[SteveMcMahon]

(09-13-2014 05:36 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

If Sarkeesian is actually good at helping developers portray more interesting and compelling female characters, fighting her there will just make us look bad.

Anita Sarkeesian shouldn't be wasting her incredible video game bitching and moaning talents on making suggestions to "improve" female characters that icky MEN have created.

No, she should team up with super-talented feminist developers like Zoe Quinn to make fun and feisty feminist video games! Think of the treasures they could produce:


Housewife Quest - Break free of the terrible yoke of The Patriarchy in this gritty, hard-hitting RPG! Including mini-games like: Vacuuming! Eating bon bons! Watching Judge Judy! Complaining about your stressful day when your man comes home from work!


Super Mario Sisters - Finally! The game that proves girls can be hopelessly incompetent plumbers who spend all their time eating mushrooms instead of fixing toilets!


Sim Cat Lady - How many cats is too many? Trick question! A feminist can never have too many cats, after she hits the wall.


Abortion Tycoon - Stick it to THE MAN by having a doctor turn your womb into a graveyard! The ONLY abortion sim endorsed by celebrity pro-choice entrepreneur Dr. Kermit Gosnell.


Sonic The Rapist - Feminist science has proven that 99% of all men are rapists! And the other 1% are incredibly hard to detect rapists! In fact, statistics show that you're probably being raped RIGHT NOW! Sonic the Rapist is an evil rapehog who zooms across the campus landscape sticking his blue rape-penis into impressionable coeds without even bothering to get a signed and notarised consent form! Defeat him by carrying your matress of power.

[NilNisiOptimum]

here's what find amusing about Sarkeesian being a consultant on Mirror's Edge 2. The original Mirror's Edge is six years old, and has only sold 2 million copies. That's not a number that lends hope to a sequel being popular.

The general gimmick of Mirror's Edge (free-running action sequences) has been done many times better throughout the Assassins Creed franchise (6 games so far with 2 coming out this year). If ME2 can't differentiate it's gameplay from AC, the sequel will be dead in the water because gamers have been playing Assassins Creed for the last 6 years. Having a SJW in a consulting role to make a Strong Independent Woman ™ the protagonist will not convince gamers that it's a game worth playing.

[SteveMcMahon]

(09-13-2014 06:58 PM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  

here's what find amusing about Sarkeesian being a consultant on Mirror's Edge 2. The original Mirror's Edge is six years old, and has only sold 2 million copies. That's not a number that lends hope to a sequel being popular.

The general gimmick of Mirror's Edge (free-running action sequences) has been done many times better throughout the Assassins Creed franchise (6 games so far with 2 coming out this year). If ME2 can't differentiate it's gameplay from AC, the sequel will be dead in the water because gamers have been playing Assassins Creed for the last 6 years. Having a SJW in a consulting role to make a Strong Independent Woman ™ the protagonist will not convince gamers that it's a game worth playing.

Yes. I buy tons of videogames. More than I ever get the chance to play, in fact. (I have kids) I remember the original Mirrors Edge, and it was graphically impressive but boring. That's why it didn't sell that well, and nobody's been clamouring for a sequel.

Portal was an absolutely brilliant game that happened to have a female protagonist (and a much more interesting female antagonist, too). But people who have the talent to make games like Portal don't need to stunt-hire useless shysters like Sarkeesian.

I'm sure Kotaku will give Mirrors Edge 2 a great review though.

[iop890]

(09-13-2014 05:44 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Sarkeesian doesn't have a single useful thing to say about narrative structure or female characters. Some of the bigger criticism of her have been that she's taken strong, heroic, and well-developed female characters and argued that they were nothing but a "girl in a fridge" or "a damsel in distress". I haven't played those particular games, but they're the sort of narratives where you tear-up at the heroism these ladies displayed.

Let me give you an example of the damage her sorts of narratives cause. In Dragon's Age: Origins there was a bisexual male character, with a background and character arc that included his sexuality. He was a well developed character.

In Dragon's Age: 2* EVERY character is bisexual without there being a story behind it. Having a distinct gay or bisexual character is too homophobic these days, and the last thing that Bioware wants to do is oppress all of those victims out there (all 12 of them)! Similarly, in Mass Effect 3* there's a character in a gay marriage, who isn't gay; they just jammed in this jarring nod to diversity for the sake of diversity.

This dilutes the narrative, and it's only the beginning. The actual diversity from DA:O is called hate, and ubiquitous drone-people is all that's allowed.

* Note: I haven't played either of the games in the second paragraph, this is what I've had reported to me by others who've played them - I could be wrong.

Don't remind me about Bioware. They made good games once.

Early post-Baldur's Gate Bioware games all had romanceables, but those romances remained relatively in the background (even as they became more developed), not to mention having few available. And then along came a thing called Jade Empire, with its bi character. That character garnered Bioware a lot of news, and a whole new following.

Then they followed that game up with a "bi" alien. And they took a little media heat for that - the only gay romances in 2 games being female/female, and this time the gay romance character was alien (which means not necessarily a "gay" romance). But even then, Bioware was still only at 3 romanceables in the game.

But now, see, they've got a following in the LGBTBBQ community. They've taken some heat for having only straight or female-bi relationships. So, now along comes Dragon Age with its inclusion of equal opportunity bi characters. That's only one more romanceable, which doesn't much change the focus of development, and it satisfies the media. Only, as a side effect, it gets them serious LGBTBBQ fans. Plus, with the expansion and development of romance, they're starting to garner interest from romance novel enthusiasts who post about the romances endlessly and have discussions about what a characters sweat might taste like. Just the most pathetic people you could imagine.

So now Bioware creates nothing but these awful degeneracy simulators like Dragon Age 2 where everything is gay and you lose reputation with characters for not buttfucking them. Or Mass Effect 3 where a character that had been straight for 2 games, even competing with you to bang the alien chick in the first game is now suddenly confessing his gay love for you.

[samsamsam]

(09-13-2014 07:30 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

But now, see, they've got a following in the LGBTBBQ community.

They are going after BBQ fans?

[iamdegaussed]

(09-13-2014 08:09 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 07:30 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

But now, see, they've got a following in the LGBTBBQ community.

They are going after BBQ fans?

Nothing is safe, be wary.

[Aurini]

(09-13-2014 05:53 PM)Seboist Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 05:44 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 05:36 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

This is a silly reason to boycott a game, especially if the game is good. If Sarkeesian is actually good at helping developers portray more interesting and compelling female characters, fighting her there will just make us look bad. That's not a zero-sum game. The battle needs to be fought at steps 1 and 2.

Sarkeesian doesn't have a single useful thing to say about narrative structure or female characters. Some of the bigger criticism of her have been that she's taken strong, heroic, and well-developed female characters and argued that they were nothing but a "girl in a fridge" or "a damsel in distress". I haven't played those particular games, but they're the sort of narratives where you tear-up at the heroism these ladies displayed.

Let me give you an example of the damage her sorts of narratives cause. In Dragon's Age: Origins there was a bisexual male character, with a background and character arc that included his sexuality. He was a well developed character.

In Dragon's Age: 2* EVERY character is bisexual without there being a story behind it. Having a distinct gay or bisexual character is too homophobic these days, and the last thing that Bioware wants to do is oppress all of those victims out there (all 12 of them)! Similarly, in Mass Effect 3* there's a character in a gay marriage, who isn't gay; they just jammed in this jarring nod to diversity for the sake of diversity.

This dilutes the narrative, and it's only the beginning. The actual diversity from DA:O is called hate, and ubiquitous drone-people is all that's allowed.

* Note: I haven't played either of the games in the second paragraph, this is what I've had reported to me by others who've played them - I could be wrong.

All true except for the bit about the character not actually being gay, a male player character can bang that dude.

I meant in the sense that it wasn't included in his character bio, it was tacked-on to an already-established character; not in the manner that Johnny Rico just happened to be a Filipino (an allusion to the American WW2 narrative about different races and elements of America bonding on the battlefield), but rather in an awkward and poorly-thought out manner. It brings up questions that should have been addressed earlier in the series, if the ubiquity of gay marriage was an element of the universe.

On it's own it could be ignored - but when you see this cropping up time and time again, that's when you notice a destructive pattern.

[AnonymousBosch]

(09-13-2014 08:31 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

On it's own it could be ignored - but when you see this cropping up time and time again, that's when you notice a destructive pattern.

Exactly. The idea that it is only an 'indie game' problem is naïve. Give me an hour, and I'll write up my observations of a mainstream title from last year.

[NilNisiOptimum]

(09-13-2014 07:09 PM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 06:58 PM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  

here's what find amusing about Sarkeesian being a consultant on Mirror's Edge 2. The original Mirror's Edge is six years old, and has only sold 2 million copies. That's not a number that lends hope to a sequel being popular.

The general gimmick of Mirror's Edge (free-running action sequences) has been done many times better throughout the Assassins Creed franchise (6 games so far with 2 coming out this year). If ME2 can't differentiate it's gameplay from AC, the sequel will be dead in the water because gamers have been playing Assassins Creed for the last 6 years. Having a SJW in a consulting role to make a Strong Independent Woman ™ the protagonist will not convince gamers that it's a game worth playing.

Yes. I buy tons of videogames. More than I ever get the chance to play, in fact. (I have kids) I remember the original Mirrors Edge, and it was graphically impressive but boring. That's why it didn't sell that well, and nobody's been clamouring for a sequel.

Portal was an absolutely brilliant game that happened to have a female protagonist (and a much more interesting female antagonist, too). But people who have the talent to make games like Portal don't need to stunt-hire useless shysters like Sarkeesian.

I'm sure Kotaku will give Mirrors Edge 2 a great review though.

you summed up Mirror's Edge quite well. A cool concept with flawed execution, hence poor sales. Had nothing to do with the fact the protagonist was female. Which I'm sure is why Sarkeesian is now involved.

And you nailed it with Portal as well. The Portal games were brilliantly designed (co-op Portal 2 is one of my favorite modes ever). The main character was a blank slate, but it was a puzzle game. GLaDOS, meanwhile, is a fantastic villain.

Have Kotaku reviews ever moved the sales needle?

[Faust]

Quote:

Have Kotaku reviews ever moved the sales needle?

I follow some indie developers, so I can answer this question..
They get incredibly excited when say, TotalBiscuit, reviews their game. He commands a huge audience and they trust him, so when he says "Buy a game" it can turn middling numbers into a huge, huge success. A positive review from Total Biscuit is the kind of thing developers dream about.

I have never, ever heard anybody say that a review from Kotaku was a big help to them.

[Texas_Tryhard]

(09-13-2014 08:57 PM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  

Have Kotaku reviews ever moved the sales needle?

Before I realized how damaged Kotaku was, I actually used to read them for more unbiased reviews than, say, paid IGN ones. There are a few columnists who are still writing about games though, but the SJW concentration is approaching critical mass.

[infowarrior1]

(09-13-2014 07:30 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 05:44 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Sarkeesian doesn't have a single useful thing to say about narrative structure or female characters. Some of the bigger criticism of her have been that she's taken strong, heroic, and well-developed female characters and argued that they were nothing but a "girl in a fridge" or "a damsel in distress". I haven't played those particular games, but they're the sort of narratives where you tear-up at the heroism these ladies displayed.

Let me give you an example of the damage her sorts of narratives cause. In Dragon's Age: Origins there was a bisexual male character, with a background and character arc that included his sexuality. He was a well developed character.

In Dragon's Age: 2* EVERY character is bisexual without there being a story behind it. Having a distinct gay or bisexual character is too homophobic these days, and the last thing that Bioware wants to do is oppress all of those victims out there (all 12 of them)! Similarly, in Mass Effect 3* there's a character in a gay marriage, who isn't gay; they just jammed in this jarring nod to diversity for the sake of diversity.

This dilutes the narrative, and it's only the beginning. The actual diversity from DA:O is called hate, and ubiquitous drone-people is all that's allowed.

* Note: I haven't played either of the games in the second paragraph, this is what I've had reported to me by others who've played them - I could be wrong.

Don't remind me about Bioware. They made good games once.

Early post-Baldur's Gate Bioware games all had romanceables, but those romances remained relatively in the background (even as they became more developed), not to mention having few available. And then along came a thing called Jade Empire, with its bi character. That character garnered Bioware a lot of news, and a whole new following.

Then they followed that game up with a "bi" alien. And they took a little media heat for that - the only gay romances in 2 games being female/female, and this time the gay romance character was alien (which means not necessarily a "gay" romance). But even then, Bioware was still only at 3 romanceables in the game.

But now, see, they've got a following in the LGBTBBQ community. They've taken some heat for having only straight or female-bi relationships. So, now along comes Dragon Age with its inclusion of equal opportunity bi characters. That's only one more romanceable, which doesn't much change the focus of development, and it satisfies the media. Only, as a side effect, it gets them serious LGBTBBQ fans. Plus, with the expansion and development of romance, they're starting to garner interest from romance novel enthusiasts who post about the romances endlessly and have discussions about what a characters sweat might taste like. Just the most pathetic people you could imagine.

So now Bioware creates nothing but these awful degeneracy simulators like Dragon Age 2 where everything is gay and you lose reputation with characters for not buttfucking them. Or Mass Effect 3 where a character that had been straight for 2 games, even competing with you to bang the alien chick in the first game is now suddenly confessing his gay love for you.

On the other hand this makes good fodder for satire material.

[iamdegaussed]

Apparently Anita stood on some table tonight at a conference and declared this the start of a culture war to a rousing standing ovation.

Some real nutso shit going on with this woman lemme tell you.

[Yatagan]

(09-13-2014 09:19 PM)Texas_Tryhard Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 08:57 PM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  

Have Kotaku reviews ever moved the sales needle?

Before I realized how damaged Kotaku was, I actually used to read them for more unbiased reviews than, say, paid IGN ones. There are a few columnists who are still writing about games though, but the SJW concentration is approaching critical mass.

I used to read Kotaku for gaming news and various misc. stories (ex. Japanese weirdness) but the SJW clickbait trolling became too much for me and I stopped going altogether.

Fuck that site and everything Gawker.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(09-13-2014 07:30 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

So now Bioware creates nothing but these awful degeneracy simulators like Dragon Age 2 where everything is gay and you lose reputation with characters for not buttfucking them. Or Mass Effect 3 where a character that had been straight for 2 games, even competing with you to bang the alien chick in the first game is now suddenly confessing his gay love for you.

This is completely true. The following of these classic RPG games has become retarded beyond measure, and game studios now cater to them because they are afraid of media storms (not so much weaker sales numbers, since most people, even "diehard followers", will pirate games anyway).

A game made by their community, Baldur's Gate Enhance Edition, has also been infected by this insanity. While in previous Baldur's Gates romancable characters have all been reasonable, in this game you have Neera, a feminist half-elf whose primary feature is being an unstable cunt, and Dorn, a bisexual half-orc who actually tries to convince your (male) character that he is only not bi/gay because he hasn't tasted cock yet and then threatens you when you refuse (you'll recognize this as one of the most common complaints that lesbians make - men believing that they are only lesbians due to not having tried cock yet and not accepting their identity - apparently this is disgusting only when it happens to a woman).

I only hope that Blizzard is resistant to bullshit. If I started seeing this crap in Diablo, Starcraft or World of Warcraft, it would be the final blow.

[iamdegaussed]

This Leigh Alexander broad is another person that could use the ROK treatment.

http://theralphretort.com/gamergate-expo...er-part-2/

At least Anita isn't ugly. Jeesh.

[SteveMcMahon]

(09-14-2014 02:01 AM)iamdegaussed Wrote:  

This Leigh Alexander broad is another person that could use the ROK treatment.

http://theralphretort.com/gamergate-expo...er-part-2/

At least Anita isn't ugly. Jeesh.

I remember her column in Edge. It was always a reliable page-turner, as in I'd literally turn the page when I saw Leigh Alexander's name in the byline.

All her columns were about muh sojiny. She's a no-talent hack who believes she deserves a prominent career because vagina.

You know who else makes a career out of having a vagina? Prostitutes. But prossies are honest working girls and don't deserve to be compared with Leigh Alexander.

[Feisbook Control]

The problem with the "let the market sort it out" argument is essentially this: we don't live in a complete market economy.

Companies that engage in social activism can do so for one of three reasons. The first is that they might get some sort of grant/tax break to do so. The second is that they can make enough money in another area of their business such that they can take a loss in a different area to "do the right thing". Remember when a shareholder of Apple had the audacity to ask the CEO what environmental activism would do to the share price? Tim Cook basically said, "Fuck of you Neanderthal" and it was like the Second Coming of Christ. The whole reason he can afford to do that is because Apple is rolling in cash. Cynically, we might even say that he doesn't really give a shit about the environment, but knows exactly which buttons to push to get the hipster/Baby Boomer wanker crowd to go out and buy the latest mePhone. That leads into the third reason. From a purely business point of view, it might hurt a company to do X, but if social justice warriors make enough noise, it might hurt the company even more not to do X. In some sense, that is the market speaking, but in another sense, it's rent-seeking/a shake down that distorts the market.

The other big factor in all of this is that we have many "public goods" that don't actually make money. Your local park would be an example of this. Most people would say that's apolitical. A local arts programme might be somewhat more political. A sociology department at the local university would be even more political. The point is though that if someone can position an issue as being about a "public good" then they can argue that it has value beyond the economics involved. This is exactly what SJWs do when they talk of diversity and representation.

Others have pointed out how cultural Marxists have taken over the institutions (and this was planned decades ago by people like Gramsci). Often, it's really subtle. It's as much about what and how much they put in as it is about what and how much they leave out.

Many years ago, when I was teaching in England, I did a contract for six months where I taught psychology and sociology to students in the last two years of school. I'd previously had no contact with sociology, so the batshit crazy nature of it was somewhat of a surprise to me. Anyway, the curriculum basically involved looking at various things in society (the family, the education system, etc.) through different perspectives. A massive amount of time was devoted to Marxist and feminist perspectives, and then a few others, none of which could even remotely have been considered right wing. Even neo-liberalism, which is not exactly right wing, was literally given two sentences at the end of the book.

The entire curriculum was a crock of shit, pushed down the throats of impressionable students, most of whom actually knew very little about the world and weren't particularly critically minded. The problem with me even beginning to push back against this was twofold. The basic problem I encountered was simply that there was a ton of material to cover, and a lot of it was over the heads of my students. Any time I spent pushing back was time I couldn't devote to covering the material, which would have left my students in a bad position. I believe that was entirely by design. The second issue, of course, is one of an appeal to authority. Sure, you can try to push back, but if the textbook says something else, then to some extent, you're either going to look incompetent or like some sort of kook with an agenda. Again, I believe that's by design.

Later, in Australia, I taught history at what would be junior high school level in the U.S. Previously, history might have been taught as the glories of Western civilisation, rah, rah. I personally think that's a good thing. In that curriculum it wasn't so much ideological on a surface level, but again, I think something was definitely going on there. Kids did a unit on the life of a Roman peasant, a medieval European peasant, a medieval Chinese peasant, etc., and a few things about the structures of those societies, maybe mention of a famous building or invention. It was all presented as some sort of grab bag of this or that. Most kids came out of there none the wiser as to what it all meant, if it formed some sort of continuum, if the past informed the present, etc. Those who might have thought a little more would have come away with the impression that it was all the same. After all, if the book showed three inventions from Culture X and three from Culture Y, then all cultures are the same right? Of course, that is then placed in stark contrast to the units on "modern" history where it's all about white men killing and poisoning the natives, and absolutely no mention of them raising their life expectancies through breakthroughs in science and technology. The end result? At best, kids come out of the education system clueless and with no particular affinity with, or love for, their culture. At worst, they've been primed for all of the shit that comes later, particularly at university.

The cultural Marxists know that this is how you do things. You control the narrative and you control the outcome. If you "educate" the children, you control the future of the society. Anyone who thinks that they're not trying exactly the same strategy that they have been implementing extremely successfully for at least half a century elsewhere is extremely naive. It's not about them having their spaces. They want every space. If you create a new space, they will try to move into that. If you abandon it and create a new space, they will try to move into that. They will pursue you until there is no sanctuary left. You are not allowed your own space because your own space is evil, and they can't allow that, even in private.

[AnonymousBosch]

(09-13-2014 07:30 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

So now Bioware creates nothing but these awful degeneracy simulators like Dragon Age 2 where everything is gay and you lose reputation with characters for not buttfucking them.

Millennials are socially-awkward and hugely-uncomfortable around other people, and interact with the world from a place of emotional immaturity.

The girls I played with back in my day would make Barbie and Ken 'kiss' or rub them together, and grew out of it the moment they realised they could experiment for real with the opposite sex.

The modern, university-educated twenty-something wants to live vicariously through the rubbing of virtual dolls together. How is this remotely-considered the sign of a healthy adult mind, and not a dysfunctional loser?

[Tengen]

(09-14-2014 02:46 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

I'd previously had no contact with sociology, so the batshit crazy nature of it was somewhat of a surprise to me. Anyway, the curriculum basically involved looking at various things in society (the family, the education system, etc.) through different perspectives. A massive amount of time was devoted to Marxist and feminist perspectives, and then a few others, none of which could even remotely have been considered right wing. Even neo-liberalism, which is not exactly right wing, was literally given two sentences at the end of the book.

The entire curriculum was a crock of shit, pushed down the throats of impressionable students, most of whom actually knew very little about the world and weren't particularly critically minded. The problem with me even beginning to push back against this was twofold. The basic problem I encountered was simply that there was a ton of material to cover, and a lot of it was over the heads of my students. Any time I spent pushing back was time I couldn't devote to covering the material, which would have left my students in a bad position. I believe that was entirely by design. The second issue, of course, is one of an appeal to authority. Sure, you can try to push back, but if the textbook says something else, then to some extent, you're either going to look incompetent or like some sort of kook with an agenda. Again, I believe that's by design.

I find myself quoting this book review thread more and more - http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-12922.html

Quote:

“What did you major in,” Hel clarified.
“Oh. Sociology.”
He might have guessed it. Sociology, that descriptive pseudo-science that disguises its uncertainties in statistical mists as it battens on the narrow gap of information between psychology and anthropology. The kind of non-major that so many Americans use to justify their four-year intellectual vacations designed to prolong adolescence.

[aphelion]

[quote:AnonymousBosch]


Millennials are socially-awkward and hugely-uncomfortable around other people, and interact with the world from a place of emotional immaturity.

The girls I played with back in my day would make Barbie and Ken 'kiss' or rub them together, and grew out of it the moment they realised they could experiment for real with the opposite sex.

The modern, university-educated twenty-something wants to live vicariously through the rubbing of virtual dolls together. How is this remotely-considered the sign of a healthy adult mind, and not a dysfunctional loser?
[/quote]

I post this way too often on here but it's worth it every time.

[Avon Barksdale]

(09-14-2014 01:55 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 07:30 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

So now Bioware creates nothing but these awful degeneracy simulators like Dragon Age 2 where everything is gay and you lose reputation with characters for not buttfucking them. Or Mass Effect 3 where a character that had been straight for 2 games, even competing with you to bang the alien chick in the first game is now suddenly confessing his gay love for you.

This is completely true. The following of these classic RPG games has become retarded beyond measure, and game studios now cater to them because they are afraid of media storms (not so much weaker sales numbers, since most people, even "diehard followers", will pirate games anyway).

A game made by their community, Baldur's Gate Enhance Edition, has also been infected by this insanity. While in previous Baldur's Gates romancable characters have all been reasonable, in this game you have Neera, a feminist half-elf whose primary feature is being an unstable cunt, and Dorn, a bisexual half-orc who actually tries to convince your (male) character that he is only not bi/gay because he hasn't tasted cock yet and then threatens you when you refuse (you'll recognize this as one of the most common complaints that lesbians make - men believing that they are only lesbians due to not having tried cock yet and not accepting their identity - apparently this is disgusting only when it happens to a woman).

I only hope that Blizzard is resistant to bullshit. If I started seeing this crap in Diablo, Starcraft or World of Warcraft, it would be the final blow.

Bioware really has lost their way in general, they used to make such great games. The only good RPG dev now a days is CD Projekt RED.

[iop890]

(09-14-2014 10:37 AM)Avon Barksdale Wrote:  

Bioware really has lost their way in general, they used to make such great games. The only good RPG dev now a days is CD Projekt RED.

There's also Obsidian, if you don't mind rough(usually very rough) gems.

[TheWastelander]

(09-14-2014 12:03 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:37 AM)Avon Barksdale Wrote:  

Bioware really has lost their way in general, they used to make such great games. The only good RPG dev now a days is CD Projekt RED.

There's also Obsidian, if you don't mind rough(usually very rough) gems.

I love Fallout: New Vegas.

[Avon Barksdale]

(09-14-2014 09:39 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 12:03 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 10:37 AM)Avon Barksdale Wrote:  

Bioware really has lost their way in general, they used to make such great games. The only good RPG dev now a days is CD Projekt RED.

There's also Obsidian, if you don't mind rough(usually very rough) gems.

I love Fallout: New Vegas.

Yea I forgot about Obsidian.Knights of the Old Republic 2 eclipses the first Kotor in my opinion, also Fallout new Vegas was pretty dope, I modded the hell out of it on PC.