Well, it would be hard for it to be worse than the movie...

Cutter wrote on Aug 3, 2020, 13:32:
Well they're French after all.

Not just French. French Canadian (the horror)!

Beamer wrote on Jul 28, 2020, 23:33:
How many white children pick Asian or black superheroes as their favorite?

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.

BTW, my favorite comic book growing up was Powerman & Iron Fist. I'm sure it is considered evil nowadays (cultural appropriation and all that other ignorant whining), but two heroes who were expressing very different cultures than my own were my favorites. But that's not allowed by your stereotypes, is it?

I guess I am incredibly blessed that I am part of the (apparently) minute fraction of the human population that can identify with people that don't look like me. Also, apparently, the inability to identify with those that don't look like you is not racism... somehow. I welcome games that "expand the viewpoints" that they are told from, but I don't know what that has to do with race. But let's give the piece a fair shake, because he says some good things.

The entertainment we consume affects and shapes how we see the world around us and the people who live within it.

Ahhh, cultivation theory. One of the most celebrated, and least empirically demonstrated, sociological theories amongst modern hand-wringers.

As we strive to represent diverse peoples from diverse backgrounds, we must do so responsibly and carefully.

OK. Representing diverse people and backgrounds is definitely a good thing. Of course, we probably differ as to which components of a person's makeup best creates "diversity," but not an awful take.

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.

Preach! But how do you then square this with the desire to see people who "look" like you? Isn't that suggesting that there is a formula, starting with race?

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.

Fair enough.

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.

Right on! Now, about creating respectful characters with diverse viewpoints, experiences, and beliefs... How about a respectful view of evangelical Christians, as informed by those who are? Maybe a diverse set of political opinions, with both right and left represented in their own words and rationales. Perhaps a view of class that didn't boil down to "poor, good; rich, bad!" Wouldn't these be creative and refreshing? Somehow I doubt that's what he (and his target audience here) mean by "diversity." More likely diversity means a lock-step view of the world where stereotypes of ideological opponents and the "wrong" races are the only ideas allowed. Bet he could work for Naughty Dog...

Exactly who asked for this? After the dumpster fire that was the last two (ehh, 1 & 1/2 to be fair) of these games, absolutely no expectation of quality whatsoever...

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

The Uyghur slaves laboring to make Apple's phones appreciate your concern...

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 09:18:

Beamer wrote on Jul 23, 2020, 09:10:

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.

The de facto Monopoly makes the rules.
I'm glad Mr. Sweeney is suggesting that there is a better way for the consumer.

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.

Valve's greatest asset at this point is those consumers who don't want multiple services for their games (for whatever reasons). So, Sweeney is suggesting universal ownership so that the vast Steam libraries many consumers already have will also be accessible on EGS. That way a consumer has no barrier to using just EGS if they only want to use one service.

Were the situations reversed, there is no way that Epic would be suggesting this move. They are attacking brand loyalty because that's what their main competitor has and they don't. It's as simple as that. The sort of people that think this is consumer friendly must be the same sort of people who believe their bank when it sends out ads that say, "We care about you." When you recognize that 50% of the population is at or below average IQ (by definition), and yet are 50% of the consuming public, you'll understand why some folks take Sweeney at his word...

What's the armament loadout on a Cessna? Does it have an internal weapons bay, or do I need guns on the hardpoints?

Or maybe I'll just stick to DCS...

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.

Well, you're fully through the rabbit hole if you think the reason that film critics liked SW8 wasn't. It was an awful movie by any measure. And it was an even worse Star Wars movie...

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?

Well, many US states have what is called "at-will employment." This means that you can be fired for any reason (your employer didn't like your new haircut, etc.), unless the reason for firing is prohibited by law (usually based on race, sex, religion, or some immutable characteristic so identified by the law). So, honestly, in the US, unless you are fired for a handful of legal reasons, pretty much anything goes.

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?

https://www.bustle.com/p/where-people-are-actually-meeting-their-partners-today-45616

Work is second highest (at ~ 15%) in that survey. It always has been a normal place to meet people. The fact that some people can't imagine a relationship with a coworker that isn't creepy or abusive says more about them than it does anything else. I've long believed that the reason most woke women report high levels of abuse and creepy behavior among the men they know is because it is true. The men they hang out with probably are creeps and abusers. What better place to hide your abusive tendencies than by trumpeting how woke and "for women" you are? It's like the evangelical who seems obsessed with how awful being gay is...

Dev wrote on Jun 26, 2020, 13:48:

WaltC wrote on Jun 26, 2020, 11:24:
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.

Bzzz wrong. While that first part you say is correct, that last bit is not.

[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.

From the document, which you obviously didn't even read:

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.

Saying "That dress really looks nice on you" or "You have beautiful brown eyes" is not harassment, unless it is repeated frequently, becomes vulgar or offensive in nature, or the subject asks you to stop. I have to take a harassment training every year at work, and the training is very clear that unwanted compliments are not harassment unless they continue after being told to stop or become vulgar or suggestive in nature. Harassment requires either a single, extreme event or a continuous pattern of unwanted attention. A handful of compliments (especially when no objection is raised) is black letter not harassment.

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.

Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful response. Even on Blues, the signal-to-noise ratio of the commentariat is getting to be uselessly low, and it's nice to actually discuss something intelligently. All the usual suspects tend to do is preach at you or insult you.

I agree, changing corporate culture is hard. And, even worse, it is sometimes antithetical to business success. Sometimes the culture sparks the company in a way that a different structure could not. You see it every time a founding group of designers move on from a game company. Culture matters, and this is especially true in artistic endeavors, as well.

But, assuming you could change the culture and not kill the company, I don't think that any experts have actually found a way to do so in this case. If they had, they would have been trumpeted in every business magazine on the planet. I think that's the real problem. There's no way to do this quickly. You don't develop a talent and experience pool overnight, and the folks who want the change to happen now aren't amenable to plans that don't have boardrooms that "look like America" tomorrow. Instead, you get people promoted who aren't ready (because they don't have the talent or experience, and there aren't enough with the talent and experience yet to fill every opening), which just is counter-productive. What's the best way to convince a bigot he's right? Make his boss a person he hates who is obviously in over their head. Now he doesn't have prejudice; he's got evidence.

Honestly, this is a society-wide issue. Our economic system has worked so well to provide people with instant gratification and single-generation rags-to-riches stories that everyone assumes every need or want can be fulfilled immediately. Except you can't rush experience or knowledge. You can't create an interested population with the drive to succeed in that endeavor in a day. So no long-term strategies, no matter how successful, will ever be good enough. It's almost a law of nature at this point...

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?

So, to the question, how do you fix it? Do you "top-down reorganize" the corporation by putting Bob in charge? I'll grant you that people have different experiences, cultures, economic realities, and other circumstances that affect their performance. So how does the industry fix this (you know, the point of the article)? Does it require a "top-down restructuring"? What would that look like?

See, I don't give a damn how we got to this point. That's in the past and can't be changed (no matter how many statues you pull down). How do we proceed from here? That's the question certain folks are always loathe to answer, either because they don't know how (and are just virtue-signalling their allegiance to the idea of the problem without caring about fixing it), or because they know that their solutions won't work to fix the problem (but will benefit themselves or their ideology). So what should EA, Riot, Twitch DO to solve this problem. Because no one needs you to endlessly bitch about what's wrong. Help fix it! Describe what the fix will look like.

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.

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...

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...

GothicWizard wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 16:20:

Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 12:50:

GothicWizard wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 10:56:
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?

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?

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.

Not a false equivalency at all. If he was drunk, he was unable to consent to sex with her. That's the standard, right? Her charge against him is not that he raped her (in fact, she confirms there was no sex). Her charge is that he wanted to have sex with her while she was drunk. Unless wanting to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you is sexual assault, the crime he committed was to attempt to have sex with a drunk person (because her drunkenness prevented her from being able to consent). Well, he wasn't able to consent, either, right? He was drunk, correct? I find it very interesting that you would hold him to a different standard than you do her. Must be misogyny... obviously she can't be held to the same standard because she is a woman, right?

GothicWizard wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 10:56:
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?

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?

What's wrong with you?

I don't know why people think that Tencent will do a good job with this. Why would they know anything about malevolent and censorious government-designed AI/cybersystem that seeks to subjugate or destroy human opposition?

Ohhhhhhh...

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!"

That was said by Joe Exotic to pick up his first husband. Probably not the best role model...