AngelCityOutlaw

people are complaining about rey being a mary sue because of latent misogyny

What!? No orchestra? That's a sin here.
Anyway, I like it, but I would say I'm not a huge fan of the guitar tone. On the extended mutes around 1:08 it doesn't sound "metallic" enough for how breakdowns like that usually go. It might need to be choked a bit more and maybe a bit more gain or something.

I thought Chernabogue had Shreddage?

What!? No orchestra? That's a sin here.
Anyway, I like it, but I would say I'm not a huge fan of the guitar tone. On the extended mutes around 1:08 it doesn't sound "metallic" enough for how breakdowns like that usually go. It might need to be choked a bit more and maybe a bit more gain or something.

What!? No orchestra? That's a sin here.
Anyway, I like it, but I would say I'm not a huge fan of the guitar tone. On the extended mutes around 1:08 it doesn't sound "metallic" enough for how breakdowns like that usually go. It might need to be choked a bit more and maybe a bit more gain or something.

What!? No orchestra? That's a sin here.
Anyway, I like it, but I would say I'm not a huge fan of the guitar tone. On the extended mutes around 1:08 it doesn't sound "metallic" enough for how breakdowns like that usually go. It might need to be choked a bit more and maybe a bit more gain or something.

Man, this is for you. 

 
At first glance, it doesn't look like the shark in your picture is smashing a keyboard around...

Man, this is for you. 

 
At first glance, it doesn't look like the shark in your picture is smashing a keyboard around...

I deeply regret responding to Strader's post now.

It doesn't really matter.

turn based number simulators suck anyways

This idea that what motivates people to do something bad is irrelevant is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've ever heard. 

Finally watched the end yesterday evening. It was good.

The nuance is that he doesn't believe that belief has anything to do with it, and that a person's actions are inseparable from their character or that there is any belief beyond what is in accordance with a person's actions. Maybe? I don't know. Like you said, he's kind of just going to two directions at once. His crappy post writing doesn't help either.
 
The entire point of my side here is that belief has everything to do with it, and more effectively than policing sexist actions is stopping the motivation for sexist actions by passively correcting beliefs of people in society over long periods of time (you know like how we've dealt with every other civil rights issue). In other words, make sexist actions stop by raising kids to be less sexist as they grow up (shit, all the preventative rape culture stuff I was shoveled in high school actually did contribute to why I'm informed about ongoing conversations about consent and sexism in the first place. More schools should have that.). Showing businesses that sex doesn't sell anymore. Maybe even possibly persuading currently sexist people to be less sexist, but it's harder to change a person's mind than it is to raise a small person or take away money. Hell, if you fix the market, and fix the kids, society's in good shape already, and that's not counting the other solutions you can come up with when not idea-blasting them on a game music forum.
 
I'm not sure why this is rocket science, but the gist is he doesn't agree because he doesn't think sexism has anything to do with how the person is raised, what they think, or what they believe; it's only sexism when it is manifested as some action or some kind of observable oppression. And when it is, it can be viewed without context and it is ultimately sexist, even when the brain isn't actually behind it.
 
The same kind of logic, of course, does not work at all when applied to mental health issues. If a person keeps quiet about their depression, does that make them not have depression? If they have homicidal thoughts but don't act on them, are they not homicidal, and do they not need mental health care? How far do you extend pervert the definition of "action" before you end up just taking into account all of a person's psychological factors anyway? Then you're just back at square one, and I say those psychological "actions" are the ones that cascade into "real ones" and those former are what we should focus on.
 
I'm not really interested in further asserting this point, since it's been clarified a bit ago that claims of Anita's censorship talk has been unfounded. And so I don't actually really particularly care about her in this instance anyway, I'm just responding to supposed counterpoints despite that it's irrelevant to the thread at this point.

Well, in the immortal words of Walt Disney
 
"Shit happens"

Well, when your stated opinion is a comparison of a novel series (and a movie or two based upon them) that promotes an unhealthy BDSM-based relationship with a psychopath who treats the main character like shit because "she gradually learns to like it", to a TV series about a woman with super-strength, that has a soft-core, no-nudity sex scene (that I honestly didn't even remember happening until someone posted pictures about it)... you're going to get called out on it.
 
And thus, you have been called out on it.
 
To that matter, let's compare the number of sex scenes from the Shades movie to the JJ series.
 
The movie has 20 minutes of sex scenes, with a whopping 7 scenes (not counting nudity, not counting any of the strictly BDSM stuff, and not counting any of the ass-slaps, which would make that number MUCH higher).
 
Jessica Jones has... two? Three? I honestly can't remember. I can look up Shades stats easily (hence the above paragraph), but I can't find anything about JJ's sex scenes. Well, I guess that means people are more interested in the ones from Shades than JJ.
 
Poor man's 50 Shades of Grey, indeed...

Thanks and it would be awesome if you enter! Big fan of your work, btw. Your remix of Juri's theme from back when is still one of my favorite VGM remixes! 

I will actually PayPal you $10 if you can show me a specific quote that shows "actions" =/= "behavior" (something I never talked about, ever).
 
Otherwise you're doing what you usually do in discussions on OCR, which is derail them by taking sarcastic, unsubstantiated shots and strawmans at everyone you disagree with.

Well, everyone is too busy fighting over in Tropes Vs Women.

Yes, well: The internet, the video game industry, the "critics", Feminist Frequency and the material it "critiques" expand far, far beyond America. So if you're talking about the consequences or lack thereof of criticism and things that are "problematic", narrowing the discussion to America is useless since Sarkeesian's videos reach people who both support and don't support her views across the world. America has better protected "freedom of speech" than somewhere like Australia if we're using game bans as a benchmark, so they're irrelevant to the discussion?
 
 
 
No, it was an honest series of questions. I'm quite convinced that if she were in a position where she had a say, she would fully support government censorship. also, to quote Neblix
 
 
It's been pointed out so many times in this thread over the last 98 pages that criticism against the criticism Anita offers is silenced, viewed as being misogynistic or whatever. Raising awareness for something you perceive to be an issue, a problem, is worthless unless you are also offering a solution. Tell me again, Zircon, what is Anita's solution? Because all I can see is that her solution is to either change whatever it is she doesn't like to what she wants, or get rid of it entirely. Nothing seems to please her or her fans.
 
 
Oh, my bad. You're okay with hyper-sensitive crybabies going on about how "problematic" the representation of (whatever) is and essentially pressuring companies into changing something they obviously had no intention of changing (freedom of speech), with non-existent evidence of this resulting in greater sales and objectively appealing to a wider demographic as a result, you're just not okay with it when the government does it.
 
EDIT: Oh and if you want a prime example of whiny people who could just simply not buy something successfully getting it banned, feminists got GTA V banned from Target a year after it came out.
 
but it doesn't matter because it's not America and the government didn't do it.

Your opinion is bad.

Possible to earn money? Yes. Possible to make a living at it?
 
Unless you're Video Games Live, no. Though it might only be Tommy Tallarico making a living out of that show.

DEEP JUNGLE PLZ OMG YES

I have a rule for people getting started, and that is don't get caught up in what's the best and what sounds like it has the most value (features, sound quality, etc.)
 
When you're getting started, you need a baseline. The baseline is the set of instruments (or even just one library, like Albion, Symphobia, EWQLSO) that you learn how to use and you're "set". Meaning you can write orchestral music using them, and that's your fallback level of quality for mockups and such.
 
Your baseline can be feature-rich and detailed (the Hollywood series) or incredibly dumbed down and easy to use (like ProjectSAM Orchestral Essentials). Once you have your baseline, and you are consciously feeling like "I'm trying to write music with a certain sound but my current set doesn't let me do it, but that other set will", only then should you start buying more libraries. For instance, let's say my baseline strings are CS2. CS2 is amazing, but it has no divisi. If I'm working on something and I need to write divisi, that's when I'm able to justify buying a library with divisi (like LASS or NISS). If I like to centerpiece a violin in my orchestra, I invest in a solo violin like Embertone Friedlander.
 
NEVER BUY SAMPLE LIBRARIES OR INVEST INTO FEATURES BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THEM OR "MIGHT USE THEM LATER ON".
 
This is a slippery slope that never financially pans out in your favor (it may creatively, but I only give practical advice). You end up buying a metric ton of shit you never use in your music, and keep buying more when you get excited about new releases from your favorite companies to build up your "library". Don't "build up your library". I took that stance with purchasing stuff and I have bought so many thousands of dollars worth of tech I don't use and rarely have ever used outside of a single project. It's one of my biggest life regrets, actually, to be tangentially dramatic.  It burns mostly because most developers employ a no resale policy, so I can't sell something when I'm done with it. It digitally follows me and stays on my Kontakt drive forever, and ever, and ever, and ever...
 
Start with your baseline, and buy something when your baseline doesn't cut it. As you absorb more stuff into your baseline, you use it more often because it's the sounds you really wanted, and it becomes your new baseline.
 
That's why amazing computer orchestrators layer different libraries. They didn't learn "layering tricks" from Daniel James on YouTube then go out and buy 3 different string libraries to stay in the game; they went through the grueling process of deciding their current libraries weren't giving them the sound they wanted, then visiting the market to find who developed a library for it.