ThunderPeel2001

Not really. You get achievements for, well, achieving things within certain Steam games. If you don't own the game, you have the opportunity of buying it if you want to (obviously), or just waiting for a different set of challenges in a few days time. You don't get achievements for just buying games (the closest was an achievement for playing a demo). So far all but one of my "achievements" have been from games I already owned... I did buy AaaAAaaA! because it was £1.75 and I enjoyed the demo. Then I got the score required for that particular achievement. Yes. You just use your Steam username and password to log into the Steam website...

Actually it's quite the opposite.

That's what I did, and I think that's the whole point. The game is about abusive love/relationships. Every time you do something "they" don't like, you get put down or insulted. It's about being controlled and manipulated by someone else... the more you rebel, the more angry they get (because they can't control you), until eventually the truth is revealed: The bully needs you more than you need them. Then they start to bargain and plead... and it's up to you whether to let yourself continue to be controlled, or get the way from the abusive insecure asshole who's trying to control you! Like I said before, I think it would have been even more effective if it tried to erode your self-confidence further by saying things like, "That's what happens when you don't listen to me", and "See? You're incapable on your own", when you mess up and die.

I meant the rise of Nationalism is scary... it hasn't worked out well in the past.

Side note: Anyone know of a Cambridge (UK) based games company that has 380 staff? There can't be many of them! I'm sure some of you connected folk on this board will know immediately who they are... Thanks!

No, mine were already set before I'd even noticed it. Are you sure you're logged in on the website itself? And if you are, do you have 10+ items on your wishlist?

I think that's in all the cuts, isn't it? It's just that it was most likely an accident... Also, I agree: The Final Cut is the way to go. Definitely the most fully-rounded experience (and only Ridley Scott approved version out there). There's almost nothing but curiosity to recommend watching the other cuts... and if you're curious, then watch the Work Print Cut next. Then the original. Then the "Director's Cut" (which wasn't really a directors cut).

I guess it's the financial situation... Frightened people are idiotic people, it seems. I didn't realise it was getting so scary on the continent... but that might because I already subscribe to your idea of avoiding the newshype. Lol.

It's my own complete inability to play the game with any skill... Especially getting the "OCD" awards. It's too fiddly, and I'm too crap... but I can't stop playing it.

It'd be better if, when you died, it said things like, "See what happens when you don't listen to me?".

It's really not as hard as you seem to think, especially if you just want to go to Europe.

To be fair, we have a (mostly) conservative government... they don't value the arts, but other governments would. Also, the global situation has generally fucked everything that isn't essential (it's worth bearing in mind that the rest of the world blames the UK and US for what's happened). The tuition fees rise is ridiculous, but it's also about the same as people pay in that capitalistic utopia known as America. Also, the US health care system is one of the worst in the first world (but their Republicans would insist it's THE best... absurd). You get little in the way of holidays with jobs. The laws surrounding minimum wage are looser. As are employee rights in general. If you're looking to escape the things you describe, I wouldn't necessarily think it's better in the US.

Canada and USA: Damned hard to get into. You might get some student thing through Bunac while you're doing your degree (I did Work America with them, highly recommended!). If you manage to do what Rodi did I can only imagine you'll get a pittance to live on, if that. Of course, you could meet the woman of your dreams... and if she happens to be American or Canadian, relocate with her. Anywhere in Europe: You're golden, as a member of the EU you can get a job and not have to worry about a visa. I wouldn't mind giving Europe a go. Denmark consistently scores high marks when they do those polls about how "happy" everyone is. (The UK consistently scores REALLY badly... we're so miserable here.) Any recommendations for European countries? Any thoughts on Denmark? (I even have a Danish joke ready: A man walks into a bar... The beer was really expensive.)

Well, I do have some issues with the article, for sure. It does read like an advert (heh, journalism), and yes it is completely about Lara and how they've changed her. And, because of that, it does almost sound like they're just objectifying her but in a different way. But, as I said at the beginning of this thread, Lara was always going to be at the core of any "reboot", because there's little else that they're likely to change. (I'm sure there'll be some tweaks to the gameplay, but it'll still be a 3rd person shooter, with an archaeology based storyline.) Lara Croft IS Tomb Raider, so I think it's understandable that the discussion focusses on that... even if it is a little creepy. And, of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a female character being sexy. That is not sexist. If the word "sexy" conjures up images of women in bikinis, well, that's not because that's not what the word means...! (Although, yes, women in bikinis can look sexy...) Although the developers talk about her "sex appeal" right at the very end of the article, they talk specifically about it being her brains. Lol. That's very true. Presumably there were questions that, for whatever reason, GI didn't print... I can't help but feel you're putting words in the developers mouths here. Especially in the last sentence. People ARE flawed. That IS realism. Men or women. If you're aiming for REALISM, as the developers insist they are, then yes, you're character must have flaws... whether it be male or female. Do you think Rubi from WET (as linked to in my last post) is a standard that games should be aiming for? I can only assume you think we should, based on what you've just said. Sure, there's plenty of bland, 2D "army dudes". I'm personally sick of them, but you're saying that we should just make "army dudettes", and just leave it at that? I disagree. I think we can make improvement with both male and female characters. Also, I guess I didn't make what I was trying to say clear enough before. I never said that you need vulnerability to make a character real, I said, "Fully rounded people are vulnerable." If you're aiming for a fully rounded character, like they explicitly state they are with Lara Croft, then yes: Vulnerability is essential. It can be a component in making something seem "real", but of course it's not required for "realism". You don't to show the "hard ass boss" crying privately in his office to make him seem "real", but you do need something like that if you want to make him fully rounded. In general, good story-telling technique says your lead character has to have some vulnerabilities. These are usually the things they'll overcome during the course of the story. They also make the character appear more "rounded" and easier to identify with. Even action heroes. When they don't, they come across as being very 2D. Also, to repeat what I already wrote: Being vulnerable does not equal being weak... We're all vulnerable, but how a character deals with situations when they feel vulnerable defines whether we consider them "strong" or "weak". Do they push on, or do they fall to the floor in a crumpled mess? John McClane, Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, and Ellen Ripley all push on after they've had a little cry... That's my main point, otherwise I agree with you.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. Let me offer a counter argument and see if it changes how you feel... How about this: The reason why we're not talking about making Solid Snake "shorter than everyone else" or Link "more vulnerable" is this: Nobody gives a rat's ass how men are portrayed in video games. Why? Because there's a huge spread of them to choose from. There are weak, vulnerable males. There are walking chunks of cliché-spewing muscle. There are buffons. There are "regular guys". There are men with super-powers. Women have historically been given a very short thrift, not only in terms of equal representation, but also in being reduced to cleavage heavy, sex objects. So it's only natural that when they do appear in games our attention is drawn to how they're portrayed. What decisions have been made and why. That's why there's a discussion about her that wouldn't be happening if she was Solid Snake. Also, it's a perfectly normal part of the writing process to think about who your character is, and what traits they have, and why. It's also perfectly normal to think about their looks, their hair, their lips, their clothing. All of these things were done, I guarantee you, for Solid Snake. This is done for every character in every film, too. They have whole departments whose job it is to design clothing, make-up, hair-styles for a particular character. Decisions are made that help sum up who the character is by what they wear/how they look. And they can spend months casting a part, looking for that perfect actor that brings all the dimensions to the character they want. (Often including vulnerability.) The only difference with this new Tomb Raider is that they're being asked about it... and that's because Game Informer thinks we want to read about it. It would be going on behind the scenes anyway. But what about their decisions? Are they sexist ones? Are they making her "vulnerable" so she's not a threat to our masculinity? That feels to me to be putting words in their mouths. You could argue, based on what I've just said, that because having a female character draws so much attention, that wanted to get this one right: Make her as human as possible. Make her as realistic as possible. Make her fully rounded. Fully rounded people are vulnerable. If they're not, then please give me an example of a realistic character (male or female) from cinema who doesn't show vulnerability at some point in the story. Being vulnerable does not equal being weak... We're all vulnerable, but how we deal with situations when we feel like that defines whether we're "strong" or "weak". If you want a character who isn't vulnerable, then what about Rubi from WET? Is this a portrayal of a real person, because she's impossibly tough? Not to me she isn't. She's just a female Duke Nukem. If they make Lara have to rely on men all the time, and show that she's incapable of doing things by herself, then she's weak. Then she needs us to protect her. Then she's a non-threatening female. Ripley, the classic action-movie heroine, has moments of despair, but what makes her strong is that she fights on beyond that. Here's some quotes that actually show their heads and hearts are in the right place: "We knew we wanted to make a young Lara Croft, and we wanted her be a blend of someone that has a level of vulnerability and inner strength. She has this aspirational quality." "All of the character design decisions came from trying to make her believable. We didn’t want to make her a sexual object. She is a character that we want you to believe in." "Ultimately, what I think is going to be compelling about this – and what our version of sexy is – is the toughness through adverse conditions." "No unlockable bikinis." And a quote that made me a little queasy (for balance): "We wanted to make a girl that was somewhat familiar, yet had a special quality about her – something in the way her eyes look and her expression in her face that makes you want to care for her."

But here was a "shower scene"... Sam went into total denial about what he was seeing until he could eventually process it. That was his reaction, and it felt very different, very non-cliché and, because of that, real. I believed that that's how he would deal with it. It did feel realistic, just very idiosyncratic... but he was a very odd guy. I guess this whole thing boils down to whether you could believe how he reacted. I was a little confused at first, but I bought into it, and appreciated the choice.

I was going to post a screenshot (and therefore would have seen that I was totally wrong) but the game deleted all my progress and I got side-tracked. My bad

You don't actually buy into this stuff, do you?

I actually really liked how they unplayed that stuff... because I would have found it tedious to listen to him whine on about meeting , etc., when him dealing with that fact was NOT the thrust of the story. Plus, it's a cliche. (Images of him sitting the shower screaming "noooooooooo!".) Still, if they could have done it in such a way that I wasn't waiting for it to end, so the story could continue again, then that would have been good.

I actually meant in the game itself... but you've probably done that. In other news: I JUST LOST ALL MY SCORE AND UNLOCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Thanks for the tips! I always forget that with foreign books the translation is REALLY important. It's good to know which are the good ones to look out for.

This may be a dumb question, but the sound quality is great for me. Are you sure you have "high quality" set in your preferences? TellTale games sound approx 5 million times better than they used to. I'm more upset at not getting my Flush achievement, despite winning a hand with a Flush!

You see... Nobody actually wrote the stuff you're quoting. That's your interpretation of what they wrote... If you're asking people to stop doing something that they weren't doing in the first place... you may be waiting a very long time. Also, if someone IS pushing your buttons, it's a lot healthier for your own sanity to either a) Walk away, or Contact that person in private and ask them about it. And to be fair, like Toblix with his "I will never, ever, criticise a game again" promise, you've just set yourself up for a few falls. I think the fact that a ton of people have come forward to offer support should show that they care... Far more than in most forums. In most forums you'd get people going for the really obvious put downs or just ignoring you. At least we make an effort here Also: See Footnote II. (You're not alone in thinking this place is hostile, although dammit, I'd swear we've gotten better.)

Take it easy, dude, I think you're getting far too sensitive. There's no ill will against you here, I'm sure. We Idle Thumbers expect folk to take a little playful banter, that's all. It's all done in good humour. Nobody wants you to leave and I don't think anyone is ganging up on you... this is just par for the course. It's not mean spirited. This forum is a love fest, really. (Just look at the tag cloud. Toblix once posted a thread about how he wasn't going to complain about games ever again... So then it became a running joke to put "Toblix complains" in every thread he posted in. It wasn't hateful. We all love Toblix. He just set himself up for a joke.) Footnote Disclaimer about me: If you think someone having a different opinion to you is an attack against you, personally, then maybe this isn't the forum for you (or, at the very least, maybe I'm not the type of forum-poster for you). If I argue with something you've said, it's got nothing to do with the fact that you wrote it, or my feelings about you as a person, it's just a reaction to what you've written (unless I'm making a joke). Nothing more than that. I don't get how someone can take a difference in thinking as a slight against them as a human being (unless that "difference in thinking" appears disingenuous and/or resorts to personal attacks, I guess). Thinking otherwise seems completely irrational to me, and I hope it does to you, too. I have friends who sit completely at polar opposites to me in terms of politics and religion, but I still love them. I think the world would be a very boring place if we all agreed on everything! So if I argue with something you've posted it's because I genuinely (and with as much consideration as possible) disagree. It's got nothing to do with how I feel about you as a person. I have not an ill thought or feeling against a single member of this forum, including you. (Well, except Toblix. ) If I rib you about something, it's done in the spirit of bonhomie, and I'm sure that's the same for everyone else here, too. There's a really nice bunch of people on this forum, I hope you'll stick around and join us. (And maybe not take things so much to heart in the future.) Footnote II There's also this.

I think there was a thread, but I also got this email. Jolly good stuff (If they'd done this from the beginning then they wouldn't have had all that fuss about people pirating the DRM free games they were distributing I guess.)