over GG. Sure, GGers will take the jokes as an attack, but that doesn't make it equivalent. It doesn't mean that the attacks by GG are less serious or less legitimate. People attack by GG have an emotional assault on them, people need to cope somehow. We're all humans and even if your way was definitely the best, it's difficult to maintain a visage of treating GG calmly when people that want to push this medium forward are being terrorised by them. Maybe you have a point about how to treat GG, I'm in two minds about it, but I've been in multiple conversations with them and I don't think it's fair to ask others to make such an effort when the GG members I saw made no effort to reconcile anything.

Yeah, I introduced Jessica Rabbit but in retrospect it's very fitting since its not really a justification thing. She is unashamedly sexual for the sake of being sexual, not because of some secret logical reason that has nothing to do with men oggling her.

I'll take Spec Ops the Line, as long as it's ok that I haven't given away games here? I should have some Humble spares too, I'll check through them and see to make a comprehensive list. Apart from that all I have in my steam inventory are a few hastily purchased Dungeonland keys. (it's free to play now, but the keys still give you a some in game micro transaction stuff)

This is my understanding: Female characters can be sexualised it's not inherently bad or wrong. If the writers feel the need to explain to the audience why they're allowed make the character sexualised (as opposed to just having the character look that way and not addressing it very much), then they're subject to this trope. Each example is not necessarily bad but the fact that the trend exists points towards an intention to justify retaining sexist design choices rather than responding to social criticism with an actual change and development. This would be a pretty broad trope, but frankly I thought that was part of the point? People in the previous thread remarked how surprised they were it wasn't a pre-existing TVTropes page since we immediately had a good few examples.