zircon

You're talking about difficulty of inputs... I'm talking about cruft. Stuff that, to me, takes away from the experience, and forces you to memorize more 'things' to be effective. For example... in SF2, I play a lot of Fei Long. No command normals. He has 3 special moves and one super. That's it. You learn his normals, those 3 moves, and the super, and you can pretty much do anything with him. Now when I tried to play Rashid in 5, he also has 3 special moves (plus 1 airborne special), but each one has an EX version too that behaves a little differently. He has 5 command normals. Then he has a unique V-Skill, which itself has several moves attached to it, plus a V-Trigger which changes even more of his move list. Plus a super. Maybe 10 or even 5 years ago I would have had the patience for all of that but I don't anymore. I look forward to the new games by Seth K. and Sirlin that bring the focus back entirely to reading + spacing.

For me, it still has the same amount of cruft as SF4. Yeah, maybe the 1-frame links are gone. But there's still just too much extra stuff that, to me, takes away from the essence of spacing, footsies, poking, etc. I couldn't get into it at all. I can play SF2 all day without memorizing a single combo longer than 2 hits and actually win. But with 5 it's back to memorizing 4 normals into a special move, V-trigger cancels, and all that. I don't have time for that kind of thing anymore. I REALLY went into this wanting to like it after hearing it hyped so much. I was crushed with disappointment when I had to return it. Just had 0 fun at all.

Alright. I played this for about 2 hours tonight. I was really hype... tried it with my fightstick and controller. And honestly: I really didn't like it. So much so that I returned it on Steam. Everything about it feels 'wrong' to me, compared to any earlier SF. The fighting feels sluggish and floaty. The combo timings feel very awkward. It seems like every character has too many special moves and command normals (I tried about half of them, and couldn't get through the challenges.) It seemed like half the moves have additional move options just to complicate things further (especially Laura). Do we really need all that? I did a bunch of single player and then played online and didn't win a single match. I don't know. Maybe I just suck that hard at it, but I do OK at SF2-4, especially 2. I'll try it out again in a year, maybe when it's on sale. But for now, definitely not a fan, and no plan to play it any further.

Yeah I fell off the wagon big time with our move. I'm up to 180lbs or so but my waist is about the same. I don't think I lost much strength. But it's a new year and I've got a gym again, plus an elliptical in the basement. Shooting to get back to working out 4-5 times a week with resistance training ~3 days and cardio on other days (a solid 30 mins on the elliptical). Plus cutting again naturally.

Maybe you missed some of his dialogue. He made the decision to get out after his first battle, which was the first one shown in the movie. He saw a friend / colleague killed in front of his eyes, and was then asked to kill innocent women and children. He hadn't done any fighting at all before - he was in sanitation. So as soon as he saw all that, he wanted to leave. Sounds perfectly human and natural to me.

People don't care about cities being destroyed probably because the anime is satire... it's not meant to be taken seriously. I love it tho.

I absolutely loved it. What an amazing return to form for the series, and in and of itself just a great movie.

Ho Ho Ho, Happy Holidays from Impact Soundworks! Welcome to our BIGGEST sale ever, with fantastic savings of up to 50% off ALL instruments and bundles too! Featured Deals Juggernaut: Cinematic Electronic Scoring Tools $149 -> $89 (Kontakt Player Compatible!) Shreddage 2: Absolute Electric Guitar $139 -> $89 (Kontakt Player Compatible!) Orchestral Scoring Bundle $658 -> $399 - Includes Rhapsody Orchestral Percussion, Pearl & Bravura! Complete World Bundle $299 -> $165 - Includes Plectra Series 1-4, Koto + Sitar Nation! Shreddage Drums $119 -> $89 (Kontakt Player Compatible!) Pearl Concert Grand $119 -> $89 (Kontakt Player Compatible!) ...and MANY MORE! Shop all deals here! Rhapsody Orchestral Colors Is Here! Following up our critically-acclaimed Rhapsody Orchestral Percussion, we've just released Rhapsody Orchestral Colors: an all-in-one symphonic tool that makes it easier than ever to create lush, fully-voiced chords and textures with strings, brass, winds, and choir. Recorded in the same focused, neutral hall as Rhapsody Perc, the library is equally suited for rapid film/TV/game scoring, classical mockups, epic cues and everything in between. Using the chord maker technology developed for our Bravura Scoring Brass library, Rhapsody Orchestral Colors allows you to perform ensemble chords with just a single key press - but unlike many other 'pre-baked' orchestral texture/phrase libraries, we've recorded each ensemble separately for full control. You can mix and match any of the 11 recorded ensembles in a single patch, with each one performing a different chord OR voicing, plus unique mic mixing + routing! FEATURES * 30,000+ orchestral samples across 3 mic positions * 11 instrument ensembles recorded separately for full control * Strings: Basses, Celli, Violins/Viola * Brass: Tuba, Trombones, Horns, Trumpets * Winds: Bassoons/Contra, flute/oboe/clarinet * Choirs: Men, Women & FX * Sustains, staccato, staccatissimo, tenuto & scripted legato * Custom orchestrator engine for instant chord gratification * Make your own chords + performance mapping * Two octaves of bonus unison samples per ensemble DEMOS https://soundcloud.com/isworks/sets/rhapsody-orchestral-colors WALKTHROUGH & OVERVIEW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIdh1EudD_U PRICING & AVAILABILITY Rhapsody Orchestral Colors is available now for Kontakt 5.3+ (full version) for $149, but we have TWO special offers available... 1. Owners of Rhapsody Orchestral Percussion will find a coupon for $50 off in their user area! 2. Through the end of our sale, if you spend $299+ in an order, we will send you a voucher to get Orchestral Colors... for FREE. Yes, you read that right! Spend $299+ during the sale and get Rhapsody Orchestral Colors for FREE! Happy Holidays from Impact Soundworks!

It's a good club.

Who says Final Fantasy can't be strategic though? That's a failure of game design, and not related at all to turn-based combat! There are so many ways to make things more interesting, many of which have been done very well in other turn-based non-tactical RPGs. Here are 5 off the top of my head. 1. Give different types of monsters properties that affect who can hit them and when. For example, flying monsters that can only be hit by certain weapons or abilities, elemental creatures, etc. 2. Re-position monsters and PCs throughout the fight, like in Chrono Trigger, affecting the hit box of various abilities. 3. Change battle conditions during combat forcing people to make tough choices on the fly. For example in FFX, there was a boss that could reliably one-shot you unless you had the zombie status. But if you had that status, you couldn't heal yourself. It was cool. 4. Don't have obvious ability scaling like Fire, Fira, Firaga, where there is no reason at all to use the lower-level spells. Make more powerful spells and abilities leave the PCs open to attack, take longer to cast, take longer to recover from, etc. Make it more of a tradeoff to use those powerful abilities. 5. Limit the resources of the player. Restrict the max # of potions, or make them harder to get. Space rest points out more. A lot of JRPGs become really easy because you can stock tons of tents and potions and just heal up after every fight. Roguelikes are turn-based too, but they are frequently way more challenging because you have very limited resources. If every lost hit point and magic point matters, that encourages players to think more about finishing battles quickly (while expending resources) vs. conserving resources but taking more damage etc.

Remake looks awesome, I can't wait. I do think it's hasty to judge the soundtrack based on music heard in the trailer. For AAA games, it's extremely common for trailers to be done with no input from the game's composer(s) whatsoever. Sometimes it's just licensed music from a library! Other times it's written by *another* composer who didn't work on the game proper. Also, for a game of this scale, it's very likely that the music is nowhere near done and might only be finished toward the very end of development. All the more reason why they would use some other track in the trailer. Anyway, what does everyone have against turn-based battles?! You make me so sad! It's possible to make turn-based combat tactical, fun, and fast-paced: FFX did a good job, I think. Action system are fun too (I loved Crisis Core) *but* you inevitably sacrifice some level of depth and control unless there's a system of totally pausing the action to assign commands and targets. The tradeoff is that it usually feels faster, more integrated, and responsive... which is not always better than the alternative. So many JRPGs unfortunately fail at good turn-based combat, but that's less a failing of the combat system, and more a failing of game design, direction, and balance. In a bad turn-based system, animations take too long and break up the battle. In a good one, commands are executed almost instantly and with just enough flash to feel good, but not so much that it interrupts the flow of things. Even better is when multiple characters end up acting at once (or overlapping), like in Suikoden 2, which helps resolve things even faster. If the optimal strategy for most battles is just 'mash X to win', that's definitely not fun, but a turn-based system doesn't necessitate that kind of design. Some of the very deepest, most tactical games out there are completely turn-based, stuff like Tales of Maj'Eyal for example.

If the show director(s), runners, producer(s), writers etc. decided to devote lots of time to sexual conflicts... wouldn't that make the show more about that? Maybe that's actually what they wanted to do? Maybe your expectation was off.

My computer is all ssd now. No mechanicals; just 840 and 850 EVO/PROs and an M2 SSD for OS. Looove it.

I wouldn't say flawed rhetorical methods are "okay", since arguments and opinions should ideally be based on fact, reality, and logic. Their use should be called out and refuted. I think you've done a good job of that throughout the thread. BUT, and this is just my take on it, I think it's not a good use of time or effort to go after people using that kind of rhetoric who aren't prescribing anything harmful, when there are people & organizations out there doing much worse. Like university curricula being censored for 'triggering' material, leading to actual book bans. THAT stuff is really, really bad. Those organizations flat-out saying, "We want to ban this material" are far bigger problems. I suspect also that a great many people AREN'T in such vehement disagreement with Anita (to the point of direct harssent) because of her rhetorical methods, but because they simply don't like her opinions. Imagine she didn't talk about the influence of media on culture at all, and just focused on videos about the tropes themselves and why she personally doesn't like them. I really, truly think that most of her detractors would hate her just as much. Obviously you're not in this category though. My point is that if we're trying to stop a bad thing (in this case, censorship), going after people who aren't prescribing censorship seems so much less productive and useful than going after people who DO advocate censorship. Even if the first group is using bad rhetoric, they aren't calling for the bad thing itself, whereas the other group is. Again I really have to compare this discussion to religion & fundamentalism. If someone wants to say that they think homosexuality is a sin because the Bible said so, BUT they believe gay marriage is fine, is it really worth arguing with them...? When there are people who are actively saying it's NOT fine, trying to change the law to discriminate against gay people, etc?

OK, wait wait wait. Maybe I didn't make it abundantly clear, though I did say it a few times already, but I agree with you here. She's not supporting bold statements like that, and not providing evidence, because perhaps none exists. We're on the same page in that regard. ... but this is where, again, I have to draw the distinction between making a flawed analysis or using flawed reasoning, and prescribing a bad course of action. Fallacious arguments are one thing, it's when you use them to support and justify real-world action that it becomes a much bigger problem. Maybe you and I just differ on this point of view. If someone thinks abortion is wrong using religious justification, I'd disagree with them, and I'd say their reasoning is flawed. But as long as they don't support banning abortion, I'm fine with them saying that. Not worth arguing with them, because they're not actually trying to infringe on anyone's rights. They're not a threat to freedom. It's the people who DO want to ban abortion that are the big problem. Actually, Ben Carson would be a great example here. When he says that homosexuality is a choice, that's dumb. But then he followed it by saying same-sex marriage is the law. Great! I don't care about his thoughts on homosexuality, as long as he supports equal rights. When he says that abortion is wrong, and then follows it by saying abortion should be illegal... not great. Two very different things. Regardless of whether it's the same 'trick' or not, again, it's the conclusion that matters more than anything, and the conclusion here is benign.

OK. I'll address specifics. I agree it's a continuum, I don't agree that criticism which moves more toward "advocacy" is any less valid, problematic, or bad in any way. I think this is a big exaggeration and distortion of what is actually said in the videos. More accurate (and taken directly from the first video): "These tropes help to normalize certain negative attitudes toward women." That's not the same as proclaiming "X causes Y" - and the semantics here do matter. Nor do I agree that making that argument ("these tropes help to normalize certain negative attitudes about women") is itself problematic. My giant issue with your points is that you're saying these videos are not just "flawed argument(s)" - which I don't disagree with - you're calling them bad, and constantly linking them to actual censorship. I find that to be way too much of a 'slippery slope' fallacy, using fear of censorship to try and discredit someone who, again, has never so much as suggested it in any videos. Here's how the very first tropes video concluded: "... it's still important to recognize and think critically about the more problematic aspects especially considering many of these franchises are as popular as ever and the characters have become worldwide icons... The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games." I don't see ANYTHING in that conclusion to justify the fear or link to censorship and nothing you've said has budged me even an inch on that. If you want to debate the merits of the arguments themselves, fine. Like I said, you've contributed to changing my views there over the course of the thread. But everyone using censorship as a sort of bogeyman to discredit the videos and Anita herself... I don't know. Those kind of arguments and attitudes are the ones that really have led to so much real-world misery and harassment. People get this idea that "Anita is trying to take away our games!!!" and use that as direct justification of (and motivation for) despicable actions. That's why I think the distinction between advocating censorship, and merely advocating critical thinking and careful consideration, is so important. Twisting one into the other is in PART what has led to so much harassment, doxxing, death threats... etc.

Yep, I do use lazarus so I haven't lost the post. Maybe something with lots of quotes and formatting? In any case, it encourages me to keep the post brief! So here we go. My viewpoint is that there is a really big, black-and-white distinction between prescribing censorship and anything else. Even if the reasoning is in part the same as people that WOULD advocate censorship, I still don't think it's problematic until that line is crossed. It's the difference between: "Alcohol can cause impaired judgment and lead to drunk driving. People can die! Therefore, we encourage you to drink responsibly." and "Alcohol can cause impaired judgment and lead to drunk driving. People can die! Therefore, alcohol should be banned." There is such an enormous difference between these two statements. And likewise, there is an equally enormous difference between: "The use of certain tropes about women reinforces negative cultural attitudes. Therefore, we encourage game developers to not use these tropes." and "The use of certain tropes about women reinforces negative cultural attitudes. Therefore, games which use these tropes should be banned." One statement encourages infringement upon rights and freedom. The other does not.

Huh. I can't post in this thread anymore. I don't mean "I don't want to", but I've tried making the same post ~6 times from two different browsers and it just won't go through.

I'm talking about the United States. I can't speak for other countries, where freedom of speech is not nearly as legally protected as it is here. Do you think that Anita, or any of her legions of followers convinced that her idea of what is or isn't "problematic" disagree with the idea of banning such games? I agree with her on some things being problematic, and I don't agree with government banning or censorship. Nobody in this thread, including those supporting Anita, have advocated that. This is a straw man, plain and simple. Do you understand the meaning of the word "censor"? Does anyone in this thread? The actual, dictionary definition refers to an official examining & removing/altering/banning material for objectionable content. If the artist/creator themselves decide, with no government influence, to change their content, that IS NOT censorship. At all. So what if developers have caved to "politically correct" demands? Isn't that just capitalism and the free market at work? Consumers want X, so business delivers X? Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

Really? What are some examples of games that have been banned, or that have died, as a result of people making internet videos, opinion pieces, and tweets? I'd love to know. Do you think every movie critic who wrote an incredible critical review of Pixels thinks it should be "removed entirely" by force (i.e. actual censorship)? Take a step back and really think about this. Expressing a negative opinion about something, no matter WHAT your reasoning for that opinion, is not the same as advocating that thing be banned or censored. Unless you actually SAY that's what you want or believe. It doesn't matter if the reasoning is the same, because what they're ultimately advocating or prescribing is not at all the same. We could flip this around and say that the reasoning of, say, evolutionary biologists is the same reasoning used by eugenicists to advocate racial superiority or something equal abhorrent. At a high level, the Tropes videos are more or less making the statement: "I think oversexualized women in games are dumb and bad because X/Y/Z, therefore..." Now finish the sentence. Which of the following, paraphrased, do the videos conclude with? "...people should be banned from making games with oversexualized women." - Nope. "...the government should ban games with oversexualized women." - Nope. "...people who play games with oversexualized women are misogynists." - Nope. "...game developers should aspire to be more inclusive by not oversexualizing women as much." - Ding ding! Over the course of the thread, partially through our discussions, I've come to disagree with a good bit of the rationale behind the "...because X/Y/Z" part, but let's not kid ourselves and say that making YouTube videos is the same thing as book banning and literal censorship. I can't possibly disagree with you more here. The alternatives are that game developers consider any criticism levied toward them, and choose whether to act on it or not. That's about one million steps away from censorship.

I'm sure he'll pull up some example from somewhere. This is the Internet; you can find someone saying anything. But based on everything I've seen, read, and watched, I'm not seeing anything resembling a 'movement' to ban or censor games. Nothing resembling broad support or any sort of trend. Regardless of that, nobody is disagreeing that actual censorship and banning of games is bad.

Show me the legions of game critics who are actually, literally trying to ban games. I'm sure some people - somewhere - are saying that, but that's on the ultra-extreme part of the spectrum. For example, I've watched all of Anita's videos and she never, repeat never, says that games should be banned in any of them. I've read Leigh Alexander's work, I read Polygon, Kotaku, r/games, r/gaming every day... I'm not seeing this narrative of critics trying to ban games. That's simply fearmongering at it's worst (the kind Shadowe has bought into, hook line and sinker). Critics "encouraging removal" of ELEMENTS in games? Sure, but that's not the same thing as calling or supporting for literal, actual government censorship or bans of games. That's not happening. Opinion pieces should never be equated to actual censorship.

We got on to this subject because I thought it was hypocritical for someone to say that indie game developers should be open to criticism of their games, while simultaneously complaining about, say, feminist criticism of AAA games. My argument is simply that people are free to make whatever critiques they'd like, of whatever media they'd like, period. Sure, I agree that some criticism falls way more on the side of advocacy than analysis. But I don't agree that any criticism has an "obligation" to anything at all. All criticism is ultimately subjective and affected by our conscious and unconscious biases. It's fine to strive for pure objectivity and I respect that. I also think there's nothing inherently wrong with writing critique through an explicitly-stated 'lens' (like feminist issues, racial issues).

Ha. It's funny when you put them side by side, but to be fair, if you actually read the article - https://killscreen.com/articles/nintendo-still-wont-make-link-girl-theyll-put-him-dress-and-call-him-linkle-2/ They're taking issue with the fact that Nintendo made this a new character, instead of simply a different incarnation of Link. It's the difference between making a version of Thor that happens to be female, vs. making a character called Thorina. Now, is that a dumb distinction? Personally, I think so. Though I think the name "Linkle" is dumber still.

Even those strawman examples are simply freedom of speech being exercised. It's hypocritical to say that game developers should be able to put whatever content they want in their games, and then take such issue with people talking about said games. And those strawman examples aside, there's certainly been plenty of meaningful academic and journalistic critique of games. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it not critique. An entire industry? A single narrative? Again, straw man and hyperbole much?