OmarBradley

As far as hard rock music goes from current/former Gunners, there's Ain't Life Grand and then there's everything else. 

18 hours ago, wasted said:

I just remember the perspective being from above wandering around a castle talking to people. 

I’ve never played RPG other than Fable 2 if that counts. It seems like a time thing. You need blocks of 4 hours to get into it. 

Ah yeah, the camera can get isometricy - but you don't have to play the game that way. It can be played as a regular third person RPG, though utilizing the camera for combat is helpful.

21 hours ago, wasted said:

I had Origins but I deleted it. It was more top down? 

I struggled with the combat. You just press A? Then you can set spells and things. 

Not sure what you mean by "top down". Both games are fairly linear, but the individual areas/maps are open so it doesn't feel as linear. 

I play on PC, so just pressing A would just move my character to the left a lot . I don't remember the specifics of DA:II's combat though, if that's what you're referring to. It's probably more button mashy than Origins, but less so than Inquisition.

If you like classic style RPGs, there's aren't many good excuses to avoid DA: Origins. It's like the quintessential "what a medieval type RPG with dragons and magic should be."

Submission deadline is upon us. If anyone is still working on theirs and is almost done and just needs a day or two, that's fine just PM me to let me know. Otherwise, it looks like this will be a duel between Zoso and AslatlE.

8 hours ago, wasted said:

Dragon Age 2. Pressung A a lot. 

It's not a bad game, but compared to the first (and third) it's pretty lacking and is clearly the weakest of the three. I may try to give II a replay soon, as I've played Origins and Inquisition a lot.

11 hours ago, AtariLegend said:

40 plus hours into Dragon Quest XI. I should really like this game. It's a long turn based jrpg with plenty to do, however it's way too easy for this genre. A JRPG where you kill everything in 1 or 2 hits is a serious design flaw. None of the bosses have much health or do anything interesting.

Bit disapointed. 

 

I've been eyeing the game. Is it too easy the entire time, or just closer to end-game? 

Is the narrative good?

Just now, soon said:

Hahah, clearly I never 'reduced labour history to religion.' What you are saying is absurd and not in any way based on anything I posted!

 

*do think your comment is appropriate

That was a typo, did not mean "inappropriate."

I didn't say you reduced the history, I said I wanted to avoid reducing the history. I didn't want people to read your post and assume those two reasons were the impetus behind the labor movement.

11 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@OmarBradley,

You entirely missed my point. My point was... most if not all of those that celebrate Christmas probably have some ties to Christianity historically (not because that's what society does, but rather their own families). You are not going to see a lot of Jewish and Muslim families celebrating Christmas, yet atheist and agnostics are perfectly happy to join in the celebration. Why? Because somewhere in their family line, they were more than likely Christian at some point. 

While I DO feel it is everyone's right to celebrate Christmas, I'm just simply posing the question why do you feel the need to celebrate birth of Christ if you are atheists? Because its secular? Or because its tradition? Dont you see the problem of cherry picking what you like and dont like from Christianity? So belief in Christ, that's nonsense? But celebrating his birth? You are all for that? Where is the logic in that? If you are truly strong in your convictions, then you should stand on them ALL the time, including during the Christmas season. Surely you are above silly things like "because its secular or tradition" at this point I would wager. 

So as you gather around your tree on December 25th, and open presents, just remember YOU are still participating in a Christian holiday. It doesnt matter how much secular society has tried to steal it, all of its history is traced back to Christianity (as I've pointed out in this very thread). So just keep that in mind, that everything you dislike or even hate about Christianity or religion as a whole, you are a willing participant on December 25th. Dont you see irony there???

As for my discussion on Theology, for one that's just my opinion, but it's a field of study I've spent more time on than you have I'd wager. So maybe you should actually give it a go before you get all twisted about it. My point in bringing it up was because Soul was saying "theists are stupid" more or less. I was pointing out that THEOLOGY is one of the most advanced fields of thought one can study. (Notice I said ONE of).

You claim atheists and agnostics celebrate Christmas "because somewhere in their family line they were more than likely Christian at some point." That's not really verifiable and it actually reinforces my comment on society's view of Christmas as a cultural event. "Not because that's what society does, but rather their own families" - society is comprised of families. If your family did something for 100 years in a row, that also 5 million other families in the same country do, that is a societal event. And I do see Jews celebrate Christmas actually - more often than I see atheists do tbh. But that's anecdotal. And personally, I do not celebrate any religious holidays.

Atheists and agnostics "join in the celebration" because that's what people do every December 24th/25th in America, they celebrate. This is not missing your point, this is debating it. Again, atheists and agnostics don't see their celebration of Christmas as a celebration of Christ - you see it that way. They don't "feel the need to celebrate the birth of Christ." They feel the need to have a party with food and a decorated tree and maybe presents because that's what people expect every Christmas.

"Don't you see the problem of cherry picking what you like and don't like from Christianity?" Glad you mentioned this one. But again,  atheists and agnostics don't care about the religious reasons for Christmas - they want to party with their friends/families. Back to your quote, I could list scores of verses from the Old and New Testament about slavery, women's rights (or lack thereof), physics/science, and other topics that are conveniently not adhered to or discussed by modern Christians/Catholics. It's almost as if time progressed and people realized some of the stuff in the book was either inaccurate or batshit crazy <- insert SM's claim about knowledge here.

I don't think SM has ever claimed theists are stupid. He has claimed they suffer delusions and are misguided, but he never said they weren't intelligent. What is your criteria for something being "one of the most advanced fields of thought one can study?" I understand these are your opinions, but being an opinion does not make something immune from critique, especially when it's backed up by nothing of substance. I never degraded the quality of wisdom or intellect that theologians may possess, you degraded those aspects of other disciplines while attempting to propagate theology as a 'holier than thou' (pun intended ) discipline.

8 hours ago, soon said:

Im nt sure what you mean by partially true? You just agreed with me by restating my point in different words. I listed marxist, anarchist, christian and jews as those populating and leading labour movement. Then you just said labour movement - but that labour movement was those people. You should check out the history of the 8 hour day, the Hay Market Massacre, all that stuff.

I'm aware of the history. Sure, Jews and Christians worked with Marxists and anarchists and populists and anyone else who took part in the labor movement. Religious reasons alone did not propel the labor movement. The labor movement was more complicated than 'people wanting to get home for the Sabbath' or 'have a day off for Christmas.' The topic of this thread is religion so I do think your comment is appropriate, but I want to make sure we don't reduce labor history to being completely religiously instigated. 

On 12/11/2018 at 9:30 AM, Iron MikeyJ said:

I have a question for (nonChristians) here, not judgemental or arguementive, but rather out of curiosity... Why do you feel the need to celebrate Christmas and Easter? 

I'm sure many of you will point to the secular traditions, but even those secular traditions date back to Christian traditions. Also (before someone mentions Saturnalia and Yule) I am FULLY capable of debunking incorrect information that is being spread in regards to those (like Adam ruins everything is NOT factually correct).

Dont get me wrong, I'm all for EVERYONE celebrating the birth and death of Christ (Christmas and Easter), after all he is your savior as well. I guess my issue is secular society seems to really trying to pervert those holidays and turn them into something else. Which as a Christian I find offensive. Secular society couldn't pervert Hannuka or an Islamic holiday (forgive me I dont know any by name), without some sort of backlash. Yet the Christian holidays are very much under attack, and most dont even bat an eye. 

I welcome and encourage everyone here to celebrate Christmas. But I find atheists and others that do, somewhat hypocritical (not trying to fire anyone up, just being honest here). No matter how you try, you cant take CHRIST out of Christmas, you just cant do it, its IN the name CHRIST'S MASS. I'm not saying its inappropriate for you to celebrate something during the holiday season or buy and exchange gifts. But the putting up a Christmas tree or Christmas decorations, etc... See my point? You are STILL celebrating Christ whether you like it or not. Which is great, he is your savior, but yet you claim to not believe in him. I just dont really understand why you do it then? Tradition? Well it is a CHRISTIAN tradition. So again...

I guess my point is, as we near Christmas, I hope you all keep that in mind when you open up your presents under your Christmas tree. You are still celebrating Christmas, a Christian holiday. I dont think nonchristians have any right to put expectations on Christian's during a Christian holiday (which IS going on right now). 

I guess in the spirit of fairness, if nonChristians still want to celebrate something during the holidays, Seinfield already gave you an idea. Put up your festivus pole, and put your gifts under that. Make up your own holiday to celebrate. But I'm sorry, you cant have Christmas. You are more than welcome to celebrate it, but be respectful to those of us that ARE actually celebrating the birth of Christ. Just a thought...

On 12/11/2018 at 10:20 AM, Iron MikeyJ said:

My point was NOT to turn people off from celebrating it, because yes the more people celebrating it the better. The hypocrite comment (was a bit harsh, and for that I apologize). You just dont see nonJews lighting the menorah, so why do nonChristians feel the need to celebrate Christmas? That's kinds my point. Why do you celebrate something you dont believe in? That's what I dont understand. 

On 12/11/2018 at 3:56 PM, Iron MikeyJ said:

I would argue Theology is one of, if not THE most intellectual of all of the "ologies." It requires intellegince and wisdom to properly grasp. Most other "ologies" can be grasped with just intelligence, even similar ones such as Psychology and Sociology. Yes, to really master them you need a fair amount of wisdom. But you can get a piece of paper (degree) saying you have mastered them (doctrate) and have very little, if any real wisdom. 

Without wisdom you will be LOST in theology. Without intelligence you wont be able to understand it. You really need both.

Okay, this is a big string of nonsense. Due to geopolitical/historical reasons, Christianity has infused itself with American/Western culture and unfortunately, politics to a degree as well. Christmas is not just a religious celebration, it is a cultural event. Non-believers and folks from other religions participate in Christmas because that is what the Western world does every December 24/25th (not to say there aren't Christians residing in the East). Entire industries come to a halt for the holiday and the government closes - are industries or the government religious? No, at least they're not supposed to be. But culture dictates this is what happens. Christmas is also a business. Billions of revenue dollars are generated every year by companies intending to either profit directly on Christmas/Christmas-related products or by offering discounted services/products for the holiday season. These companies don't care if you're Christian, atheist, Jewish, Hindu, etc. - they want your cash. And companies are really good at coming up with ways to get cash from your pocket to theirs - again, they don't care which religion/race/ethnicity you are, if they market something and people will buy it, the company will sell it.

You can't shove Christmas in peoples' faces and then get upset when they want to participate too. The holiday has been commercialized and culturalized. The technicality that some atheists or non-Christians are still celebrating Christ by having a tree and putting presents under it, well they don't care because they don't believe in that. But when you take a religion/holiday and force people to endure it year after year regardless of their faith, people seem to want to get in on it (I'm overgeneralizing, but the point stands) 

What do you mean by "the Christian holidays are very much under attack"? While I jokingly consider myself a lieutenant in the army that wages the "War on Christmas," I have a hard time believing the the US' dominant religion is facing a legitimate threat. Are you someone who gets upset when "happy holidays" is said instead of "Merry Christmas"? If so, you are perpetuating the culturalization of Christmas.

Are you expert on other "ologies"? Are you even expert on "theology"? By expert, I mean you've studied the topic at an academic/research setting (at the least that is, preferably you'd hold a degree in the subject) - not Googling and reading random books from your church's library. I am not implying you don't have knowledge about this subject, but to claim expertise is different discussion. And this nonsensical claim that theology is unique in its requirement of wisdom is unfounded. It's insulting honestly.  And then you criticize the "piece of paper" to say those who are awarded "doctrates" (whatever that is) lack wisdom? I'm sorry Mike, but this is ridiculousness of frightening levels. Of everything you've said on this forum that I disagree with, that last paragraph is probably the most blatant offender (to me at least ).

On 12/11/2018 at 9:46 AM, soon said:

In the modern context, Christian holidays being observed universally has a lot to do with Christianity's role in establishing the 5 day work week and other wins against Capitalism. Christians and Jews worked closely with the marxist and anarchist in these labour battles (or were already both Christian and Anarchist or whatever). Its no coincidence that the weekend is the Sabbath and Sunday service. And by the work day ending at 5, Jewish people have a chance to make the Sabbath preparations before sundown. The people united around shared interests and put forward arguments for 40 hour work week, sick days, holidays, etc. And the united people were able to win a Christmas Statutory holiday for everyone.

This is partially true, but there was also a major labor/populist movement in the US which started in the 19th century and culminated in the first half of the 20th century. This movement was the direct cause of labor reform (in the US at least), not religious reasons. I'm not familiar with how other countries' labor conditions progressed though, so if you were referring to elsewhere, I can't comment on that.

On 12/11/2018 at 10:41 AM, Len Cnut said:

I would've thought that a society that had all the greek thinkers in place already wouldn't look twice at something like Christianity.

Most of the famous Greek thinkers and playwrights (Socrates, Plato, Sophocles, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc.) predate Christ by about 300-600 years. I haven't studied Rome or the Hellenistic Period much, but the only philosopher I'm familiar with from that time is Plutarch. He unfortunately didn't say much of anything about Christianity, though if I recall correctly he did believe in a natural deity. Oh right, I think Epictetus would have been first or second century AD actually, I have read his piece. Never found stoicism interesting though, reeks of complacency. Don't think he talked about Christianity either.

On 12/11/2018 at 3:22 PM, DieselDaisy said:

For Soul's theory to work, man would have had to have been at his most stupidest when Christianity first flourished, and intellectual when Christianity was at its most marginalized. This is the inherent logic of the point Soul is making. 

Literally everything we know about the history of Christianity contradicts this!

That's just not what he said. You took his premise and decided to reinterpret it. He was clear in differentiating intellect vs. knowledge. Smart people have always existed. Smart people who know that atoms are made up of many subatomic particles (the Greeks sort of got this one actually, but not anywhere near the level of detail we have today) and that the universe is an expanding void, well they have not always existed. Humanity in the modern era has really started to harness the power of the knowledge acquired over the past ~5,000 years. Sure, there was a bit of a downturn during the Middle Ages (in the West at least), but no one claimed it was a perfect increasing slope correlation between time and knowledge. Certainly there seems to be a correlation, but the graph would look fractaly with uptrends and downtrends, if such a thing could be accurately charted.

22 hours ago, Sosso said:

Europe has a long tradition of antisemitism, which goes back to the 1400's/1500's. Martin Luther, who translated the Bible into German, was the writer of anti-jewish essays. 

Earlier. A few random examples from memory: On the way to the Holy Land, Crusaders killed a bunch of Jews after Pope Urban IV called for 'crusade' in 1096. About one hundred years later, Richard I barred Jews from attending some royal ceremony, and English citizens decided that was the green light to kill Jews and destroy their homes/business (Richard noted that was not his intention when he found out).

And as Arnold noted, Rome didn't treat Jews too well either. But I'm not learned enough on antiquity or classical history to pinpoint original causes. There are lots of long articles on the net if people are interested though.

19 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Nazis blamed the Jews for everything. They even blamed other groups and simply called them ''Jews'' haha. They blamed the Jews for bourgeois-capitalism and democracy (Britain and America were ''ran by Jews'') yet paradoxically blamed the Jews for communism - ''Jewry'' and ''Bolshevism'' were sort of the same thing for Hitler! The Nazis conveniently built upon preexisting Christian notions of Jews, that they were Christ slayers, medieval ignorance, Luther's invective, etc. It was convenient to build Nazi prejudices on preexisting European prejudices, but Nazi antisemitism differs in that it is racial antisemitism. Earlier examples of antisemitism tended to be satisfied by Christian conversion whereas ''christianised Jews'' were just as much a target as practicing Jews for the National Socialists.

Jews were blamed for the defeat in World War One and subsequent economic trauma. There was the ''stabbed in the back'' theory, that the Jews betrayed Germany by signing the November 1918 Armistice and implementing the Weimer Republic, rather than Germany being physically defeated in the field. The fact that the German armies seemingly marched home supports this theory (In reality the German army had collapsed upon the western front during the spring offensives of 1918, whilst Germany was starving due to the Royal Navy's blockade). This was a theory that prevailed, not just among the National Socialists but a series of other right-wing groupings and even among the Prussian conservative classes, that the Germans had been betrayed by Jews (that many Jews fought for Germany, some being awarded Iron Crosses, is neither here nor there...).

Then there is Nazi racial theory. I have formed the opinion that Nazism was less a revolution, more a desire to perform a surgical procedure. The Nazis believed Germans were a ''Herrenvolk'', a society made up of pure ''uncontaminated'' Aryans (at its most wishy-washy level, in the esoteric SS, it is a society of agrarian-warriors descending from the Himalayas). The Nazis believed that this Übermenschen had been contaminated by Untermensch: Jews, Slavs, Bolsheviks, general degenerates such as the deformed, handicapped - Nazis had this term, ''useless eaters'' meaning they used up the resources of the Volk. Again the Nazis sort of chuck all these categories into one.

Even alcoholics were blamed on ''defective genes''!

If I could summarize National Socialistic ideology into one sentence, it would be (and this is just my opinion) the bestowal of one's purified Aryan blood (the Nazis were obsessed with blood) for future generations, leaving a purified Volk. 

Warfare was a prerequisite in this. As part of ''survival of the fittest'' through which one adapts and ''improves'' (as a hunter killer) genetically for survival, a war against Jews and Bolsheviks in the east was a prerequisite for aggrandizing the Herrenvolk. It was a sort of Hegelian/Social Darwinist struggle by which only the strongest (race) would survive.

The Nazis ultimately planned to conquer the east (approximately to the Caucasus) creating Lebensraum (living space) to colonize with pure-bred Aryans. They'd use up the slavs as slave labour (probably the Jews would have been liquidated by this stage?). They'd create a sort of agrarian aristocracy, an aristocracy of blood, not class.

You nearly wrote an essay in response to a question that wasn't asked!  Anti-semitism was around long before the Nazis, you know that. I do appreciate the knowledge you've shared in the post, but the query was "why do people hate Jews?"

Nazi rhetoric is not the reason people hate Jews and they weren't the first to make anti-semitic claims. It may have fanned the flames of bigotry, but it wasn't the cause.

9 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

The banking system is extremely corrupt and evil. It's one of the worst institutions of our civilization - whether they're Jews or not. If somebody says it's because they're Jews though then yeah obviously that's mental. Just pointing that out since it's related to the whole illuminati thing and I've complained about the banking system before.

Israel is terrible, not every individual Israeli of course, but the country and modus operandi is very bad. They have a real chip on their shoulder and basically use the suffering of all the many, many Jews that have been persecuted for ages to justify their behaviour and give them carte blanche to oppress Palestine.

The Jews/money/banking thing is actually pretty interesting (maybe not the correct word...) and has historical origins. The roots of this stereotype can be found when the Catholic Church outlawed lending money with interest, for Catholics. Jews took many of those jobs/roles since Catholics couldn't; combined with the already brewing anti-semitism in Europe, you started getting some additional bigotry in the form of associating Jews with finance and banking.

I don't know if I'd say "Israel is terrible." The current government is one of the worst in terms of the Palestine situation, but there are many individuals (Knesset members included) who are trying to oppose the right-wing Netanyahu government. They've seen varying degrees of success, but the last few years (Trump winning gave Netanyahu a lot more breathing room to do bad things) have been difficult for those wanting reform in the maintenance of Palestine. 

13 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Luckily for civilization, no one in their right mind would consider that sexual assault, given the circumstances.

Could you imagine living in a world where a disabled person touches someone's rear by mistake or unknowingly and is then charged with sexual assault?  I couldn't.  

12 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

It's about intent.  I don't think Bush's "intent" was sexual in nature.  Not when he was 93 and in a wheel chair.  

And of course someone who's impotent can commit sex crimes.  Apples & Oranges.

His intent may not have been sexual, but he absolutely intended on touching that woman's rear. 

"“At age 93, President Bush has been confined to a wheelchair for roughly five years, so his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures,” McGrath said. “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner. Some have seen it as innocent; others clearly view it as inappropriate."

Admission of intent is right there in the statement. There's also an admission that he on multiple occasions has touched women's rears in similar circumstances (unwarranted and during non-sexual encounters). He "pats women's rears" to make them feel more at ease, which is an asinine explanation that raises more questions than it answers: Why are these women not at ease to begin with? Why doesn't he pat men's rears to make them feel more at ease? Are men naturally more at ease than women thus resulting in no need to pat their rears?

12 hours ago, Lio said:

1. No one has ever put a hand on a woman's rear unintentionally (unless they take their hand back straight away).

2. It is never okay to put your hand on a woman's rear unless you're romantically involved with her. A woman should never have to tell anyone to please remove their hand. It goes without saying you can't do that. Plus, it often involves a man who is in a power position. I wouldn't like having to tell the president to keep his hands off me. No woman should be forced in a situation like that.

Would you like it if another guy would 'unintentionally' put his hand on your gf's/wife's/daughter's rear? I don't think so. So that proves it's not like: oh, my hand just wandered off without me realizing it. Every man knows full well it's not completely innocent.Or the other way around, would you like being groped by the ass by a woman, let's say by Hillary Clinton? (Before you start off dreaming about some hot girl grabbing your ass )

Touching someone's rear is nowhere near rape, of course, but it still is not okay, and I'm sure Bush sr was a dirty old man, and has been for a very long time.

Thank you. Helps to have a female voice when men are arguing about what is and what isn't appropriate touching of the female body.

13 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I think there's a problem of approach in Trump criticism, too much is made of mocking the disabled and 'grab em by the pussy', if it was kept political and kept within the confines of what he does and how he does it and why its fucked up that shit'd be a lot more effective.  Not that they aren't worthy criticisms its just no ones gonna listen about that shit cuz deep down, no one cares.  Its trivial shit in terms of it having an effect on his position. 

When people look at presidents nowadays it doesn't matter how moral or immoral they are, its more to do with whether they think, despite their immorality, that the person can do the job and that I think would be a more effective way to approach Trump criticism, his unsuitability to carry out the job, a department in which I'm led to believe there is any number of valid criticisms of him cuz people look at that shit and go 'awww, he has the blue collar common touch!'.

How could a source verify intention?

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I remember arguing in a similar vein with classicrawker on here, quite extensively and quite a while back about Clinton and his particular accusations and how, the gist of my argument was, that the president should be an exemplary human being and the same rationale that applies for your average joe (i.e. oh he's just a bit of perv) does not apply with the president because of the nature of the job.

A lot of people don't have a leg to stand on now with Trump because there was a great deal of that 'a president shouldn't be judged for getting his dick sucked' being thrown around back then so now I don't see how those same people can criticise Trump for his sad 'grab em by the pussy' comments.  It could be argued that the way Clintons judgement panned out was like a lowering of the bar.  If these things aren't dealt with then it sets a prescedent. 

There are many political criticisms of Trump. Many. Seriously, MANY. The criticisms on his character are valid and should not be abandoned just because (in your opinion) "deep down, no one cares." I agree that some of his boisterousness acts a diversion, but don't worry, we're not letting him off the hook for his crooked, misguided politics.

The unsuitability for the job has been explored multiple times. Psychiatrists broke their association's rules in publicly diagnosing him with narcissism. The unsuitability argument works just as well as any argument against Trump: it doesn't really change his supporters' views on him. That's the problem, his supporters are blinded by the reflection off his golden wig and deafened by his promises of "lock her up" and "economy good, Strong!"

He literally said he could walk into a NYC street and shoot someone, and he would still be massively popular. Tells you something about the man and his supporters eh?

Where is CR? Haven't seen him post in a bit.

I agree with your note of hypocrisy. Though what Clinton did was consensual, so that's a notable difference. I do think Clinton is a bit sleazy and conducted himself in a manner not concurrent with how a 20th/21st century president should act. The presidency is a position of immeasurable responsibility, if the person in the seat doesn't have the ability to refuse a blowjob in what's clearly an inappropriate situation, that's concerning. Not saying it makes him a bad politician or bad president, but it's still a bit concerning. 

16 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

I had no idea about the story behind this game.  It's pretty lol.  People shat on the trailer when it showed the cyborg red haired girl fighting the Germans (not Nazis, we don't use that word anymore in games) because it wasn't really WW2.

 

EA responded by calling people stupid, saying they didn't understand EA's inclusivity and said "If you don't like it, don't buy it."  So they didn't.  Sales are down 68% and it's already 40 to 50% off at major retailers like Best Buy and Target.

 

On thing EA did that I REALLY think is bogus and shitty is pictured in the thumbnail for the video I linked to.  It was this huge graphic with "hateful" comments people made about the game on social media.  On the left side (not pictured) it says "White Men White Men White Men"  The implication being it was some kind of racist, misogynistic hate speech.  I learned from reading up on it that it was actually a reference to EA "profanity filter" White Men was censored in beta. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6HX0hwiGC0

Yeah I remember the "white man" thing making the rounds on reddit during the beta, and a dev. confirmed it was blocked in the profanity filter, but would likely be unblocked for release. Regarding the EA executive who made those "if you don't like it, don't buy it" comment, here's the full thing:

Quote

Pulling no punches, Soderlund dubbed the people partaking in the backlash as “uneducated” in that “they don’t understand that this is a plausible scenario.” And EA isn’t going to sit back and take the flak. “We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don’t understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don’t buy the game. I’m fine with either or. It’s just not ok.”

The community did not appreciate being labeled "uneducated." He should have known better than to use that word.

Personally, I see no problem allowing female models/skins in multiplayer. Or Asian or black or whatever race, gender, nationality, or ethnicity someone wants to be. With Battlefield  V (multiplayer at least), you're not really experiencing WWII in an authentic or meaningful way - it's an arcade shooter that you either camp in or and run n' gun. I see the player in these types of arcadey shooters as more of a reflection of their real-life self rather than a genuine attempt to mimic the experience of an infantry soldier. 

However, I just read up a bit on what they did with singleplayer, and that is inexcusable. I have no issue highlighting stories of heroism from women, blacks, etc., but FFS use the real stories in history (which there are plenty of! seriously there are thousands and thousands of WWII stories to draw from...) rather than taking real stories and fictitiously inserting women and French prejudice into them.

Yeah this looks cool. Pretty sure a friend is getting the Switch version so I will get to play it a bit.

15 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

Watching The Game Awards now, so far the only thing I've found terribly interesting is Obsidian's new game, The Outer Worlds. Think it looks great. Not a lot of info on it yet, but looks like a classic style RPG/action game.

Looks like I missed some announcements as I was going between playing games and watching the awards, there was a lot of cool stuff announced.

But I'm still the most hyped for this Obsidian game, even more so after reading this article and watching this gameplay.

The Game Awards just aired a short (10-15 seconds) trailer for Dragon Age 4. It confirms the game will be include Solas, likely as the main villain. No other information given, but it's nice to have confirmation.

Watching The Game Awards now, so far the only thing I've found terribly interesting is Obsidian's new game, The Outer Worlds. Think it looks great. Not a lot of info on it yet, but looks like a classic style RPG/action game.

On 11/26/2018 at 8:55 PM, OmarBradley said:

Slightly relevant to our conversation @Iron MikeyJ but Fallout 76 is getting absolutely obliterated by critics and consumers alike. Apparently it's an atrocious mess of bugs and has some content problems, especially at end-game levels.

I would posit this is really the exception to the standard though. For a AAA release, this level of disgust is rarely reflected in critics/community. Bethesda has always been a developer that seems to value content/story/etc. over technical adeptness, but it seems 76 is an extreme example, even for them. The good thing is they're really being called out on it by pretty much every source. Even the people who like the game for what it is agree it should not have been released in this state.

I would hope Bethesda can learn from this experience, as I'd much rather 76 be junk than Starfield or ES6.

Bethesda's faux pas is reaching staggering levels. In addition to the unstable servers, buggy gameplay, and content issues, Bethesda is dealing with a slew of new problems (that were pretty avoidable).

People who ordered the Power Armor Edition ($200) received a nylon carrying bag instead of the canvas carrying bag which was advertised with the edition (and was still advertised that way well after release) - the nylon bag was apparently of considerably noticeable low quality compared to canvas. A Bethesda Store employee responded saying something like, "The materials (canvas) were too difficult to source. We have no plans to change this." Naturally, the already frustrated community was very upset. Then Bethesda-proper put out a statement saying, "The store employee was a contract employee and does not know our plans. We were unable to secure materials for the canvas bags. Everyone who ordered the Power Armor Edition is entitled to receive 500 Atoms (micro-transaction currency, $5 value), please contact support to receive them." This enraged the community further, prompting jokes about how canvas was so difficult to source and there must be a canvas shortage, etc. and pointed out you can order canvas bags from certain manufacturers in bulk for about $5 per bag...

Bethesda finally released a statement a few days ago saying they were ordering the canvas bags and would let anyone who received the 500 Atoms keep them as well. OK, took them a few tries, but they made it right (after a pretty significant outcry).

Well, they released a patch on December 4th and apparently it included a bunch of gameplay changes (mostly nerfs that were very unpopular with the community) that were omitted from the patch notes. This prompted a further response from the community and lots of anger that game mechanics people enjoyed were being nerfed when the game still has awful performance issues, gamebreaking bugs, unstable servers, and exploitable content.

THEN, yesterday it was revealed that Bethesda somehow accidentally leaked personal information (name, address, some CC info) of everyone who bought the Power Armor Edition/or filed a support ticket. The form of the leak was somehow their customer service software sent a copy of every ticket submitted by Power Armor Edition recipients, to random players' email accounts. Turns out all of the tickets were viewable through Bethesda's customer support website, not in email accounts.

Pretty nuts. And sad. There is a considerable anti-Bethesda bandwagon forming in the gaming community. Some of it is regarding the healthy competition from CDPR, R*, Ubisoft, etc. who have all recently put out well received products and haven't had similar marketing/communications issues. Really hope Bethesda comes back from this with force in Starfield, they have a long road ahead of them in regaining a large portion of the gaming community's goodwill.

On 11/23/2018 at 8:48 AM, action said:

fun is the most important aspect in a game. it's disapointed to see they sacrificed fun to make the game more realistic. it's easier to make a realistic game, than make a fun game. a developer has to "think" to make a fun game. If the developer wants to go for realism, he merely has to re-create a living environment. that's not hard to do. there is inspiration everywhere. but to make something "fun", now that requires some bit of imagination (and time, and money)

when they release red dead redemption 2 - the arcade edition, I'll be the first in line to buy it. 

I don't know if I agree that natural worlds are easier to develop. I think it depends how deep the developer intends to go with the realism and mechanics. In the case of RDR2, I'd bet it was incredibly difficult to develop such an in depth realistic world. It's perhaps not creative in the same way Bethesda is when they show us a new section of Tamriel or the Wasteland or the new AC with it's very casual accessibility, but it still requires quite a bit of thought and work (and A LOT of time and money).

27 minutes ago, Live Like a Suicide said:

My point is that you were blaming Axl's alleged unwillingness for the lack of productivity, when the reality is that he, including Slash, Duff etc, are in one of the biggest bands in the world with many moving parts. It would be more complicated to get the ball rolling on a Guns project than a small solo project.

That's only slightly different than what you original said. It's still an excuse you are exclusively attributing to GNR. Why is GNR so exceptional that it takes them longer than other famous artists to announce/write/record an album? Other than Axl being notoriously anti-releasing music throughout the past 20 years and TB's instigation of his artistic laziness, I can't think of anything. Like I said before: no good reasons. There are logistical, legal, and business aspects to doing an album on a major label/distributor, but those hurdles are crossable if all parties want to go in the same direction.

I could see them being nervous about it. They have a massively well-reputed legacy in AFD, Lies, and UYI. CD is barely talked about outside of GNR forums and I don't recall it selling too well. Another dud from GNR (this time with Slash!) could damage their fairly well-respected musical legacy. We know Axl didn't like playing the hard rock music GNR did as time went on in the classic days, and that's why CD sounds like it does. Slash and Duff still want to play rock/metal/punk, but does Axl? I can see there being an artistic divide. There's also the possibility they did "jam" some ideas and it just didn't sound or feel that great - which is what I was getting at with the possibility they're afraid to jump into a full album of new music. Testing the waters with a 30 year old song was their move at investigating this, it seems like.

Of course, this is all supposition based on trends we've seen over time, because GNR doesn't really talk to the fans. 

6 minutes ago, downzy said:

Though most of those albums are met with barely a flicker of notice from fans and the general public (with exceptions, of course).  Axl strikes me as the kind of guy that doesn't want to release something unless it's 100 percent genuine.  A lot of new albums from nostalgia acts don't measure up to their previous works.  I think Axl wants to avoid that kind of operation.  

Yup, just posted that's a possibility too. I definitely could understand that. What I don't like though, are GNR apologists whose excuses imply there's some sort of GNR exceptionalism or that "Axl would do it if x, y, and z happened."

EDIT: To expand a bit further actually... a lot of new albums from "nostalgia acts" do get good reviews. Rush's Snakes and Arrows and most recent album were pretty well received, certainly not as well as 2112 or Moving Pictures, but good enough. AC/DC's albums have been solid, nothing amazing like Back In Black, but good enough that they don't tarnish the legacy.

34 minutes ago, Live Like a Suicide said:

Yes, because it's totally Axl's fault that Guns N' Roses, as a AAA brand and band, is an entirely different entity to small-time solo projects. People like to blame Axl for 'not writing music', but neglect to consider the differences in dynamics.

That's a poor argument. Plenty of other AAA rock brands/bands wrote and released new music in the latter stages of their careers: Rush, AC/DC, Kiss, Deep Purple, Aerosmith, even Van Halen released an album that roughly coincided with their reunion.

There is no good excuse for GNR's lack of musical productivity. 

1 hour ago, CAFC Nick said:

Someone please reassure me this doesn’t affect any potential (really optimistic...) GNR recording 

Of course it does. Slash and Duff are writing/recording new music because Axl can't be bothered to. Slash and Duff love writing/recording, there's no good reason GNR can't write music as a band. There is a bad reason though: Axl.

Duff: "Hey guys, let's write/record new music!"

Slash: "Hell yeah"

Richard, Frank, Melissa: "......"

Axl: "No"

Duff: "Okay, well I'm going to write/record my own album about GNR. Take that, Axl111!!!!

Also don't forget to send the checks from NITL to my house pls."