Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Cabal]

[youtube]U0Og4LaB1Zc[/youtube]

[another lurker]

And Miley Cyrus kills the pit.

[Some Lurker]

Speaking of the last Tomb Raider game:
I could not help but notice that every white male in it dies and every named character that is not a white male survives.
So it is essentially a SJW utopia.

Also with regard to Lara's tits I will point out that the supposed sexualisation of Lara in the first three Tomb Raider games was more in the minds of its feminist critics than in the game. The graphics of the time were not good enough to produce a sexy character. Her boobs were literally a single very sharp triangular based prism. TR4 and TR5 did round her a little bit (and gave her just a little bit of personality) but it really isn't until TR: Legend (or arguably near the end of Angle of Darkness) that Lara can rightly be considered sexy. In what might possibly be a coincidence it was in TR:AoD and TR:L that Lara finally got some serious character development.

It seems Ms. Croft's personality evolved with her graphics.

[John D]

The piano and sax in the Final Cut are a strangely effective combo. Us and Them on Dark Side is good, plus Clare Torry's wailing. Hearing George Hrab try to do that cracked me up. :lol:

I find that wordless vocal on Dark Side of the Moon to be remarkably moving. Funny how certain bits of music drill a little hole in your head. I play this stuff for my kids and they just look at me in a puzzled way. I think it has to do with the synergy between music and where you are in your emotional life.

I suspect that music drills into your emotions between the age of 13 and 23. After that, the musical themes are kind of stuck. Hmmmmm. Just a speculation I guess.

Funny though, I cry my eyes out every time I see the musical Les Miserables. and.... so do my kids. What a bunch of saps we are. Even when you know Fantine is dying you still weep like a baby. Haha. Funny how I am totally unmoved by thousands of dead Palestinians, and yet I cry over some girl fake dying on a stage. What a strange clown I am. Perhaps I give myself permission to cry at the theater. If I cried about all the tragedy in real life I would never make it out of bed.

Oh I still get quite an emotional response to modern stuff. I wept when I saw Wreaking Ball.

And vomited just a little. But no one noticed.

I tried to watch Les Mis the movie. Couldn't get over Crowe and turned off. I thought there must be something wrong with me given the buzz it usually generates with people. Still have it on my iPad.

Many people didn't like Crowes performance so you are not alone on that. I actually think he did a quite good job. The screen version of Les Mis is very intimate with lots of softer singing and close shots. A big booming version of Javert would have been too over the top. It was a very tricky part to play given the history on Broadway with big booming singers and the very unusual way the film was made.

but.... Jackman and Hathaway were fucking amazing! So, poor Crowe looked like he was stepped on. The best performance is by Redmayne in my opinion. I think his version of Empty Chairs is the best movie musical scene ever done. He did the same song thirteen times. He took all day to do it and didn't take any food breaks. By the time he got to the thirteenth take his eyes were blood shot and he was totally emotionally drained. Fucking great stuff if you like musical theater. They did use the thirteenth take in the film.

The beginning of the film is the weakest part. If you like musicals at all, I suggest you sit patiently through the first 15 minutes and then let the film take off. Well worth it. Once Jackman does the scene in the abbey on the cliff you should be hooked.

[debaser71]

Has CNN stopped comments on their articles?

[paddybrown]

[quote="John D]
I tried to watch Les Mis the movie. Couldn't get over Crowe and turned off. I thought there must be something wrong with me given the buzz it usually generates with people. Still have it on my iPad.

Many people didn't like Crowes performance so you are not alone on that. I actually think he did a quite good job. The screen version of Les Mis is very intimate with lots of softer singing and close shots. A big booming version of Javert would have been too over the top. It was a very tricky part to play given the history on Broadway with big booming singers and the very unusual way the film was made.

but.... Jackman and Hathaway were fucking amazing! So, poor Crowe looked like he was stepped on. The best performance is by Redmayne in my opinion. I think his version of Empty Chairs is the best movie musical scene ever done. He did the same song thirteen times. He took all day to do it and didn't take any food breaks. By the time he got to the thirteenth take his eyes were blood shot and he was totally emotionally drained. Fucking great stuff if you like musical theater. They did use the thirteenth take in the film.

The beginning of the film is the weakest part. If you like musicals at all, I suggest you sit patiently through the first 15 minutes and then let the film take off. Well worth it. Once Jackman does the scene in the abbey on the cliff you should be hooked.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

I kind of agree and kind of disagree. I enjoyed Crowe's performance because it was an oasis of understatement from the bombastic tearjerking of the rest of the film. He also made an honest attempt to make his character arc make sense, which isn't easy, because none of the characters in Les Mis make any sense at all. Completely bonkers film. The only film I've ever seen that's more over the top is 300, in which every member of the cast is Brian Blessed playing a bad-guy professional wrestler. Still, at least they don't sing.

[another lurker]

Has CNN stopped comments on their articles?

Nope.

[Dworkins Unplugged.]

Dick Carrier gets a shout-out on alternet...
http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reason ... 1#bookmark

anyway, interesting article. I really need to read those books, specifically anything by Bart Ehrman.

"It continues to serve us well, this myth of Christ."

:lol:

[Brive1987]

Well, if it can score a 300 reference then I should give it another go. I'll give it 30 mins to win me. :)

And Wreaking Ball, kinda sums up the whole stupid race to the bottom. In my day we had Joan Jett and Debbie Harry.

[Badger3k]

Paul needs to make up his mind. Is it bad that the women are equal interactive parts of the game that can be treated in the same way as the rest of the characters? Or should they be untouchable background?

Tried to retweet with a comment, but couldn't for some reason. I find it sad that he's so ignorant and non-skeptical that he hasn't even played the games, just relied on a known ideologue and liar. However, his attitude is so patriarchal - I gather he would prefer that female characters (have to be specific that it is the ones with vaginas) be untouchable completely. That way they stay on their pedestal and it's just the male characters that can be killed. CFI has gone downhill like a roller coaster.

On the blockbot?

All these wankers sign up to the BB, so you won't be able to talk to any of them.

Should have checked your privilege, shitlord!

I had to have been doing something wrong, or my browser was acting up. I did manage to reply saying it was good that he didn't work for anybody involved in critical thinking or skepticism. He said "bye" and, I think, blocked me. He never replied to my comparing him to someone learning about D&D from Jack Chick. I thought about adding "or asking about African Americans by asking the KKK" or others. You get the idea. I also said he was brave to do that. Does CFI employ anyone not (a) a hipster-wannabe and (b) not having PTSD and freaking out on social media? It's like they get a bonus for hiring the disabled.

[Spike13]

In the wake of #Quinncocksgate, Kotaku has decided their staff are no longer allowed to donate to games projects, because it is a conflict of interests.

Guess who objects?

https://forum.encyclopediadramatica.es/ ... jpg.47093/

Yeah, that's right. The woman who started this whole thing believes there's no conflict between contributing money to a project, and being the person to review that same project.

QE-FUCKING-D. Case closed bar open.

Love how the folks who cannot get enough of reminding you that they are game journalists are now suddenly only doe eyed bloggers....(wish we had a bullshit emoticon)

Quinn's argument makes no sense. A decent blogger needs a code of ethics just as much if not more than journalists from traditional media.

Reviewer is a position of trust. The audience is relying on your experience to help them make the decision to buy or not buy a product.

Why did Fez get rave reviews from critics( 9.5 out of 10, or even 10 out of 10!!!!eleventy!!)
But only mixed reviews from players(5 out of10) there is a definite disconnect there.

Ms. Quinn's "game" depression quest was also drawing favorable game site reviews, while the player reviews on steam are panning it.

Hopefully, this is only the beginning, Kotaku has announced that their critics must now disclose personal financial support for devs. It needs to go further, a full code of ethics needs to be put in place.

The games industry has used and abused players for far too long but, to have our media join in and treat us as suckers is too much.

[Guest]

Not good enough. Simply having a programmed ability to attack women in games is misogyny in itself. Women in games should be specially protected, either simply made invulnerable, or an instant game over if you kill them. That's true gender equality.

The logic of the position of people like Paul Fidalgo seems to suggest that games should have some sort of programmed inability to harm female characters.

technically this is done quite often, but for any children avatars in the game. random violent acts perpetrated on children is still considered beyond the pale and is not allowed to be depicted in almost any game. even mods allowing this to happen are generally considered disgusting by most people. it can be represented in dramatic cutscenes that are beyond player control and are there to set story points, but i cant think of any where the player is allowed to inflict lasting violence and death on them (cant even starve them to death in the sims)

so paul fidalgo is in the position of insisting women be treated like children

[Badger3k]

The commenters tend to eviscerate Erin McKelle's article by the way.

Transparent attention whoring that conceals massive body image and confidence issues.

I just wish she could be less of an obnoxious git about it. If she dressed normally and wasn't so confrontational, I'm willing to bet most people would treat her just fine.

And people starting isn't "objectification." As many of the (female) posters pointed out, people stare at motorcycle accidents and roadkill, too.

Someone posted an image they found about "perfection" - it had a drawing of a female, and a 5'11" female would have to be 106 lbs to be perfect. The comments made tended to range a bit, but the ones I read mainly said that was unhealthy and too thin. Someone posted about how people (maybe the ones I read, maybe not) about body shaming people with ED. I wanted to reply that enabling those with body issues by encouraging them to think that such a weight is desirable in any way, but couldn't waste time since I was at work. I just don't get some people.

[acathode]

Anyone else suspecting that Sarkeesian is deliberately upping the dishonesty and "controversial feminism" (aka nutty SJW "arguments") in her videos, just to keep the "misogynistic hate" (=> attention) flowing?

Her first videos were shitty and contained plenty of factual error and (deliberate) omissions, but they weren't even near the sort of straight up lying she's been doing in her latest 2 videos, nor do they contain the same level of batshit crazy feminist sexism... I mean, the first videos you kinda had to think some to argue against, it took at least some sort of brain activity... but these recent videos are just... if you have any fucking clue about games, your first reaction to her two latest should be pretty much "Wait wtf? Anita, now you're just lying... every sentence out of your mouth is either a straight lie, lie by omission, or some batshit crazy sexist feminist sounding soundbite!". This shit just screams trying to flamebait/clickbait....

[Spike13]

Yes, it's stupid gossipy behavior, but violence? Really?

What the fuck is this idiot even talking about?

Either she is into some very bad S/M or Shanley is a random word generator and we all been trolled.

[Badger3k]

It is the same principle but there's even less reason why it should be a problem. There's plenty of games where violence is a key feature - you cannot play them without killing probably more opponents than the average toll of about ten serial killers. But games where sexual violence is essential?
Are there any mainstream games where this is the case?
Yes, I guess if you have the ability to control characters and kill any other character you meet in the game there is the possibility that a true misogynist could play the game as a virtual Marc Lepine - although you will not be playing it the way it was designed or intended and your actions would no contribute towards the completion of the game.
But to ban a game because of this possibility is like banning pens because some sociopath might use one to write a threatening letter.

Paul Fidalgo was making a very bad argument about games and seems to have no idea that it was Sarkheesian herself who killed and positioned the bodies of the women in that Hitman game - it wasn't an intended scene from the story arc.
He then went and had a hissy fit when people started to make gaming jokes on his twitter timeline.
Boo fucking hoo.

Maybe they can change CFI to stand for Center for Idiots. The vocal ones seem to lack any sense of inquiry or skepticism. It's the same as someone who watches the movie Zeitgeist and says "wow, I never knew that" or falls for every Facebook scam then cries when someone points out that they are fools. I think it fits the current hipster trend - SJW seems to be the hip thing - and you have to blindly accept anything that someone says. It's sad (and I have to admit amusing to watch the meltdown as reality crashes in).

[Spike13]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/ee7856ced649 ... 1_1280.jpg

I hope this image lives forever, so people can see what these social justice wankers are like when you take the mask off.

Mundane Matt had a wonderful rant about this ass hat.

I realize that this stool sample feels he is being oh so edgy and incendiary, when in effect he merely proves himself to be what birthed him.... An asshole.

[another lurker]

It is the same principle but there's even less reason why it should be a problem. There's plenty of games where violence is a key feature - you cannot play them without killing probably more opponents than the average toll of about ten serial killers. But games where sexual violence is essential?
Are there any mainstream games where this is the case?
Yes, I guess if you have the ability to control characters and kill any other character you meet in the game there is the possibility that a true misogynist could play the game as a virtual Marc Lepine - although you will not be playing it the way it was designed or intended and your actions would no contribute towards the completion of the game.
But to ban a game because of this possibility is like banning pens because some sociopath might use one to write a threatening letter.

Paul Fidalgo was making a very bad argument about games and seems to have no idea that it was Sarkheesian herself who killed and positioned the bodies of the women in that Hitman game - it wasn't an intended scene from the story arc.
He then went and had a hissy fit when people started to make gaming jokes on his twitter timeline.
Boo fucking hoo.

Maybe they can change CFI to stand for Center for Idiots. The vocal ones seem to lack any sense of inquiry or skepticism. It's the same as someone who watches the movie Zeitgeist and says "wow, I never knew that" or falls for every Facebook scam then cries when someone points out that they are fools. I think it fits the current hipster trend - SJW seems to be the hip thing - and you have to blindly accept anything that someone says. It's sad (and I have to admit amusing to watch the meltdown as reality crashes in).

After watching "What the Bleep do We Know"

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

I learned that simply through the amazing power of quantum thought that I could simply will myself to be faster, better, stronger, have bigger bosoms, etc!

[Badger3k]

Cabal (if that really was you lol skepticism):
It's not "irony", but it's also not "the gaming community"; it's just the SJL element of it.
Dick Strawkins:
I'd say that there are only a handful of games where you death toll isn't higher than that of a small battle. And most games that center around shooting people also have a death toll higher than the "worst years" of both OIF & OEF (Iraq & Afghanistan) within the first two or three missions. But that's just nitpicking.

Yet it's a sin to ask about all the male characters who get killed by the character. In my play through of the latest Hitman, I killed only the men (except for the woman in the first mission), including stuffing them in crates and other things. If there were female guards or targets, then they would get treated the same. It's the equality they say they want - women and men to be treated the same. But they don't want that, they want that special privilege. About the only ones without a huge death count are some platformers and some artistic games like Flow (I believe that's the name). You don't kill people in music and dancing games too (well, most, there was one or two that used that as a gimmick). But Sarky doesn't care about them - she admits she doesn't play and really doesn't like shooters and combat games, and they provide the best fodder for the gravy train. I wonder how long it will be before she is invited to blog at FtB.

[Some Lurker]

technically this is done quite often, but for any children avatars in the game. random violent acts perpetrated on children is still considered beyond the pale and is not allowed to be depicted in almost any game. even mods allowing this to happen are generally considered disgusting by most people. it can be represented in dramatic cutscenes that are beyond player control and are there to set story points, but i cant think of any where the player is allowed to inflict lasting violence and death on them (cant even starve them to death in the sims)

so paul fidalgo is in the position of insisting women be treated like children

I think you'll find that you've been ninja'd, good sir.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

In terms of economics I have noticed something change with Eds blog that may reflect how they organize their payment system.
The number of posts on 'Dispatches from the Culture Wars' has hugely increased recently. He used to make a couple or three every day but now its gone to ten or more every day.
I'm not sure of the mechanics of it but I think there used to be some system whereby they earned clicks for every new comment made but google put an end to it - something to do with automated RSS feed or something (anyone remember?)
I guess that Ed figured out that posting huge numbers of daily posts can make up for this loss in some way.

Ophelia makes about four or five posts a day (usually very simple copy and paste efforts) but almost no other FTB blogger posts frequently.
I guess the economics of FTB works out something like this:

If you have sufficient volume of traffic, you can generate a useful amount of cash by posting four to ten posts each day on your site.
If you don't have the traffic then there is little incentive to be a frequent poster.

I don't know if there are any additional sources of income (perhaps the owners get an extra cut on top of the cash per click) but I suspect it's only those three who make any real money from FTB.

I also noticed of late that FTB is generating pop-up ads.

[Ericb]

While browsing Amazon for Lovecraftesque stories I came across a tentacle porn book with possibly the best title ever: go and search for "The Booty Call of Cthulhu" for more details.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oTk4Pn4-PJw/U ... thulhu.JPG


If I could only 'shop Myers in as the author and change the gal's head to St. Becky Blue Hair...

Hmmm ,it seems that" tentacle rape porn" is now called "dubious consent erotica."

[Badger3k]

Call up Tipper Gore and get this moral panic going! She's probably bored these days.

Not just that. It's the movies! And the comics! And that rock n' roll music! And those books!

Or maybe Paul needs to wake up and recognize that some content is flagged for public consumption based on age and it is up to parents (but shop keepers do play their parts better than the parents), to determine what they think is appropriate for their child. Heck, if he doesn't like the standard parental advisories, there are several Christian groups that review and heck even censor content to fit the puritanical desires as one such as Paul.

The problem is worse than you may think. It's been scientifically proven that playing these video games can make teenagers... act rebellious. *gasp*

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 100352.htm

...new Dartmouth research finds for the first time that teen-agers who play mature-rated, risk-glorifying video games are more likely subsequently to engage in a wide range of deviant behaviors beyond aggression, including alcohol use, smoking cigarettes, delinquency and risky sex.

"With respect to playing deviant video game characters, we feel it best to follow the admonition of Kurt Vonnegut in Mother Night: 'We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be,'" says Professor Jay Hull, the studies' lead author and chair of Dartmouth's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.

Right! Teenagers need to ditch these deviant video games for some good clean family fun, like Kurt Vonnegut novels.

They looked at a number of factors, including the playing of three violent risk-glorifying video games (Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Spiderman) and other mature-rated video games. They found that such games are associated with subsequent changes in a wide range of high-risk behaviors and suggest this is due, in part, to changes in the users' personality, attitudes and values, specifically making them more rebellious and thrill seeking.

...wait. Spiderman? :?

Spiderman runs around in underoos and a mask - of course it's mature. I wonder how this relates to the last paper that I remember coming out that shows that video games can lead to increased ethical behavior - they found that committing crimes, etc, can make the player feel bad about them or think about their actions (or something like that) and behave in the opposite fashion. It's almost as if they can separate video games from real life somehow. Actually, given how many SJWs seem to live in a fantasy land, I'm not surprised they have problems realizing the difference between fiction (in games, etc) and reality.

[Cabal]

After watching "What the Bleep do We Know"

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

I learned that simply through the amazing power of quantum thought that I could simply will myself to be faster, better, stronger, have bigger bosoms, etc!

i initially misread that as "have bigger bosons"

but probably can have those too through quantum woo

[Spike13]

Not good enough. Simply having a programmed ability to attack women in games is misogyny in itself. Women in games should be specially protected, either simply made invulnerable, or an instant game over if you kill them. That's true gender equality.

The logic of the position of people like Paul Fidalgo seems to suggest that games should have some sort of programmed inability to harm female characters.

While that sounds sexist in itself (treating men and women differently), there is the added problem of transphobia.
Why do we assume that the apparently male characters are men?
Can't the also be transwomen?

And if we say "No the fucking well can't, they're all men, right?", aren't we erasing the existence of transwomen from society?

In other words, the only way we can prevent the possibility of committing virtual violence on women game characters is to eliminate the possibility of committing violence on ANY character. Remember, if you are virtually killing hundreds of 'men' in Call of duty, the chances are that you are statistically likely to have killed a virtual transwoman too!

So, ban all violent games.
Problem solved!

It will take a little getting used to but I can already just about see the brave new world of gaming in my minds eye.

Battlefield 6 - Mission to Farmville
or perhaps,
Candycrush of Duty.

Fidalgo doesn't seem to understand about the emersive game experience.

In many games the type of character you are is determined by you.

You can play it as the classic hero, the anti-hero, even going so far as being the embodiment of evil.

It is the players world and the players choice. Hence the immersive experience. Having characters that you cannot interact or bring harm to removes the illusion of being the master of your own destiny in these worlds.

This is all cartoon violence. It isn't real and nobody except SJW's thinks it is real.

Do a little research Fidalgo (and no watching a Sarkeesian video isn't unbiased research)

Center for Inquiry ...my ass !

[dog puke]

Damn, I'm wrong again. I guess I'm also wrong in saying that both Ummagumma and More are masterpieces in comparison to The Division Bell.

The Division Bell is 'no true Floyd'. No Waters, no Floyd.

Pfffttt... no Syd Barrett, no Floyd.

[Jonathan]

In terms of economics I have noticed something change with Eds blog that may reflect how they organize their payment system.
The number of posts on 'Dispatches from the Culture Wars' has hugely increased recently. He used to make a couple or three every day but now its gone to ten or more every day.
I'm not sure of the mechanics of it but I think there used to be some system whereby they earned clicks for every new comment made but google put an end to it - something to do with automated RSS feed or something (anyone remember?)
I guess that Ed figured out that posting huge numbers of daily posts can make up for this loss in some way.

Ophelia makes about four or five posts a day (usually very simple copy and paste efforts) but almost no other FTB blogger posts frequently.
I guess the economics of FTB works out something like this:

If you have sufficient volume of traffic, you can generate a useful amount of cash by posting four to ten posts each day on your site.
If you don't have the traffic then there is little incentive to be a frequent poster.

I don't know if there are any additional sources of income (perhaps the owners get an extra cut on top of the cash per click) but I suspect it's only those three who make any real money from FTB.

I also noticed of late that FTB is generating pop-up ads.

Been doing that since the site was set up, as far as I can recall.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Dick Carrier gets a shout-out on alternet...
http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reason ... 1#bookmark

anyway, interesting article. I really need to read those books, specifically anything by Bart Ehrman.

Read anything by Bart Ehrman. All his books are essentially the same. Good, but mostly reheated leftovers.

[Snapfingers]

Speaking of Pink Floid..
Have you guys heard of the eerie coincidences between an old movie and a pink Floid album??

You take the album 'another brick in the wall' and play it alongside the movie 'the wall ' (the one with the Dire Straits singer Peter Gabriel as the main character). Turn down the sound on the movie and you will get some pretty fucking amazing matches. Examples: in the school scene the children seem to be singing the hit song " hey creatures, leave us kids alone". And in the scene where Phil Collins shaves off his eyebrows the song "comfortably dumb" fits the narative like a glove. Of course there are some things that don't match or are surreal (like the cartoon bit along side "stairway to heaven") but all in all it's reaaaaally fucking strange. Try it.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

After watching "What the Bleep do We Know"

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

I learned that simply through the amazing power of quantum thought that I could simply will myself to be faster, better, stronger, have bigger bosoms, etc!

i initially misread that as "have bigger bosons"

but probably can have those too through quantum woo

Uggh. I went to see that on the advice of a friend who knew nothing about science. After about 30 minutes, I stood up, turned around, gave the audience a few words on real QM, pointed to the screen and said, "but, this -- this is total bullshit," and walked out.
I kid you not.

[Badger3k]

Za-zen:
I'm losing faith in game developers though, as even Tim Schafer is plugging her videos now too, saying anyone making video games ought to watch and learn from her.

Western game developers ruined everything. Now they even ruined the Japanese game developers, who think Western-style games are the future because Call of Duty and GTA sell like hotcakes while Tales of Xillia doesn't. The SJW bootlicking is just the nail in the coffin.

Fuck all that noise. They already made enough games I want to play on all consoles until I get old, so if they start to make only SJW drivel from now on, I'll stick to whatever is already made, thank you very much, stockpile older consoles, and watch the industry die a horrible Sarkeesian-induced death. It will be sad, but they made their choices.

I couldn't even finish that video. I started beating myself in the head with my keyboard and I eventually blacked out.

Any good point she might make is obscured by this one, sleazy rhetorical trick she keeps performing: reading the minds of the game developers. She doesn't just point out an objective trend in various games, or subjectively analyze portrayals of women in games; no, she tells us why the developers wrote certain events a certain way.

The one that made my testicles turn inside out, forming a mangina, was when she was showing a prostitute about to get murdered in Red Dead Redemption. She states that the events are intended for the player to either save the woman, or watch her murder as part of the entertainment. WTFuck. I'm pretty certain the developers intended for the player to save the victims or, at worst, just ignore the events altogether. I sincerely doubt the developers thought "Yeah, if the players don't feel like saving her, they can just fap to the murder, instead."

She also kind of glosses over the fact that that game was set in the old west...a time that most Americans would probably agree was just a teensy bit more misogynistic than the present.

Then she gets to Watch_Dogs, a game I admittedly only played for about ten minutes because fuck EA. She shows one type of the random encounters where the player is supposed to intervene to prevent a man from beating and/or murdering a woman (again, the only options she presents are "stop it" or "watch it and fap"), and complains that there's no option to call EMTs or check on the female NPC after she's been stabbed; the NPC is simply discarded and forgotten.

Then she shows one of the random events with a male victim, and points out that it's totes different because ERROR 404 RAISIN NOT FOUND. The one male example she shows is a guy beating another to death with a pipe...how the hell is that different? She says that the males "aren't sexualized", but the female NPC she showed weren't sexualized, either. She even states that it's completely acceptable for the player to mow down hundreds of male enemies throughout the game, because they're active aggressors. So, if the women are armed, it's ok to murder them? She must love the Saint's Row series (because who wouldn't?).

But back to the entire "the developers want you to save the woman, or fap to a virtual snuff film" dichotomy she's insisting is present: the vast majority of games I've played which had such events tend to incentivize the player to stop the bad thing from happening. Only rarely does the player get anything for just sitting idly while the bad guy does bad things. There are exceptions of course, but the point of those events is typically to give the player a tiny moral dilemma (do I get involved and risk getting killed?) and reward the risky behavior (aka, playing the fucking game) with some kind of minor bonus.

Alternatively, some games (GTA V) will have events where the player is offered a lot of money to do something actively evil, like selling people to cannibals. This is another moral dilemma: is this reward big enough to justify doing something easy but immoral? Of course, you can sell both male or female people to the cannibals, so I guess it wasn't worth mentioning in the video.

I obviously don't know that the "moral dilemma" was the developers' intent when designing those events, any more than Anita knows that they were pandering to their audience which obviously consists of psychopathic rape machines (men). I think it's a more plausible interpretation, however, and the fact that it never occurs to her (or, more likely, she actively omits that possibility to protect her shaky arguments) drove me to de-lurk long enough to ramble about it.

Luckily, everyone has me on Wetware Ignore, so I don't have to worry about embarrassing myself.

:cdc:

The GTAV "rape" encounter is another one, but when you come upon two guys with the woman, if you stay around or get too close, they will attack you. You can either save her or run away completely. Of course, even after you save her you can still turn her over to the cannibals, but you lose the talents of another person for your heists. It's not worth it to me. As for her obsessions, I'd say "projection" - she may get her jollies from posing virtual dead bodies, but not everyone is like her. Either that, or she has to project the worst possible motivations to continue her narrative.

[Cabal]

After watching "What the Bleep do We Know"

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

I learned that simply through the amazing power of quantum thought that I could simply will myself to be faster, better, stronger, have bigger bosoms, etc!

i initially misread that as "have bigger bosons"

but probably can have those too through quantum woo

Uggh. I went to see that on the advice of a friend who knew nothing about science. After about 30 minutes, I stood up, turned around, gave the audience a few words on real QM, pointed to the screen and said, "but, this -- this is total bullshit," and walked out.
I kid you not.

Yeah, my background is in QM so I sympathise.

Sure, it's counterintuitive, but it still has rules, and is not code for "make up whatever shite you want and stick the word 'quantum' in front of it."

My worst screening experience was attending the UK premiere of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed :bjarte:

[Dave]

Speaking of Pink Floid..
Have you guys heard of the eerie coincidences between an old movie and a pink Floid album??

You take the album 'another brick in the wall' and play it alongside the movie 'the wall ' (the one with the Dire Straits singer Peter Gabriel as the main character). Turn down the sound on the movie and you will get some pretty fucking amazing matches. Examples: in the school scene the children seem to be singing the hit song " hey creatures, leave us kids alone". And in the scene where Phil Collins shaves off his eyebrows the song "comfortably dumb" fits the narative like a glove. Of course there are some things that don't match or are surreal (like the cartoon bit along side "stairway to heaven") but all in all it's reaaaaally fucking strange. Try it.

:handgestures-thumbupright:

[Badger3k]

I'm not a gamer but I guess there are games that have killable game characters that are of differently recognizable ethnicities - white, black, asian, middle eastern etc.
In which case it should be possible for a player to choose a single race target and to go around killing only that type. I presume that this action would be pointless and counterproductive in terms of gameplay but it would be possible in the same way that Sarkeesian showed the killing of the bar girls was possible in that Hitman game.

Using Sarkheesian's logic (as applied to misogynistic games), wouldn't the possibility of such an action mean that games are racist?

The thing about Hitman is that it's 'open world' with very few (if any) non-killable NPCs. Plus, unlike many open world games, they penalize you for killing NPCs that are not the target. You have to be an IDIOT to kill those women.

Not good enough. Simply having a programmed ability to attack women in games is misogyny in itself. Women in games should be specially protected, either simply made invulnerable, or an instant game over if you kill them. That's true gender equality.

Clueless hipster fuckwit. No. Simply No. When the developers score your hit, and you lose points for killing them - and considering how competitive many gamers are, that's incentive enough to avoid doing it - that's the whole "context" thing that he's clueless about. Dunning and Krueger would be proud of him.

[Badger3k]

Identity politics is pure racism, leading to comments like this on Peezus's Beyoncé post.

Esteleth is Groot

26 August 2014 at 8:38 pm

Beyoncé is not “a woman dancing in her panties,” she is a Black woman dancing in her panties.

The confluence of patriarchy and racism hits women of color in a very specific way, such that Beyoncé – or any woman who looks like her – dressing and dancing like she does is very different from a white woman doing the same thing.

Which is to say that Beyoncé’s act is more revolutionary and daring, not less.

Because women of color have had to contend with the legacy in which their bodies were literally owned by white men. A Black woman saying, “No, my body belongs to me” is shocking.

If you're black you will always be identified by your being black, and everything you do will only be discussed with reference to your skin colour.

And never mind that Beyoncé and Niki Minaj, those feminist icons, are obscenely rich supporters of one of the most corrupt and sexist rackets in the world: the pop music industry.

Yet, if you have a rap video with a man singing and women just like that dancing the exact same way, it's evidence of patriarchy and misogyny. Who'd a thunk it?

[Badger3k]

Not good enough. Simply having a programmed ability to attack women in games is misogyny in itself. Women in games should be specially protected, either simply made invulnerable, or an instant game over if you kill them. That's true gender equality.

The logic of the position of people like Paul Fidalgo seems to suggest that games should have some sort of programmed inability to harm female characters.

While that sounds sexist in itself (treating men and women differently), there is the added problem of transphobia.
Why do we assume that the apparently male characters are men?
Can't the also be transwomen?

And if we say "No the fucking well can't, they're all men, right?", aren't we erasing the existence of transwomen from society?

In other words, the only way we can prevent the possibility of committing virtual violence on women game characters is to eliminate the possibility of committing violence on ANY character. Remember, if you are virtually killing hundreds of 'men' in Call of duty, the chances are that you are statistically likely to have killed a virtual transwoman too!

So, ban all violent games.
Problem solved!

It will take a little getting used to but I can already just about see the brave new world of gaming in my minds eye.

Battlefield 6 - Mission to Farmville
or perhaps,
Candycrush of Duty.

Maybe all those "women" in the strip club in Hitman were actually men with vaginas? Did they think of that? Isn't it misandry then? Transphobic? Maybe those "women" were actually horse people from the Alpha Centauri - I bet Sarky didn't think of that. Did she ask them? Is she just assuming they are women - how patriarchal.

[Badger3k]

The logic of the position of people like Paul Fidalgo seems to suggest that games should have some sort of programmed inability to harm female characters.

Contrary to what a previous commenter said, you can't kill children in The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim without Mods.

[youtube]W8qYCxx0Ukc[/youtube]

The Skyrim publisher, Bethesda Softworks, seems to fear that allowing that behavior would risk creating an anti-videogame moral-panic. Most other publishers seem to have the same (justified) fear. In practice this means that there are almost never any children in open-world games.

Not only are the Sarkeesian's of the world asking that (virtual) women be treated as (virtual) children but if they had their way female characters would largely go the way of the dodo.

That reminded me of Scarface. In that game, you couldn't kill bystanders. You had conversations with them, often just asking about their lives or having them thank you or something similar. You built up good will. At first it was a bit odd, but it did make for more immersion in the game world and it was fun to go around and do that. At least I liked it. Plus, the recreation of the club was fantastic.

[Badger3k]

I suspect I am the only person in the world to actually like The Final Cut.

No. But it wasn't their best work, either. Ummagumma is their worst album. And More isn't much better.

Had either of those been the first album I heard, I wouldn't have liked them. Fortunately the first album of theirs I heard was Dark Side of the Moon, which is their best album. So I've been a life-long fan. Well, since 7th grade in 1973...

Look, just pull a PZ and keep repeating that but placing the date a little further back in time every time you do it. Eventually you can stop when you get to your grandparents birth.

[heddle]

Yeah, my background is in QM so I sympathise.

Sure, it's counterintuitive, but it still has rules, and is not code for "make up whatever shite you want and stick the word 'quantum' in front of it."

My worst screening experience was attending the UK premiere of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed :bjarte:

Speaking for myself--I don't find QM counter-intuitive--I simply find that I lack any intuition--and just learn how to use the rules, e.g.: average over initial states, sum over final states. Rather than counterintuitive it is sort of intuition-agnostic. Relativity, on the other hand, (take for example the The pole paradox) -- now to me, that's counterintuitive.

[Tribble]

The commenters tend to eviscerate Erin McKelle's article by the way.

Transparent attention whoring that conceals massive body image and confidence issues.

I just wish she could be less of an obnoxious git about it. If she dressed normally and wasn't so confrontational, I'm willing to bet most people would treat her just fine.

And people starting isn't "objectification." As many of the (female) posters pointed out, people stare at motorcycle accidents and roadkill, too.

Someone posted an image they found about "perfection" - it had a drawing of a female, and a 5'11" female would have to be 106 lbs to be perfect. The comments made tended to range a bit, but the ones I read mainly said that was unhealthy and too thin. Someone posted about how people (maybe the ones I read, maybe not) about body shaming people with ED. I wanted to reply that enabling those with body issues by encouraging them to think that such a weight is desirable in any way, but couldn't waste time since I was at work. I just don't get some people.

lol. No. Only in their fevered imaginations of Patriarchy Oppressing the Wymens would 'perfection' be 106lbs at 5' 11" In fact, that's just a little to the 'top side' for the 4' 11" 'ideal weight' weight range. which is 90 - 110 lbs. Rather that would be in the "we need to have you force fed" weight range and would look pretty damn scary.

In fact, when men get to design the 'ideal woman' what we get is very close to the woman on the left:

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/streams/2 ... medium.jpg

The ideal female body according to the men (the one shown on the left in each pair, above) had a BMI of 18.82, a waist-to-hip ratio ratio of .70, and a waist-to-chest ration of .67. The men in the study designed a very similar female ideal (not shown): 18.8, .73, and .69 respectively.

With a BMI of 18.82, a 5' 11" woman would weigh 135 lbs. Not 106.

It's like 'Reality, how does that work.'

[Badger3k]

Dick Carrier gets a shout-out on alternet...
http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reason ... 1#bookmark

anyway, interesting article. I really need to read those books, specifically anything by Bart Ehrman.

He was a good writer, even if he could be a bit stuck to his theories despite evidence. Did Jesus Exist was a debacle, though. The amount of handwaving and logical fallacies is simply astounding. It was the first time I used my "sticky notes" feature in my iBooks, and I had a ton for that book. He has a pet theory and the amount of unjustified assumptions is mind blowing. I wouldn't recommend it unless you want to read everything he writes, but there are a few real good responses to that book online (I mentioned Vridar a long time ago, and it's got some interesting work on the subject, including a long response to that book).

[Badger3k]

And Miley Cyrus kills the pit.

Here's an antidote (if nobody posted it):
[youtube]6xljA6zJn4I[/youtube]

Scary thing is, I sort of like his version - no idea why.

[Cabal]

Yeah, my background is in QM so I sympathise.

Sure, it's counterintuitive, but it still has rules, and is not code for "make up whatever shite you want and stick the word 'quantum' in front of it."

My worst screening experience was attending the UK premiere of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed :bjarte:

Speaking for myself--I don't find QM counter-intuitive--I simply find that I lack any intuition--and just learn how to use the rules, e.g.: average over initial states, sum over final states. Rather than counterintuitive it is sort of intuition-agnostic. Relativity, on the other hand, (take for example the The pole paradox) -- now to me, that's counterintuitive.

That's a fair point. The deeper I get into QM the more it feels like abstraction built on abstraction.

Trace of the density matrix, yeah, I've long forgotten what that actually is supposed to mean in real terms. Just do the arithmetic because it works.

[Badger3k]

In the wake of #Quinncocksgate, Kotaku has decided their staff are no longer allowed to donate to games projects, because it is a conflict of interests.

Guess who objects?

https://forum.encyclopediadramatica.es/ ... jpg.47093/

Yeah, that's right. The woman who started this whole thing believes there's no conflict between contributing money to a project, and being the person to review that same project.

QE-FUCKING-D. Case closed bar open.

Love how the folks who cannot get enough of reminding you that they are game journalists are now suddenly only doe eyed bloggers....(wish we had a bullshit emoticon)

Quinn's argument makes no sense. A decent blogger needs a code of ethics just as much if not more than journalists from traditional media.

Reviewer is a position of trust. The audience is relying on your experience to help them make the decision to buy or not buy a product.

Why did Fez get rave reviews from critics( 9.5 out of 10, or even 10 out of 10!!!!eleventy!!)
But only mixed reviews from players(5 out of10) there is a definite disconnect there.

Ms. Quinn's "game" depression quest was also drawing favorable game site reviews, while the player reviews on steam are panning it.

Hopefully, this is only the beginning, Kotaku has announced that their critics must now disclose personal financial support for devs. It needs to go further, a full code of ethics needs to be put in place.

The games industry has used and abused players for far too long but, to have our media join in and treat us as suckers is too much.

Look at movies - you get reviewers who go gaga over some foreign film (as Cartmen might say, about cowboys eating pudding), but it gets panned at the box office because it's not what people want to pay money to go see. Reviewers often think of themselves and their opinions as the most valuable. Sometimes they seem to not understand that we may read them for info on the game but take their opinions for what they are. I saw Fez (had a chance to get it for free or at a reduced price) but after looking at it I just wasn't interested in it at all. It's the whole, 'uncultured masses' type thing, and we poor peons just don't understand what we should like or what is good for us.

[Badger3k]

The commenters tend to eviscerate Erin McKelle's article by the way.

Transparent attention whoring that conceals massive body image and confidence issues.

I just wish she could be less of an obnoxious git about it. If she dressed normally and wasn't so confrontational, I'm willing to bet most people would treat her just fine.

And people starting isn't "objectification." As many of the (female) posters pointed out, people stare at motorcycle accidents and roadkill, too.

Someone posted an image they found about "perfection" - it had a drawing of a female, and a 5'11" female would have to be 106 lbs to be perfect. The comments made tended to range a bit, but the ones I read mainly said that was unhealthy and too thin. Someone posted about how people (maybe the ones I read, maybe not) about body shaming people with ED. I wanted to reply that enabling those with body issues by encouraging them to think that such a weight is desirable in any way, but couldn't waste time since I was at work. I just don't get some people.

Derp - meant to sway this was on Facebook, not here or on FtB. Sorry for any possible confusion.

[Badger3k]

Not good enough. Simply having a programmed ability to attack women in games is misogyny in itself. Women in games should be specially protected, either simply made invulnerable, or an instant game over if you kill them. That's true gender equality.

The logic of the position of people like Paul Fidalgo seems to suggest that games should have some sort of programmed inability to harm female characters.

technically this is done quite often, but for any children avatars in the game. random violent acts perpetrated on children is still considered beyond the pale and is not allowed to be depicted in almost any game. even mods allowing this to happen are generally considered disgusting by most people. it can be represented in dramatic cutscenes that are beyond player control and are there to set story points, but i cant think of any where the player is allowed to inflict lasting violence and death on them (cant even starve them to death in the sims)

so paul fidalgo is in the position of insisting women be treated like children

That's the whole of this newish feminism that the SJWs espouse - it goes backwards to the days when women were put on pedestals. It's very parochial, and treats women as people who cannot handle things without some man to protect them. It doesn't make sense to even call it feminism when it is so infantalizing. Infantfeminism...infeminism...feminfantalism....not sure what works. Idiots does, though. Fuckwits...lots of those.... :whistle:

[another lurker]

but probably can have those too through quantum woo

Uggh. I went to see that on the advice of a friend who knew nothing about science. After about 30 minutes, I stood up, turned around, gave the audience a few words on real QM, pointed to the screen and said, "but, this -- this is total bullshit," and walked out.
I kid you not.

Yeah, my background is in QM so I sympathise.

Sure, it's counterintuitive, but it still has rules, and is not code for "make up whatever shite you want and stick the word 'quantum' in front of it."

My worst screening experience was attending the UK premiere of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed :bjarte:[/quote]

The scientists who took part in the movie were hoodwinked. They sat down for interviews and their words were selectively edited to make it sound like they totally believed in this woo. Marlee Matlin stars in the film, and I am surprised that no one asked the obvious question - why can't she cure her deafness through the power of quantum thought? Oh, but I forgot, deafness is something that should NOT be cured, because it's a desirable condition.

Hey, perhaps I can make myself deaf through quantum woo???

[dogen]

Za-zen:
I'm losing faith in game developers though, as even Tim Schafer is plugging her videos now too, saying anyone making video games ought to watch and learn from her.

I think everyone who makes movies about games should play one single fucking game from start to finish.

[Badger3k]

Dick Carrier gets a shout-out on alternet...
http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reason ... 1#bookmark

anyway, interesting article. I really need to read those books, specifically anything by Bart Ehrman.

Read anything by Bart Ehrman. All his books are essentially the same. Good, but mostly reheated leftovers.

I think misquoting Jesus is a good introductory text. Same with Jesus Interrupted...actually, most of his work if for popular consumption, so he does repeat himself quite a lot, but he makes it very easy to understand some of the complexities. Being for popular consumption also means that some of those complexities are really simplified and not really indicative of the whole story. You get what you pay for (and his paywall to read his online blog is pretty sad too - I'm surprised Carrier hasn't done it, but then again, if he had his work behind a paywall there wouldn't be any way for us to know how smart he is.)

[Badger3k]

Speaking of Pink Floid..
Have you guys heard of the eerie coincidences between an old movie and a pink Floid album??

You take the album 'another brick in the wall' and play it alongside the movie 'the wall ' (the one with the Dire Straits singer Peter Gabriel as the main character). Turn down the sound on the movie and you will get some pretty fucking amazing matches. Examples: in the school scene the children seem to be singing the hit song " hey creatures, leave us kids alone". And in the scene where Phil Collins shaves off his eyebrows the song "comfortably dumb" fits the narative like a glove. Of course there are some things that don't match or are surreal (like the cartoon bit along side "stairway to heaven") but all in all it's reaaaaally fucking strange. Try it.

Have you ever really...REALLY...looked at your hand?

[Za-zen]

Best resource for viewing this disparity is Metacritic, a site online which collects both pro reviewer, and gamer reviews for games.

The disparity between the two is sometimes astounding, and blatantly shows the cock sucking symbiotic relationship that exists between devs and review sites. Anyone who is an actual gamer has known pro reviewers have been junk for a couple of decades, they have just abandoned any pretence of being objective.

A shining example is Rome 2. Take a look at the scores on metacritic, then ponder how much free shit and promises of trips here, and exclusives there, and "yeah I know your partner, are they looking for an in." Were handed out.

[Tribble]

And Miley Cyrus kills the pit.

Here's an antidote (if nobody posted it):
[youtube]6xljA6zJn4I[/youtube]

Scary thing is, I sort of like his version - no idea why.

It does kind of grow on you. Of course, so does athlete's foot fungus... I'm just glad he has clothes on... Because what is seen, cannot be unseen. :shudder:

[dogen]

Like Southern, the only song that I really like from Dark Side is 'Time'.

The piano and sax in the Final Cut are a strangely effective combo. Us and Them on Dark Side is good, plus Clare Torry's wailing. Hearing George Hrab try to do that cracked me up. :lol:

Anyone listened to 'Dub Side of the Moon'? It's rather good...

[youtube]VJEZWsnIECo[/youtube]

[another lurker]

Speaking of Pink Floid..
Have you guys heard of the eerie coincidences between an old movie and a pink Floid album??

You take the album 'another brick in the wall' and play it alongside the movie 'the wall ' (the one with the Dire Straits singer Peter Gabriel as the main character). Turn down the sound on the movie and you will get some pretty fucking amazing matches. Examples: in the school scene the children seem to be singing the hit song " hey creatures, leave us kids alone". And in the scene where Phil Collins shaves off his eyebrows the song "comfortably dumb" fits the narative like a glove. Of course there are some things that don't match or are surreal (like the cartoon bit along side "stairway to heaven") but all in all it's reaaaaally fucking strange. Try it.

:handgestures-thumbupright:

Quantum thought, motherfuckers!

[sinister]

It is the same principle but there's even less reason why it should be a problem. There's plenty of games where violence is a key feature - you cannot play them without killing probably more opponents than the average toll of about ten serial killers. But games where sexual violence is essential?
Are there any mainstream games where this is the case?
Yes, I guess if you have the ability to control characters and kill any other character you meet in the game there is the possibility that a true misogynist could play the game as a virtual Marc Lepine - although you will not be playing it the way it was designed or intended and your actions would no contribute towards the completion of the game.
But to ban a game because of this possibility is like banning pens because some sociopath might use one to write a threatening letter.

Paul Fidalgo was making a very bad argument about games and seems to have no idea that it was Sarkheesian herself who killed and positioned the bodies of the women in that Hitman game - it wasn't an intended scene from the story arc.
He then went and had a hissy fit when people started to make gaming jokes on his twitter timeline.
Boo fucking hoo.

Maybe they can change CFI to stand for Center for Idiots. The vocal ones seem to lack any sense of inquiry or skepticism. It's the same as someone who watches the movie Zeitgeist and says "wow, I never knew that" or falls for every Facebook scam then cries when someone points out that they are fools. I think it fits the current hipster trend - SJW seems to be the hip thing - and you have to blindly accept anything that someone says. It's sad (and I have to admit amusing to watch the meltdown as reality crashes in).

After watching "What the Bleep do We Know"

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

I learned that simply through the amazing power of quantum thought that I could simply will myself to be faster, better, stronger, have bigger bosoms, etc!

I saw that movie back when I was into the rave scene. You know; MDMA, LSD, and THC for every occasion? I later watched it after that "phase" and couldn't stop face palming. We had to call an ambulance after I gave myself a concussion.

[Tribble]

Best resource for viewing this disparity is Metacritic, a site online which collects both pro reviewer, and gamer reviews for games.

The disparity between the two is sometimes astounding, and blatantly shows the cock sucking symbiotic relationship that exists between devs and review sites. Anyone who is an actual gamer has known pro reviewers have been junk for a couple of decades, they have just abandoned any pretence of being objective.

A shining example is Rome 2. Take a look at the scores on metacritic, then ponder how much free shit and promises of trips here, and exclusives there, and "yeah I know your partner, are they looking for an in." Were handed out.

Yes. I have Total War Rome 2. It's really crappy. Even worse, to me at least, by the time I got done with Medieval Total War, I stopped playing the battles and let my commanders handle them. It was all about empire building and strategic complexity. Most of which they've removed.

Yet some reviewer at Hardcore Gaming wrote this load of horsecrap and gave them a very good 90 score while poo-pooing some of the issues:

Armed with a new engine, Rome II looks great, plays smoothly, and will be a challenge to both veterans and novices.

And they weren't even the 'high score." There was a 100 (perfect) and loads of 95s.

The game was a fucking disaster! But at least Giant Bomb! gave an honest review:

Unfortunately, the game shown that day is not the game the players got. On release, Rome II was a disaster that quite possibly trumped Empire. The AI -the part hyped up by the Creative Assembly as having more focus and effort (and traditionally the area of Total War games that was particularly bad)- was terrible. At best, it was funny; at worst, frustrating. The AI typically did things like run its units in circles, charge and then fall back before the units even connected, or simply stopped dead in its tracks. It was terrible at siege battles, doing so awful that it wouldn't even build siege equipment and even when it had siege equipment (usually because the player gave it to them in Custom Battles) it rarely capitalized on it, often leaving its troops sitting on the walls after taking them. The campaign AI was both unaggressive and aggravating, as it typically refused trade rights for no reason, would refuse subjugation, and build many small armies that consisted of slingers and some levy spearmen. Hardly a force to be reckoned with. It lacked aggression and ambition, usually preferring to conquer a tiny area of the map and then just sit there as you built a mighty empire that could easily crush them. Even the glorious faction of Rome rarely expanded out of Italy. Couple this with absurd unit balance (the Romans often steamrolled every other faction if used by the Player Character due to their superior units and economy.) Following this was a brand new "politics" system meant to simulate the internal politics of your faction. However, it was poorly explained, unclear as to what actions did what, and felt extremely uninvolving. Even worse, it was meant to replace the family tree mechanics, but failed to do so, meaning the players attachment to generals is tenuous at best. They are merely more nameless conscripts.

That summed up the piece of shit that was TW: Rome 2 Everything was a disaster. Nothing worked. It crashed all the time and it had to be patched eight or nine times before it became stable and most of the bugs were fixed.

And they're STILL patching the shitty AI. The last one being sent into beta July 31st of this year (Patch 14):

After lots of constructive and well-appreciated feedback from you guys, we’ve just officially released a huge patch for ROME II, bringing with it numerous optimisations and gameplay improvements, and a big focus on siege AI.

Along with a host of significant battle and campaign improvements, this patch enables the battle AI to use its siege equipment more effectively, and employ its combined forces with a much greater level of co-ordination. This provides the player with a sharpened level of challenge, and a considerably more satisfying siege-battle experience.

The patch has been in open beta since Tuesday, and you’ve already been talking about the great improvements it brings.

But don’t just take our word for it, check out the Patch 14 feedback thread on Reddit:

How does a game that requires two more years of work to get playable and challenging get 95s? Simple, C.A. has a big name and they tend to get a free pass like so many 'big name' developers.

[sinister]

It is the same principle but there's even less reason why it should be a problem. There's plenty of games where violence is a key feature - you cannot play them without killing probably more opponents than the average toll of about ten serial killers. But games where sexual violence is essential?
Are there any mainstream games where this is the case?
Yes, I guess if you have the ability to control characters and kill any other character you meet in the game there is the possibility that a true misogynist could play the game as a virtual Marc Lepine - although you will not be playing it the way it was designed or intended and your actions would no contribute towards the completion of the game.
But to ban a game because of this possibility is like banning pens because some sociopath might use one to write a threatening letter.

Paul Fidalgo was making a very bad argument about games and seems to have no idea that it was Sarkheesian herself who killed and positioned the bodies of the women in that Hitman game - it wasn't an intended scene from the story arc.
He then went and had a hissy fit when people started to make gaming jokes on his twitter timeline.
Boo fucking hoo.

Maybe they can change CFI to stand for Center for Idiots. The vocal ones seem to lack any sense of inquiry or skepticism. It's the same as someone who watches the movie Zeitgeist and says "wow, I never knew that" or falls for every Facebook scam then cries when someone points out that they are fools. I think it fits the current hipster trend - SJW seems to be the hip thing - and you have to blindly accept anything that someone says. It's sad (and I have to admit amusing to watch the meltdown as reality crashes in).

After watching "What the Bleep do We Know"

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

I learned that simply through the amazing power of quantum thought that I could simply will myself to be faster, better, stronger, have bigger bosoms, etc!

I saw that movie back when I was into the rave scene. You know; MDMA, LSD, and THC for every occasion? I later watched it after that "phase" and couldn't stop face palming. We had to call an ambulance after I gave myself a concussion.

[cunt]

So... what page does Myks meltdown start on?

[Spike13]

Follow the trail of blood back about ten or twelve pages.

[Badger3k]

That summed up the piece of shit that was TW: Rome 2 Everything was a disaster. Nothing worked. It crashed all the time and it had to be patched eight or nine times before it became stable and most of the bugs were fixed.

And they're STILL patching the shitty AI. The last one being sent into beta July 31st of this year (Patch 14):

After lots of constructive and well-appreciated feedback from you guys, we’ve just officially released a huge patch for ROME II, bringing with it numerous optimisations and gameplay improvements, and a big focus on siege AI.

Along with a host of significant battle and campaign improvements, this patch enables the battle AI to use its siege equipment more effectively, and employ its combined forces with a much greater level of co-ordination. This provides the player with a sharpened level of challenge, and a considerably more satisfying siege-battle experience.

The patch has been in open beta since Tuesday, and you’ve already been talking about the great improvements it brings.

But don’t just take our word for it, check out the Patch 14 feedback thread on Reddit:

How does a game that requires two more years of work to get playable and challenging get 95s? Simple, C.A. has a big name and they tend to get a free pass like so many 'big name' developers.

I wonder what Battlefield 4 - betafield, battlefail, etc - scored. The game is still being patched and is horrible almost a year after release. They still haven't fixed the campaign save issue (it's been off-and-on corruption since day 1) and hit detection is terrible. It's part of the whole "release now and patch later" mentality that infests a lot of developers. Now that is an issue that is important to gamers, not whether the game has an untouchable uberfem who says "rape is bad, mmkay".