CaptainBinky

This is great! (Just don't load the golf club - it's by far the worst 3D model I have ever made in my life )

It's hypothetical, I'm just saying that the game Anita Sarkeesian describes is essentially what Prince of Persia could have been given a few tweaks. So, yeah, it's bonkers to suggest that PoP would have been that game were Jordan Mechner a woman just that it's conceivable. Look at Roberta Williams' output, for example. A few more women like her in the games industry during the 80s and this industry could well have played out very differently.

Shit, there was something else I wanted to say concerning the femfreq vids but forgot: This ...is pretty much the closest we've had so far to a solution. What she's pretty much described here, is the original Prince of Persia game gender swapped and the cutscenes changed. Plus, to be fair, an avoid-em-up sequence with disguises and RPG levelling. Pretty unoriginal though, all things considered. The point I'd like to raise, though, is given the similarities to Prince of Persia... what if Jordan Mechner had been a woman? It's entirely conceivable that the game which Anita Sarkeesian describes is almost exactly what he (in this hypothetical case, she) would have made. Nothing, to me, proves the point that the real solution is simply "more women making games" than this.

You've put this twice now and I'm getting rather curious as to what these other opinions are. When you say or write stuff like this it's very easy to present your case as if it's some sort of objective truth. This is just my way of acknowledging that everything I say or write is in the context of "The World, according to Andy"

Additionally (at the risk of horribly derailing this thread), A few years back I was posting on a blog which was having a discussion on gender issues and I used the term "fireman" at one point. I was immediately jumped on and personally attacked for my sexist language - "It's fire-fighter you sexist pig!". I tried to explain that where I grew up, my entire life thus far, "fireman" has *never* meant specifically "a man who fights fires" - because where I'm from, "fireman" is pronounced "firemun" so the "man" component utterly evaporates and it doesn't come across as a gendered term. That argument didn't wash at all. But why not? Well, I was being judged by their culture, their up-bringing, what *they* meant by the word. But the internet is vast - it includes all cultures, all types of people, and you simply can't hold everyone accountable to Western culture or, in this case, specifically American culture. It was a surprise when The Simpsons used the word "wanker" to those of us in the UK. When American's say "fanny", it's amusing to the British because it means something entirely different here. See also: "fag" meaning "cigarette" in most cases in the UK. Similarly I've seen discussions about how vile the word c*** is (note: I don't like this term personally, but then my swearing is mostly limited to "shit") in the context of this word being used specifically against women. But in large sections of the UK, this word has almost no power and is humourous (like bugger - you daft c***) and is more commonly used against men and, *most* commonly, men who are your friends. The same words are used in many different contexts across the world, but on the internet all these cultures and people are thrown together and problems will continue to arise unless we either: invent and insist upon a global internet language, or accept that words have different meanings and power to different people. The latter, in my opinion, is the more inclusive response. Perhaps in 100 years, we'll have a common internet language, but it's not going to happen any time soon. Now, to bring this somewhat back on topic: I think the same applies to videogames. Show my mum *any* vaguely violent videogame made in the last 15 years and she'd be aghast at the violence. We laughed at Jack Thompson because he just couldn't see how this stuff was inconsequential - he was not familiar with the language of videogames and so judged them superficially. He couldn't see past the guns, the violence, the blood, and see the game. This is no different to the response to Rock and Roll in the 50s, or video nasties in the 80s. To some, The Human Centipede was abhorrent, to others hilarious. People who have not grown up with games often can't see them for what they often are - puerile and mindless entertainment. I think this has happened with games, they've continued to be made using the same rules and language they always have, but recently there's been a huge influx of new gamers and things which have always been just part of the language become seen as problematic. I absolutely do not believe that perceived misogyny in games leads to misogyny in the same way that I do not believe that violent videogames cause violence. HOWEVER, that said, as videogame developers we should acknowledge that the gamer market has expanded and cater to those new gamers. So, to summarise, while some games go a bit far (that bit in God of War from the latest Sarkeesian vid, for example) and that definitely needs addressing, I think mostly what we need is more *variety* of videogames. Rather than change games, we just need more choice. Finally, I do believe there is a place for calling out the shit when people see it. I don't agree with criticizing and attacking Anita Sarkeesian for having the temerity to not like some of this stuff in games. By the same token, however, we shouldn't report on this stuff like it's objectively true - everything she says accepted as fact (especially as she does not represent *all* feminists or *all* women - what she represents is herself. That's all). It's not academic research, it's opinion and we should treat it as opinion (and so should she). There is a middle ground - there's a rational discussion to be had, and Anita Sarkeesian along with everyone else is welcome in that discussion. (other opinions are available)

In my (extremely) personal opinion, the Sarkeesian videos raise an interesting discussion extremely badly. I don't believe the best way to tackle and raise awareness of legitimate criticisms with some videogames is to say effectively, "videogames are often sexist, I'm going to make some videos to prove my point". Sure, you can do that as an opinion piece, but it's not research or of academic merit unless you draw conclusions starting from a non-biased perspective. In other words, she raises some extremely good points but it's muddled in with extremely bad points such that it becomes far too easy for people to dismiss the lot, which then defeats the purpose. Conflating issues in advertising with games was one such example. What publishers and advertisers do when selling a game has *nothing* to do with what developers do developing it. Muddling in criticism of advertising in a video about tropes in games... bad idea. Certainly it's something to explore in a separate video - advertising is a waaaaay bigger culprit for this stuff and you could tear it to pieces in a dedicated video. But mixing it in with discussion of games comes across as not really understanding the medium you're criticising to the point that it feels like a cheap shot. Then there's Hitman which *does* actively penalize the player for acting in the manner she shows. Now if that were the *only* game out of all the ones she shows that you had any experience of, it would lead you to doubt the credibility of the rest. It damages her argument to demonstrate that particular component of the game as proving her point. For example, take Project Zomboid. You could make a video where you were a man, and you were playing multiplayer with a group of players playing as women. If you griefed those players, brutally killed them in PvP and stripped them of their clothes, you could claim that Zomboid encouraged misogyny and it would be an even stronger case than Hitman since Zomboid doesn't penalise you for that - in fact, it encourages it since you'd still be alive and have all the loot they were carrying. But it would horribly mis-represent the game since the game offers primarily freedom, as does any sandbox RPG. That's not to say that I don't think there are any problems with Hitman Absolution, just that her example was a piss-poor example of it. I made the analogy as such: When I was Lead Artist in a commercial development studio, I was responsible for judging CVs to decide who would be interviewed. The single most common "mistake" of art showreels is inability to recognise your best work from your worst. Pop 10 outstanding pieces of work on your showreel, you've got an interview. Pop 10 outstanding pieces of work in amongst 10 crap pieces of work, you probably won't get an interview. The worst work damages perception of your ability to far greater a degree than your best work raises it. TL;DR Videos were a great idea, executed badly. With any luck someone else will pick up the mantle and do it better. (other opinions are available)

I'll be honest, this article kind of pisses me off a little. The only reason there is a perception problem with the word "gamer" is because every single time a psychopath does something horrible, or a few people act in a horrible way, everyone reports "Gamers do X" instead of "Arseholes do X". So while the parts of the article which sticks up for diversity of people who game and diversity of people who develop are good, 99.999999999999% of people who identify as "Gamers" feel the same. If people would only acknowledge this rather than demonise an entire group based on the actions of a fraction of arseholes we'd never have reached this point in the first place. To put it in an analogy just for you, Will, how do you feel about football fans being criticized en masse for the actions of hooligans, and how would you feel if this distinction was never made clear in media? Yes, there are *always* going be those who say, "you're not a gamer if you play x" but then I'd imagine there are those who'd say you're not a real football fan if you never go to live games... or only watch the national games. Big deal. If you call yourself a football fan, you're a football fan. If gaming is important enough to you that you'd identify yourself as a gamer, you're a gamer. This:

Yeah, takes a little getting used to. I needed to have the control panel open to see which button numbers lit up when I pushed things in order to make any sense of it. I'd be surprised if Elite doesn't end up with pretty decent x52 support in the end, though, possibly even with official profiles etc given that the in-game joystick is clearly modelled off the x52 and in all the dev videos you can see x52 pros on everyone's desks. So all in all, I'd say you chose wisely. Maybe it's not ideal *now* but I think you'll reap benefits later.

Not sure that there is a specific profile file yet, but Elite itself has preset settings for the x52. All I did was fiddle with them slightly and change the LED colours with the driver software I got here: http://www.saitek.com/uk/down/drivers.php?HWID=06a30762&DRVER=7.0.27.13&SWVER=7.0.27.13&OSVER=7601&LANGID=0900&TARGET=i386

ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF--- oh wait, we do that for that other game don't we? The one with the shit 2D flash-game graphics with zombies in or something..?

Imajust gonna leave this here for those on the fence about Elite:Dangerous... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODaiPJRyyxA

We don't not give ETAs because we enjoy trolling or enjoy being cruel. We don't give them because it's impossible - with such a small team and complexities which can easily yield unforeseen problems, plus necessary re-jigging of task order, any timescale we gave would literally* be plucking a number out of our arse *metaphorically

Sorry Sly, but if it makes you feel any better tasks get re-jigged all the time. Right now, no, clothing is not being worked on but that doesn't mean that in a week or two that won't change. It depends on a whole lotta stuff

Yep, this sort of stuff is very much on the "hopefully we'll be able to do some of this stuff" list. It all rather depends on a number of factors including (but not limited to) how long it takes us to get the NPC / map expansion / vehicle stuff finished off. Once it is, we'll be able to spend a bit of time tarting up the animations, adding some more anims, and adding more clothing and what not

Mash did a nice summary of the key points, but I will add: Lemmy and I came from the commercial industry. We certainly *could* have made a 3D first-person game had we wanted to. We chose not to. This was *not* to differentiate ourselves from DayZ since at the time DayZ did not exist (either stand-alone or the original mod). It was purely because we considered the project, taken to the point we wanted to, was in itself already a hugely ambitious project and therefore making it 2D would cut a huge chunk of the risk out of the equation (planning an ambitious project is easy - but you have to be damned sure you can deliver it). We would no longer have to worry about whether it would be technically possible to render the required number of zombies - DayZ, with its considerably larger development team and an established game engine under the bonnet, is undergoing engine changes on account of this very problem. As I said in the Rezzed talk, zombie numbers are *essential* if we're going to make a faithful early-Romero / Max Brooks zombie apocalypse game. Everything else is secondary to that. So if we have to make the game 2D to *guarantee* this, then so be it. The fact that Lemmy is a huge fan of the original X-Com, and I love The Sims meant that we didn't personally mind this concession at all.

Just a quick note: It is not possible to "open up" all the male customisation options for the female models and vice versa. The base male character and the base female character are slightly different proportions, so none of the male hair / clothing / etc would exactly fit on the female models... and vice versa. This is why it is not possible to wear skirts as a male character in the game right now - if it were as simple as just "allowing it", then we would have allowed it the second we switched to the 3D models. As it is, all the clothing will have to be duplicated and modified to enable women to wear male clothes etc.

Would deffo love a bigger character preview. The mockups I did back when we first did that screen had a double-sized character but there were technical restrictions at the time - now we have the 3D models in realtime though, we might be able to find the time *cough* Romain *cough* to integrate them into that screen As for idle poses... I deffo support more idle poses although, if it were up to me, rather than having a bunch of idle poses which you pick between I would spend the time doing context-sensitive idle poses. So an "out of breath" idle, an "injured" idle, etc. Stuff like that.

Me too It's deffo something I'd like to do, once we spare a bit of time to do some more work on the character stuff.

Yes - see the video I posted called "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss

The 'cotton candy planet' argument (very similar to the 'if you go far enough there's a limit to quantum states and you'll eventually find another you' argument) are demonstrably false because they treat all quantum states- and those of their neighbors- as equally probably and having no impact on each other. This is false.It's a fun probability joke, but it's nothing more than a joke- it's one propagated by the internet that I really wish wasn't, because it's misleading and people don't understand; probability has no impact at all on reality. It solely and inaccurately represents our predictions of what might be. The misunderstanding of probability has been something that's bugged me since I was a kid. It's not that all things are equally probable. A cotton candy planet is incredibly improbable. But given an infinite universe in which probability is a factor, many improbable things should exist. I don't really believe that a cotton candy planet is possible. Many faxtirs go into something like planet formation that make it practically impossible. But given that you're dealing with infinities, something practically impossible would in fact still be possible. Mankind itself is practically impossible, the amount of factors leading to self-intelligent creatures is immense. Yet we exist (at least i do, no proof the rest of you are anything but figments of my deranged imagination) These kinds of statements are rather pointless though, aren't they? Could a cotton candy planet exist? Not within the laws of physics which operate in the observable universe. Could a cotton candy planet exist somewhere with entirely different laws of physics? Perhaps that's the only way a planet can form. How improbable is life? Depends on what you're sampling, and how you measure life. What we do know, is that on the only planet we know anything about in any great detail, there is life - and lots of it. Perhaps life isn't that improbable at all. Perhaps there's loads of it out there in the universe. Perhaps the only thing which is improbable is the chances of two life forms living on two different planets in two different solar systems happening to co-exist at a time where there's time and technology enabling the contact or detection of one another. Until we've had a decent in-depth look at a significant proportion of planets in (at least) our own galaxy, it's rather difficult (and pointless) to make any sort of meaningful guesses. That's not to say it's not worth looking for it, though

If you really want to blow your mind, consider this: The universe is smaller than the observable universe. The universe is, therefore, curved back on itself. What we see as distant galaxies are closer galaxies observed at a different time.

Yeah, I'm absolutely not disputing the fact that the farthest we can possibly see with current technology is anything other than a maximum radius - and therefore there is a 'sphere of visibility' centred approximately at me and you right now. Of course, it's a theoretical radius - it would necessitate having telescopes of maximum power pointed in all directions uniformly at all times.

True, but imagine in the future assuming no technological advances: 1) Far objects that we can detect now will be unobservable due to expansion and red-shift in the future 2) Therefore, we know of and can measure empirically the existence of objects which will be utterly hypothetical in the future. Therefore, for there to not be galaxies beyond what we can see now would mean that we happen to exist at a time that everything that exists is visible. This is so staggeringly unlikely considering the vastness of cosmological timescales, the comparative ridiculously tininess of human timescales, and the fact that technology improves over time (what we can see now is not what we could see 100 years ago, or 100 years from now), that it is reasonable to assume the existence of unobservable galaxies.

The edge of the observable universe, and the edge of the universe are two different things. Everything we see is in the past, further in the past the farther we look. So when we look at stars we could be seeing stars which presently do not exist. Given that we are statistically unlikely to be at the exact centre of the universe (if that even could mean anything, and given that it would make the centre of the universe not centred on the centre of our galaxy, but instead on an outer arm), and that the region in which we can detect light contains galaxies, then it is likely that beyond what we can see is more galaxies We can measure the cosmic microwave background radiation, before which the universe was opaque to light - but that doesn't mean that future technology wouldn't permit "seeing" beyond that limit. If you mean, "causally disconnected matter", then what you're talking about being beyond this universe would effectively be, therefore, another universe.