|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Even with a LOT of talent and very smart management decisions for the MCU, it still has it's ups and downs. With Star Wars I see very little of the wisdom Marvel has shown with it's management of their long term, steady output series. There is much more reason to be concerned than to be optimistic.
I disagree. Hiring Abrams to re-launch the franchise but just with one film and with Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt actually writing was a canny move. Getting Rian Johnson to do Episode VIII was even cannier and hiring Gareth Edwards and Josh Trank to do the stand-alones was smarter still. They're getting fresh, up-and-coming directors with a lot of creativity to do different takes on the franchise. Even if they fail, the intentions were pretty good.
There's also the prospect of some of the MCU directors coming over to do a STAR WARS movie. Joss Whedon or James Gunn directing Episode IX is something I know a lot of people would get excited about.
Could have been worse. How about Michael Bay?
No word of a lie, the person who was working on the project before HBO swooped in and bought the rights was Roland Emmerich (INDEPENDENCE DAY, 2012, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, the 1998 GODZILLA movie etc).
Well, Syfy are on the highway to being an actual SF channel, and if they can pull off even half of the ambitious shows they have lined up for the next few years, no reasonable person will have much to complain about. Of course, this is all a speculation about the future based on the present, which I do find appropriate when discussing SF ;)
Some of those projects seem interestingly weird, like ASCENSION. THE EXPANSE looks really, really good and it helps that it much more readily adapts to TV than other SF book series. And CHILDHOOD'S END and RINGWORLD will work as long as they stick closer to the books and don't try to wreck everything.
Tangentially, I wonder if Foundation is one of those shows that George Martin helped HBO do in his role as a consultant . I mean, they did hire him, and we have yet to hear anything about that in a long time, so it seems to make sense.
It's possible he might take a look at the scripts or something, but Martin is not a huge Asimov fan. Of the Big Three, his favourite was by far Heinlein, and then his next favourite SF author was Zelazny. Actually, his favourite author of all time was Jack Vance. So if Martin was going to throw some classic SF at HBO, it'd be more likely something like DYING EARTH, DEMON PRINCES, THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, STARSHIP TROOPERS (the rights have to have expired on that by now, right?), THE CHRONICLES OF AMBER or LORD OF LIGHT.
I think what Martin was more involved in discussing with HBO (speculation only, no inside knowledge here) was his own projects. A TUF VOYAGING series was definitely discussed, but my personal guess is that HBO wants the WILD CARDS franchise. SyFy's option on it can't have much longer to run and then I'd be shocked if HBO didn't swoop on WILD CARDS like a bird of prey. Superheroes (remember that HBO's mission is to try something in every single genre), sex, messed-up and morally dubious characters and period piece flashbacks? HBO would be lunatics if they didn't grab it. It's right up their street.
It's the PC controls that are clunky, particularly on the menus. In combat it's not quite so bad, although not being able to rebind anything to Enter is a bit annoying. Hitting Space to select things is not very intuitive (for me, anyway). The tank controls are also a bit stodgy, but apparently this a common complaint about the game anyway.
As for me I have yet to finish Dragon Age Origins OR Dragon Age 2... Is it just me or did the difficulty of combats in DA2 wildly vary? I had to restart that game too many times when I realized my builds sucked horribly and I became stuck on an impossible combat. Makes me wish easy mode really was easy... if just as a way to continue without starting from square one over and over again.
I didn't think it was possible to nerf your builds on DA2. Any deficiencies in your main character can be met by picking different companions.
To be honest, I'd put the game on "Casual" to get through it. The game was designed to appeal to people who aren't keen on combat and just want to enjoy the story (ME3 had the same thing), and combat is easily the weakest thing about the game so I'd recommend doing everything you can to minimise it.
You serious? The combat was great. It was a semi-tactical RPG where the fights were tough (even on Easy they could get challenging) and the boss battles were f++@ing brutal. It was easy to control and swap between characters to coordinate attacks, and attacking and using Spells/Talents was fluid too.
They were mainly brutal because the game's healing mechanics were seriously nerfed, which made no sense given the high-magic setting. However, the biggest problem was the irrelevance of placement. Fighting a horde of enemies in a narrow corridor and want to form a chokepoint with your warriors whilst archers and mages attack from behind? Tough. The enemy will simply push past your soldiers or, in some cases, clip past them. You can't form lines and hold them because the game engine won't let you. That's just ridiculously stupid, especially as older BioWare games didn't have that problem. When a 2009 RPG has less interesting, less sophisticated and less tactical combat than BALDUR'S GATE II, released a decade earlier, there's a big problem somewhere.
At least they don't teleport right into your midst without any warning as in DA2. That was even more annoying.
The Holy Trinity of Underrated RTS Games:
GROUND CONTROL: for a game released in 2000, this still looks amazing. Fully 3D, tactics-based with no in-mission saving, the best artillery EVER seen in a video game and some genuinely brilliant mission design. It was also ridiculously hard. The sequel was almost as good.
HOMEWORLD: okay, not that obscure, but definitely not the big mega-hit it should have been. Brilliant atmosphere, terrific mechanics and gorgeous graphic design and music. Gearbox are releasing a special edition of both HOMEWORLD and HW2 (not CATACLYSM, sadly, as the source files are MIA) next year and there is a prequel game on its way from the original creators.
HOSTILE WATERS (aka ANTAEUS RISING in the USA): the one game I would like everyone on Earth to try out at least once. It's an RTS controlled in a completely different way to any other strategy game I've ever seen, it has the best AI of any strategy game I've seen (with individual AI personalities which are so distinctive you can see their effects on the battlefield) and it has some fantastic writing (courtesy of comic writer Warren Ellis). It also has an amazing voice cast, including Tom Baker (the Doctor!) as the narrator. Frequently named "the best game you've never played." It also has some of the best units I've seen in a game, particularly the helicopter equipped with a cloaking device and sniper laser (all the units are fully customisable with loadouts of your own choosing).
There's also ANACHRONOX, the greatest and funniest RPG you've never played ("I shall kill you...WITH DEATH!"), and the two FREEDOM FORCE superhero games which are almost illegally good fun.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
One I was just getting good at but never got to finish was called Midwinter. I still have the 3.5" isntall disks. I keep checking GOG to see if they have it, but so far, no luck. It was a future ice age scenario in which the local region had been taken over by a despotic ruler, and you had to fight in the resistance. Pretty fun game, but hard to master.
MIDWINTER was really amazing. There was a sequel as well, FLAMES OF FREEDOM.
Grim Fandango. Besides being a fun and engaging game, you get lines like "This is my boss's secretary Eva. This is my boss's whipping boy Manny" or "Run away you stupid pigeons, it's Robert Frost!"
I'm looking forwards to the new edition out next year, complete with mouse controls and mildly updated graphics and sound.
Valkyria Chronicles is excellent. Well, the controls are clunky as hell, the sheer volume of cut scenes can be a bit grating (since you have to select each one at a time and play to advance, couldn't they have just run them all together?) and there is some standard weird gender stuff going on (women are soldiers like anyone else! Hooray! Their uniform includes a miniskirt! Wait, what?), but the combat is excellent, the characters pretty well-defined and the jarring tonal jumps from some more cutesy anime stuff to WWII-evoking horror are brutally effective. More importantly, the actual use of strategy and tactics is superb. On one mission in a forest I had to face down an enemy general in his super-tank with my own not-so-super tank. However, I simply held off from advancing into the enemy camp and flanked his position from a ridge overlooking the base with my anti-tank troops who popped up and shot him without him being able to retaliate, and forced him to withdraw with my own tank completely unscathed.
There was also a sweet urban battle which had a watchtower I could stick a sniper in to dominate the battlefield and knock out both tanks (thanks to handily-placed explosive barrels) and troops from miles away. The only problem was that I had to remember to get the sniper to bail out of the tower at the end of every turn otherwise he was zeroed by every tank and enemy sniper on the map on the enemy turn.
Great game. Surprised this did so poorly in sales on the PS3.
You can continue to avoid Dragon Age games for no good reason, but you're hurting no one but yourself.
Whilst I agree that it's highly improbable* that DA specifically caused the hard drive to explode, I think this response is overstating things a bit. It's not exactly 'hurting' anyone not to play DRAGON AGE. It's hardly the pinnacle of RPG design and in fact is probably the most overrated modern gaming franchise around.
The first game was above average, fun but cheesy and lacking either storytelling coherence or decent gameplay mechanics (the combat, which for some reason is lauded in some quarters, can go and die in a fire for its hideousness). The characters were fairly weak by BioWare standards and it used almost exactly the same storytelling structure every single BioWare game since BG2 used (only nowhere near as well), making the thing diabolically predictable. The end of game battle was underwhelming to the point of being anticlimactic and BioWare were so desperate to make the game 'long' that they poured in every bit of padding they could think of, resulting in a 50+ hour game that was at least 50% tedious fetch quests and even more tedious pointless combat. The worldbuilding was pretty good, but buried in codexes rather than displayed on screen (if you don't read the codexes and miss Sten, you have zero clue as to what the hell the qunari are which is unforgivably bad storytelling given their importance to the world). The game also did the bizarre thing of giving you a large number of characters to play with, but then only making two of them (Morrigan and Alistair) really important to the plot, making the narrative feel weirdly unbalanced if you played with anyone else.
DRAGON AGE II, on the other hand, had even worse combat, a tiny number of actual gameplay areas that were over-used to death and some story turns that made no sense. However, it had much more interesting characters (even if most of them were total twonks) and it did the worldbuilding a hell of a lot better, which is weird given how it's focused in one city. For a badly rushed, under-funded quickie project designed to help alleviate the crippling costs of the first game, DA2 was reasonably decent. But still hardly a top-tier roleplaying game.
I'll get DA3 eventually and probably enjoy it. But certainly not until I've finished D:OS and WASTELAND 2, and the price drops to something reasonable (£50, EA? I think not).
* Although it is possible for software to affect hardware: STARCRAFT 2 infamously caused certain graphics cards to overheat on release until Blizzard rushed out an emergency fix.
X-WING and TIE FIGHTER were released for Mac OS7. Apparently getting them working on the latest Mac OS is "problematic", by which they mean, "completely impossible and legally dubious". Apparently it's much easier to run the GoG versions in Windows on a Mac via WINE than it would ever be to get the actual Mac versions running properly.
Got a Thrustmaster T-Flight HOTAS for ELITE: DANGEROUS and was pleasantly surprised to discover it works with X-WING straight out of the box, no problem and auto keymaps a mostly sensible set of controls onto the stick.
Even the throttle works, although I find in the X-WING games that I switch between the three speed sets (1/3, 2/3 and full speed) more than using fine throttle control, so it makes more sense to put those on the three buttons on the side of the throttle and use those instead.
I did forget how 'problematic' X-WING is compared to the other games. The AI is noticeably dumber and the game is ridiculously tough compared to any of the others. The number of missions which require being in just the right spot at the right time is ridiculous. And it's not fun to round off a tricky 30-minute escort mission to see one of the shuttles you're escorting cheerfully turn round and ram it's companion, resulting in mission failure.
It's annoying as I've never finished X-WING, but I suspect I'll be moving onto TIE FIGHTER before long. Whilst still tough, it's not quite as idiotic and the AI is a lot better.
Hey, I love X-Wing and TIE Fighter as much as the next nerd, but GOOD GOD MAN, you forgot to list THE SECRET OF MONKEY ISLAND as one of the available games. For shame!
Terrific game, but this is the same version as the Steam remastered edition which came out about three years ago, so it's already been out there a while (and discounted to almost nothing a few times). You can still get both the remastered editions of MONKEY ISLAND 1 and 2 on Steam, this is just their first time on GoG.
I own x wing vs tie fighter- should I get this version for my netbook since it's better than my windows box?
If you don't own the original X-WING or TIE FIGHTER, sure :)
Also there was a whole story line in x wing vs tie fighter that I don't think is in these games.
XWvTF is multiplayer only. You might be thinking of its expansion, BALANCE OF POWER, which added a single-player storyline about the squadron trying to take down a rogue Super Star Destroyer (and was inspired by the X-WING books by Michael Stackpole). That's not in this initial wave of releases, but should show up in the rest of the games GoG has the rights to (alongside the underrated X-WING ALLIANCE).
Still waiting for my new joystic as well before diving back into these :)
X-Wing and TIE Fighter are being re-released later today on GoG with updated modern-PC friendly editions and include both the original versions and the 1998 special editions and all their expansions. Which is nice.
We're also getting updated versions of Sam and Max Hit the Road, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis and Knights of the Old Republic today. Apparently this is the start, with GoG bringing a total of 30 LucasArts games to their service in the next few months. Discounting the console-only titles and newer games that still work fine, that has to be almost all of them.
And to cap it all off, Sega are also apparently going to be releasing a PC version of Valkyria Chronicles.
Frontier will release the official, final release date on 22 November. And they are still 100% adamant about it launching before the end of 2014, so as of today the game is an absolute maximum of nine weeks away.
You hit the nail on the head here. Stand-alones are much tougher to sell for publishers, even for successful authors. Sequels and series sell much more, are more bankable and result in a more predictable income stream for author and publisher. In terms of books serialised entertainment is still very much the most profitable road to take. The better path to take is to write stand-alones which are set in a common setting or world, like Pratchett or Guy Gavriel Kay, which seems to work well.
You can see it with GRRM. He has (or seems to have) a lot less diehard fans than he did when I first heard about him. Contrary-wise, authors like, I dunno, Terry Pratchett just get more and more popular as time passes.
GRRM has a lot more diehard fans that he used to, but now the entry way into his books is a lot more varied (divided between TV and readers-first). He's still a hugely popular author with a lot of hardcore fans, but they're now more likely to have come from the TV show than the books first.
Which would be a perfectly valid argument if other authors weren't doing a job that was both good AND timely.
There are two problems with this statement. The first is that whilst there is a lot of "pretty good" stuff out there, the amount of epoch-making, game-changing stuff is incredibly rare. ASoIaF is, like or not, in that bracket. Something like Ben Aaronovitch's RIVERS OF LONDON series, although hugely enjoyable, is not.
The second is the common one that GRRM's output is insanely or unprecedently slow. It isn't. In terms of how quickly he churns out the word count, he's actually faster than JK Rowling and vastly faster than Pat Rothfuss. The problem is more that his books are gigantic and his exacting writing method is not best-suited to producing those books quickly. If you asked most authors if it was unreasonable to take five years to write half a million words, they'd look at you like you were crazy. Some take two or three years to write just 100,000, but because the books are much shorter you see them more often.
I realised my problem at the Prison was that I'd gone there too early. I'd gone south to deal with Highpool and the AG Centre, and it seemed more sensible to visit the Prison whilst I was down there. I only visited the Ranger Citadel and sorted out the Rail Nomad dispute after doing everything I could in the Prison Valley apart from getting inside the prison itself. So yeah, I made my life difficult there for no real reason. Still, by the time I reached the Rail Nomad area I was tough enough to blitz through it easily enough. It's the roleplaying to get the best outcome in that storyline that is the tricky part but I just about managed to pull it off.
Yup, THE SILMARILLION has Luthien, Morwen, Elwing, and Melian, amongst many others, as pretty important characters. Luthien even:
Defeats Sauron in combat - !!! - with the help of her hound and steals a Silmaril from Morgoth's brow before rescuing Beren. That's much more impressive than anything Gandalf ever did in LotR.
Reached the prison in Wasteland 2. It's pretty hardcore. I sneaked in the side way and got the drop on the enemies, but they attack in such large numbers it's impossible to take them down before they overwhelm me (the grenade-slingers in particular are lethal).
I might have to reload and do some more stuff outside the prison. Unlike some of the other quests, the prison isn't a time-limited one (it's a story-critical, set-in-stone one, I believe) so I can bail and come back later.
My friend complained terribly on dialogues, plot, and NPC personalities...
The writing and dialogue are okay, with occasional inspired spikes of genius. But in terms of plot/combat ratio, WASTELAND 2 reminds me of ICEWIND DALE more than the original FALLOUTs or other isometric RPGs. Combat is frequent, increases in difficulty continuously and not as well-designed as might be wished, although it's certainly not impossible or unenjoyable.
WASTELAND 2 is very hard and pretty old-skool, although I think it's been massively overstated by some reviews. It is neither as hard nor as old-skool in its inscrutability as DIVINITY: ORIGINAL SIN, and is more approachable. It suffers from over-finicky skill replication (making Safecracking and Lockpicking different skills is one specialisation too far, especially since Computer Science is such a massive church it covers probably way too many circumstances) and also is extremely stingy with ammo and money, making simply staying alive hard work. That's good in the sense that it means you think more about survival in the post-apocalyptic nightmare than you do in FO3 (which is a theme park in comparsion), but it's bad when you have to constantly trek back to the Citadel or Highpool for supplies.
This is also a dangerous strategy because most of the mayday signals you encounter are time-limited. If you are tardy in dealing with a mayday you may lose the opportunity to counter the threat and turn up to find everyone dead. Realistic in the sense there are consequences for your action and inaction, but frustrating because the Rangers don't seem to have anyone else to send (shades of STAR TREK's "Only Federation ship in the quadrant," syndrome).
I do kind of like these games which seem to encourage failure so you learn the game's systems and then can restart with more information (like D:OS, FTL and X-COM for that matter), but there is an issue when they are multi-dozen-hour RPGs and I have a full-time job, almost 60 unplayed games on my Steam queue and two enormous new games (ELITE: DANGEROUS and PILLARS OF ETERNITY) just weeks away :)
I would be very interested in Scott's definition of GamerGate at this stage, and an explanation for why GamerGate's first target was a non-profit-making indie game which hadn't actually been reviewed and barely even mentioned by the journalistin question, and not one of the much bigger, much more clearly fraudulent incidents of publisher/journalist collusion that took place in the past.
GamerGate is focused on using alleged but unproven corruption in video game journalism coverage of non-profit-making indie games as a smokescreen and diversionary tactic so that a small number of self-identified "hardcore gamers" can fight back against the encroachment of women and minority groups in trying to make gaming more inclusive. They view the social/cultural criticism of gaming as a threat to the games they play (violent and male-dominated, exemplified by militaristic first-person shooters) and that it will expose many alleged "hardcore gamers" as people who behave extremely badly online.
They are utterly opposed to the existence of a free market in game development, as such a market exists right now and the rise of Kickstarter/indie games allows minority voices to be heard more prominently than previously.
Supporters of GamerGate seem gripped by an irrational fear that the games they prefer are in some kind of danger from this expansion of gaming to be a much larger, more varied and more general medium, despite the likes of CALL OF DUTY and GTA still selling tens of millions of copies per game and being the biggest-selling franchises in gaming history.
It should be noted that the self-identified "hardcore gamers" who support GamerGate tend to be young-ish (teens and twenties), heavily invested a small number of genres (console shooters, predominantly) and not very well-versed in the history of the medium (particularly the 1980s/90s adventure and roleplayng games that actually had quite a few major female characters and even developers without the sky collapsing). This makes it more amusing when they dismiss arguments running counter to their own as coming from "non-gamers", given they tend to be as knowledgeable about the wider history and culture of the medium as a box of frogs :)
The previous paragraph may be a strawman, however.
It's about journalistic integrity, or lack thereof. Quinn was the catalyst in bring an issue that has existed for a long damn time to light.
This is a smokescreen, frankly.
The claim of journalistic ethics in this case is ludicrous. Nathan Grayson never reviewed DEPRESSION QUEST and only mentioned it in passing prior to their relationship starting. When the relationship did start, it was disclosed to the Kotaku team, and any conflict of interest was avoided. DEPRESSION QUEST is also a free game (although at one time you could voluntarily donate to Quinn for it, I belive), so there was no monetary aspect involved.
If we compare this to the incident in 2007 when Jeff Gerstmann was fired from GameSpot after giving KANE & LYNCH a medicore review after the publishers had paid enormous sums of advertising revenue into the site. Four other writers quit in protest. Neither in 2007, when the story first broke, nor in 2012 when the particulars were confirmed, was Eidos or GameSpot DDoSed, doxxed, or anyone involved in either company threatened with rape or had naked pictures of them published.
This was a level of corruption many magnitudes greater than anything in the GamerGate non-scandal, involving millions of dollars of advertising and journalistic ethics compromised on an epic scale, but it was a five-day wonder, over and forgotten about in considerably less time than this current 'scandal' has taken to gestate.
There's also the more recent situation with BATTLEFIELD 4 getting very high and praising reviews despite the game being effectively unplayable for many on release, and taking months to get patched to something acceptable to most players. Again, people have moaned but not made anything like the fuss that has been made about GamerGate.
For something more recent, we have Bethesda's loathsome publishing practices in driving partner companies to the brink of ruin and then buying them up at a bargain cost, something they did to id and Arkane and tried to do to Human Head but were halted in their tracks by legal action. No-one seemed very bothered about that. Or Bethesda's preposterous treatment of Obsidian after they made NEW VEGAS the most successful Bethesda-published game of all time (until SKYRIM).
Controversies in the gaming industry which have destroyed companies and lives and involved corruption to the tune of millions of dollars have been regular occurrences for decades. Yet the fuss made about them was incredibly muted until a female games creator released a free game and then - some time later - had a relationship with a journalist who had absolutely nothing to do with her game.
I have zero doubt that there are many supporters of GamerGate who don't care about Quinn or Sarkeesian, aren't sexist and are concerned about gaming review ethics. But they've attached themselves to a poisoned cause.
Do you feel that this is an accurate portrayal of people concerned about the GamerGate events?
Where was it enshrined that "Gameplay is king" is a "key complaint" of the movement?
On many recent reviews of a game by many of the 'criticsed' websites (such as RPS and Kotaku) where any criticism of sexism is shot down with, "Who cares? What about the GAMEPLAY? Why won't anyone talk about the GAMEPLAY?" Also see the Wikipedia definition.
Who and where are these people who believe that everything cultural or social about video games should be ignored? Who and where are these people who are "genuinely baffled" by the idea that sexism can make a game less enjoyable?
Many supporters of GamerGate.
I don't want to be associated with people like that, but at the same time I'm having a hard time believing that they even exist in numbers large enough that they can be said to define the movement. It sounds like an absurd, tribalistic strawman created to make opposing it easier to stomach.
They are the movement.
In the absence of a final arbiter of reality let's go with Wikipedia's definition of the controversy, apparently achieved consensually after approximately forty millions edit wars and screaming matches on the talk page:
tl;dr: GamerGate saw decades-standing question over ethics in video game journalism raised (which is good) but nonsensically over a zero-profit indie video game where all charges of corruption where unequivocally proven false (which is bad) and for some reason the very real corruption of Triple-A publishers and media collusion is completely ignored (which is hypocritical), apparently because no women attempting to write about social issues - however successfully - are involved (which may be sexist) and if there were they would get rape threats (which definitely is sexist, and also illegal).
I've watched the first few videos so far, aside from some very occasional snark here and there and a couple context based errors I've caught I don't understand why this would upset anyone. It's very tame and innocuous.
There is a broader context here. For years - decades, actually - video games have been dismissed from any kind of wider cultural conversation. They're not covered like films and novels are, despite being vastly more popular and making more money than any other media form (bar music, anyway). That's annoyed a lot of gamers for a very long time.
That's changed significantly in the last few years, particularly when the late uber film critic Roger Ebert said that games were not art and later changed his mind after wider exposure to them. This opened up a wider debate and more artistic games (stuff like DEAR ESTHER, JOURNEY) and games less dependent on mass slaughter (PORTAL) or which gave the player more choice and agency (a lot of Bethesda stuff) came to wider attention. Here in the UK we finally got some mainstream, massively popular comedians/critics (Dara O'Briain and Charlie Brooker) who got gaming discussion into the mainstream, and so on.
All of this would be great, but this more widespread acceptance of gaming as a valid modern art form has also led to gaming being dissected from social and cultural perspectives. A key complaint of GamerGate proponents is that "Gameplay is king," and people should be talking about the gameplay as the most important thing and anything social or cultural should be ignored. "It doesn't matter if a game is sexist as long as the game is fun," is a fundamental touchstone of the movement, and the suggestion that sexism makes the game less fun for many players (including male gamers as well as women) seems to genuinely baffle them.
Or, to put it another way, a number of gamers who have argued for years that games should be treated seriously are now rather annoyed that they are being treated seriously and dissected on the same level as other media forms.
but were here very soundly in favor of the argument that sexism in games causes sexism in society
I've never seen this argument put forwards by any of the gaming press. The principal complaints I've seen that sexism in general is unpleasant, that it puts off women from gaming and that retards the broader cultural acceptance of video games as a legitimate art form, and that it provides a 'safe haven' where sexist and misogynistic men/boys can gather without having their assumptions challenged.
The suggestion that sexism in games causes sexism in society is pretty farcical for the reasons you suggest, although it can certainly reinforce existing cultural problems in that area.
I'll also admit my opinion of her is also kind of colored by what I see as her abuse of Kickstarter. You do not need people to fund your series of Youtube videos.
Probably not, but it's also sensible to get people to pre-buy your product before you make it if at all possible. You could make the same argument about a lot of game projects on Kickstarter (Obsidian, in particular, could have come up with an alternate strategy of funding PILLARS OF ETERNITY, and maybe Larian with DIVINITY: ORIGINAL SIN) as well.
For that to happen, you'd have to assume that there was a major majority for independence in the first place.
Support for independence in Scotland has traditionally hovered at 30% or less for decades (since the 1970s at least) and the independence movement was trailing by a dozen points as recently as the summer. The real shock was how much ground the Yes vote gained in the last few weeks. The reasons for that still aren't clear, but Westminster arrogance and refusal to negotiate or engage on certain issues has been blamed, as has the impact of so many young, first-time voters. There's also the fact that Scotland is actually economically in a pretty good state at the moment (a lower unemployment rate than London), which bolsters confidence.
Does a DnD movie need to define itself as being completely different from all other fantasy movies? I don't think so, or at least I don't think it needs to in order to be successful.
D&D itself - the core books and their assumpts anyway - is a collection of fairly general, standard fantasy tropes. That's why it's been so successful, it's the ur-fantasy game which serves a lot of different subgenres.
The problem is that its genericness which serves gaming so well is a bit of a barrier to making a distinct D&D movie, as there is no such thing.
Using a pre-determined D&D world might help, but some are too far removed from the core D&D experience to resonate with a wider audience: DARK SUN, RAVENLOFT and PLANESCAPE would be too 'out there' to find a big audience whose expectations of a D&D movie would probably be more about magic, the standard races, dragons and dungeons.
Psst. Module adaptation.
Potentially, but would depend on the module. TOMB OF HORRORS: THE MOVIE might sound great, but to be loyal to the module movie audiences would have to sit through many minutes of adventurers carefully testing every stone in a room for traps only to get completely splattered by some obscure falling block they missed.
So is it sexism if a female won't hire a female?
There was a controversy here a few years ago when an older female business-owner declared that she would only be hiring women if they were incapable of bearing children, since as a small business owner she should not have to pay for maternity leave. This was regarded as sexist as it was denying potential employees work on the basis of an underlying fact of their gender they can do absolutely nothing about (i.e. all women can theoretically bear children up until medically they cannot, regardless of religion, sexuality or abstinance).
It's not commonplace, but it does happen that some women themselves perpetuate culture's acceptance of sexism.
I don't really see that for, say, the North-East, West Midlands, and so on - they are much more administrative divisions than regional identities. I DO see plenty of scope for an English Parliament, since the English are the only ones not to have one, and the logic of Devo Max to Scotland will have to be applied across the country. Cameron has hinted at something to address the West Lothian Question, but it's not clear what it might be.
If you asked someone from Manchester or Yorkshire if they were culturally the same as someone from London or Kent, it would really not go down very well. Regional identities in the UK can be very distinctive in terms of language, food and political leanings. The country is reasonably small but the regions that make it up (and I'm just talking about England by itself here) are quite protective of their own identities.
Heck, this is even true in Wales where people from Cardiff are seen as being distinctly different to natives of the valleys to people who live on the coast, or on Anglesey.
It can seem crazy to people from other, much larger countries (where there is nothing like as much cultural differentiation across much greater distances), but the UK really is a melting pot of different cultures and has been for thousands of years. England itself is a union of seven distinct pre-medieval kingdoms and some of those distinctive qualities crazily remain a thousand years on.
Don't confuse a "possible" revenue stream with a "likely" one or even with a "profitable" one. If all you care about is a "possible" revenue stream, I'm sure you'll rush out with a Gupapuyngu translation of your next console platformer. Granted, there are only about 300 Gupapuyngu speakers in the world, and I don't now that any of them own a console,.... but hey, they might buy a copy of the game, and a console to run it on, and that's a possible revenue stream, right?
Superb. Urban Dictionary's definition of "Strawman" was a bit old so this will do nicely as a replacement.
This is almost starting to sound like an updated version of The Producers:
THE PRODUCERS was a (fictional) stage play deliberately designed to fail so it would earn the backers a substantial insurance pay-out.
As a comparison to the real-world problem of sexism and many game-developers alienating 50%+ of potential customers, it is both an abject and utter failure to the point of inanity.
Better luck next time.
Considering that the first two Dungeons & Dragons films were released in 2000 and 2005, respectively (in other words, the first developed when TSR owned D&D, the second developed during the 3.0/early 3.5 days) and were both widely panned, I think you might have a case of rose-colored-glasses-itis.
TSR flogged off the movie rights to some random unproven dude in 1991 for $15K. Neither TSR nor WotC nor Hasbro had any control whatsoever over the first two movies, and have only had legal recourse to go after the movie rights since the debacle surrounding the third film's release two years ago.
WotC and Hasbo seethed over the quality level of the movies, make absolutely no mistake over that. They heavily disliked them, but had no choice but to back them for the marketing tie-in opportunities.
They do have "excuses" (or rather, reasons) why they've avoided the extra step: significant success without taking the extra step, few women play the games, decision to focus on additional mechanics (new weapons, vehicles, misc tech, etc.) in lieu of female models, and likely a publisher resistance to risk the inclusion of one element at the cost of other elements (e.g. mechanics or graphic improvements) that will be included by competitors. With the way some "critics" react, it's little wonder that publishers are wary of including female avatars out of a desire to avoid the inevitable "violence against women" accusations (despite the thousands of male character deaths piling up on scoreboards).
Yup, because the violence inflicted against the female avatar in TOMB RAIDER (all eleventy billion of them), PORTAL or METROID was a big controversy.
Well thankfully the large bulk of the computer game industry is interested in making money and not pushing morals.
"Hey, we're ignoring 50% of a possible revenue stream."
"Holy hell, that's crazy. We could have sold 70 million games rather than 35 million. Why did we not market to that market sector?"
"They have uteri."
Yup, from a market perspective this makes complete and total sense.
Typically, modern games grounded in realism offer fewer character/avatar options, simpler stories, and more mechanic-driven gameplay than space opera/fantasy RPGs.
Indeed. But that doesn't really address the issue that even these games - especially when recent CoD games go in for asymmetrical warfare in a big way - don't really have an excuse for not featuring more female characters or try to appeal more to female gamers. CoD did actually lean a little towards it (if only slightly) in GHOSTS, so it'll be interesting to see if that trend continues in ADVANCED WARFARE, given it's much more of an SF game and thus is not constrained by dubious notions of 'realism'.
By that argument, the Belgians, Catalonians, and Ukranians should get a vote as well.
That's why the Scottish referendum has been massively condemned in Spain and doesn't seem to be going down well in a lot of Europe (or Canada for that matter).
I've seen fairly widespread support for it if it benefits those regions. If it doesn't, then no, it doesn't make sense. But it has become a far more popular idea in the last few years, particularly due to the viewpoint that London and a very small number of other areas (including, ironically, Scotland) have benefitted massively from the economic recovery whilst other parts of the country are in destitution. Whether a regional government can help with that problem or not is another question, but there is a perception it might.
The argument that a minority of women play 'core' games (I presume that's a contraction of hardcore) is pretty well-supported, but the reasons for this are not really engaged with. CALL OF DUTY did not permit female avatars until the last game in the series, the series has featured very few female characters of any note at all (even when it would have been appropriate, such as the Russian levels of the WWII games) and its reputation for online play without resorting to moronic language (especially on X-Box) is not great.
OTOH, far more women play MASS EFFECT, a series where the gameplay also mostly consists of mowing down bad guys with bullets (or lasers) but which has a far more diverse cast, far more prominent female characters, and the ability to play the main character as a woman, with such superior voice acting that a significant number of male players also choose to play with the female avatar.
There is a something of a self-confirming bias here. The issue isn't that women have an inherent aversion to violent games, but an aversion to games that are not inclusive towards them. Fewer women play certain 'core' games (and this appears to be more of a Western issue, with JRPGs and games like MARIO not being quite as gender-split as Western games) because of limitations of the medium, not because women are less interested in 'proper' games at all and so therefore games can continue being "istisms" until the cows come home.
It isn't odd that the rest of the union doesn't get to vote. That would make it a joke.
The impact it will have on the UK is quite large: if Scotland leaves or stays but with enhanced powers, it will be impossible to deny a superior level of devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland, and the demand for regional assemblies within England itself (for Yorkshire, Cornwall, the Midlands etc) will be very strong.
The effect this will have on the UK is immense. At the moment all of the country's money goes into a central pot and is redistributed. With regional assemblies all with tax-raising powers (which Scotland will get, so they will have to as well), the situation will be rather different.