Cutter wrote on Aug 3, 2020, 13:32:Not just French. French Canadian (the horror)!
Well they're French after all.
Beamer wrote on Jul 28, 2020, 23:33:OK, answer your own question. Give me the number (and citations). You don't know, do you? You have no numbers, just a stereotype in your own head of how "white" kids act or think. You are everything you profess to hate.
How many white children pick Asian or black superheroes as their favorite?
The entertainment we consume affects and shapes how we see the world around us and the people who live within it.
As we strive to represent diverse peoples from diverse backgrounds, we must do so responsibly and carefully.
It is impossible for it to be a formula because we as people cannot be reduced to formulas. Well-rounded characters are a tapestry woven of the specificity of the culture they grew up in, the places they have lived, the occupations they have held, and moreover the series of events that molded and shaped them, just as we all are.
To create inclusive characters is not to surrender the creative vision, and to say that embracing diversity means losing that agency or that it is a creative burden is simply untrue and must be rejected.
Moving forward, my goal is to continue to tackle this issue, and find ways to continue to expand the viewpoints games can represent.
It means that we should seek out expert opinions who will help us avoid stereotypes, and more importantly, highlight aspects of our characters that will ring true with the groups we hope to represent. If we are successful, we create well rounded characters that seem familiar and yet new and will speak to the diverse players who spend time in the worlds we create.
wtf_man wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 16:22:Cutter wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 14:57:
No way, Apple is by far the more evil of the two. Not even a contest there.
To each their own... I rather pay for overpriced hardware and a ridiculous walled garden, than have Big Brother watching / keeping a profile on me.
But as soon as these new Linux devices are ready for prime time... I won't have to worry about which is the lesser of two very big evil's.
/shrug
RedEye9 wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 09:18:No, Sweeney is suggesting a better way for his company. When you are a wealthy, but medium-sized, competitor against an industry leader, without as much cash on hand but with a loyal fan-base, what would you attack? The loyalty.Beamer wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 09:10:The de facto Monopoly makes the rules.Jonjonz wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 06:36:
This is laughable coming from one of the industries main proponents of "games as a service."
Is it incompatible? Fortnite is his plan for games as a service. People own Fortnite.
Anyway, I read what Sweeney is saying is to change the rules. Epic is playing by the current rules, but wants new rules. They do not feel confident in being able to start a new business and create new rules, but they'd like the end-state to be new rules.
Unless there is huge consumer demand, changing the rules as an entrant is new impossible. Changing the rules when you're competing with someone that has a >80% share is also near impossible, again, unless consumers are going to choose you vs the incumbent due to those new rules. I think GOG proves that this isn't true, as GOG is a fraction of a percent the size of Steam despite no DRM.
I'm glad Mr. Sweeney is suggesting that there is a better way for the consumer.
Sepharo wrote on Jul 13, 2020, 15:07:Prez wrote on Jul 13, 2020, 13:38:
My problem is that EVERYTHING is political now. The execrable "Last Jedi" reviewed well not because it was a good movie (it absolutely wasn't) but because it hit the required political tone. Gaming rags are even worse (Just look at the reviews for "Last of Us 2"). I dont know if I trust ANY review site anymore. Did it receive a good review because it's a good game? Or did it receive them because it played the right cards on issues I have no interest in?
If it is mixed just for its weirdness, I can handle that. I mean, it's Kojima.
/me holds up mirror
You're fully through the rabbit hole if you think the reason that film critics liked SW8 was because of political reasons.
Suckage wrote on Jun 27, 2020, 06:20:
They aren't all based in France, though. I'm not sure what Canadian rules are for this type of behaviour. I would imagine that they're similar enough to what you find in the USA?
Beamer wrote on Jun 26, 2020, 11:46:
Any devs who are smart these days won't harass coworkers. He certainly won't compliment her appearance or anything physical, because that's creepy as hell, and he won't ask her out, because there will ultimately end up being some kind of power dynamic there, even if just over time, and because no one feels comfortable having to work day in and day out with someone that they rejected. Or dated and then broke up with. Smart people know that apps are where you get laid, and dating in the workplace is a disaster you shouldn't want to deal with, because who in their right mind wants to combine work and pleasure?
Dev wrote on Jun 26, 2020, 13:48:WaltC wrote on Jun 26, 2020, 11:24:Bzzz wrong. While that first part you say is correct, that last bit is not.
It's crazy--these days, in some places if you compliment a female or ask her out for coffee or a beer it sometimes brings on complaints of sexual harassment--it's not, of course.
[url=https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/workplace-harassment/2012#:~:text=Workplace%20harassment%20may%20also%20consist,as%20being%20fired%20or%20demoted).]Text for your Link[/url]
Harassment can include "commenting on physical attributes" which guess what, compliments can do.
ALSO, "subjectively abusive to the person affected"
Note that word subjective. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU DON'T CONSIDER IT HARASSMENT. What matters is if she does.
Which makes sense if you think about it. People who harass or abuse frequently don't consider what they do to be harassment or abuse.
Second, the conduct must be:
- subjectively abusive to the person affected; and
- objectively severe and pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.
jdreyer wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 15:12:
Changing corporate culture is hard. You do need both grassroots and C-level action to change it. Simply moving our company from waterfall to agile (something far less controversial than this) has been going on for four years and isn't even half way completed. People don't like change, or they don't see the need, or they have a vested interest in not changing, or they don't even know how to be different. I'm not sure her idea of "top down reorganization" would even work, but it's a pipe dream because it's not going to happen. No company will agree to it. She's just spitballing, but she's not wrong that bandaids won't work. But they have to change, b/c right now it's a shitshow. I'm sure there are experts out there who have done this at places and have techniques to accomplish it, but I have no idea what those look like.
Beamer wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 13:59:Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 13:34:
I'm always amused when I ask a question that the usual suspects can't answer. Then you get the deflections (focusing on the aside in parentheses and ignoring the actual substance of my comments), the dodging ("we explained it sooo many times," yet no one has ever seen these explanations and said explanations don't actually address the point), and the ad hominems ("if you don't agree with me, you are mentally incapable"). How about just answering the questions? Because you can't...
You're asking me what executives in an industry I'm not a part of will do, with you asking from a place of either confusion or willful ignorance
We need to step back with you. Ground you in reality, rather than the strawman fiction you think everyone else is in. Let's take privilege, since you start there. And I'll put it in terms you know.
Imagine an RPG like Fallout. Everyone has their stats. You have a 10 in intelligence. It's wonderful. You get to walk through a ton of situations with an intelligence check. Hell, you can talk your way through the final battle. It's excellent! Bob has a 1 in intelligence, and well, you absolutely have intelligence privilege over him, right? There are situations where your intelligence lets you walk through but his does not.
But let's say you're a 1 in everything else. Bob, however, is a 10 in everything else. So even though you have intelligence privilege, is the game easier for you? Doubtful. Some situations are, but not all.
That's like white privilege. Some situations are easier because you're white. A significant amount. All other things being equal, life will be better for you. But, of course, not all things are equal. Still, some things are absolutely better. Black celebrities discuss being pulled over by the police in their neighborhood, simply for driving in it, multiple times a month. White celebrities don't have that. Things being equal except race, being black means you're stopped by the police for nothing at all much more frequently.
If there are no benefits to being white, or being male, if you were to wake up in your bed tomorrow, put on your shoes, and go to your job, would you be ok if you'd woken up a black woman instead of white male? Do you think your life would be the same?
Beamer wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 12:30:Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 12:14:Primalchrome wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 22:26:
I realize that the 'bootstraps' mentality is pretty well ingrained in American culture....but I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so brittle that they can't admit that *most* successful people's lives are built on a much larger cooperative effort. Family. Inter generational wealth in the form of money/knowledge/culture/skills/contacts. Social circles. Community resources. Hell, even something as simple as having parents that helped you participate in extra curricular activities.
Why is it so hard to see that some people just happen to have better access to some of those things as a result of their race, sex, genetics, health, geographic location, economic status, or being of a certain archetype? It's not like recognizing it diminishes anything someone else has achieved.
Ehhh, most people don't disagree that some people have better access because of their circumstances (though many might disagree on which circumstances. I find it humorous when someone asserts that Malia Obama has life worse because she's black than a white son of an Appalachian coal-miner. Economic advantages are generally the most important, followed closely by cultural ones). What we disagree on is the solution to the problem. Somehow the radicals on this board seem to believe that recognizing there is a problem automatically means that their stupid solutions are the only possible remedy.
See for an example, this quote from the blurb: “I think there really needs to be this top-down reorganization,” she said. “Setting up a diversity committee is not going to solve this problem.”
So what does "top-down reorganization" mean? If it means choosing to find women of equal talent and experience to the men as new hires and promotions, then not many people would argue. But the problem is, in this industry, that the demand for experienced and qualified women outstrips the supply. So do you then promote less qualified women over more qualified men? Do you ask women to start the long, arduous process of working their way through the company to be qualified, and know that it will take a while to fix the problem?
"Top-down reorganization" sounds a lot like "pick a woman who has not accomplished as much as her male peers and, simple because of her sex, put her in a leadership position." And that's not sexist, somehow. If that's not what it means, I'm open for alternate translations...
Literally not a single person says all black people have life worse than all white people, so your weird point about Malia Obama is incorrect and this has been explained to you at least 3 dozen times here.
At some point, you misunderstanding a point is your fault, not society's. Whether willful or mental incapacity, you seem to just never get it. That lack of ability or willingness to understand leads to you consistently being outraged and offended.
Primalchrome wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 22:26:
I realize that the 'bootstraps' mentality is pretty well ingrained in American culture....but I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so brittle that they can't admit that *most* successful people's lives are built on a much larger cooperative effort. Family. Inter generational wealth in the form of money/knowledge/culture/skills/contacts. Social circles. Community resources. Hell, even something as simple as having parents that helped you participate in extra curricular activities.
Why is it so hard to see that some people just happen to have better access to some of those things as a result of their race, sex, genetics, health, geographic location, economic status, or being of a certain archetype? It's not like recognizing it diminishes anything someone else has achieved.
GothicWizard wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 16:20:Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 12:50:GothicWizard wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 10:56:Agreed. In fact, she admitted that he had been drinking heavily, too. Therefore, she is also guilty of inappropriate conduct with an intoxicated person. Right? Or does his intoxication not count? Are you suggesting that a man is responsible for his actions while drunk, but a woman is not? You're saying a woman is not capable of being as responsible as a man?
Even the IMPLICATION that because they were drinking that justifies it is WRONG. Period. So again, what the fuck is wrong with you for defending that?
What's wrong with you?
If she tried to take advantage of him, under the influence or otherwise, and the only reason she didn't was she couldn't get him hard (equivalent of him only stopping because he realized she was on her period), then yes she is 100% in the wrong to. And I'd be shouting in his defense. However she wasn't trying to take advantage of him. So false equivalency.
GothicWizard wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 10:56:Agreed. In fact, she admitted that he had been drinking heavily, too. Therefore, she is also guilty of inappropriate conduct with an intoxicated person. Right? Or does his intoxication not count? Are you suggesting that a man is responsible for his actions while drunk, but a woman is not? You're saying a woman is not capable of being as responsible as a man?
Even the IMPLICATION that because they were drinking that justifies it is WRONG. Period. So again, what the fuck is wrong with you for defending that?
Slick wrote on May 7, 2020, 08:16:
Reminds me of the best argument I've heard against homophobia. Can't remember which comedian said it but: "Everyone's a little gay, I can prove it. You sir, your'e a red-blooded american man, you watch porn right? Of course you do. When you're watching a scene, but you like it if the man has a tiny thin penis? NO! You want a big fat cock! See? You're a little gay!"