Jump to content

Sufran

Members
  • Posts

    99
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good

1 Follower

Personal Information

  • Location
    Wigan/Cambridge
  • Interests
    Reading law, philosophical works, political texts, scientific journals, etc.
  • Occupation
    Law Student
  1. A true pity that sheer probability deprived you of the Consular storyline, it has truly amusing aspects if you can remain awake for long enough. You don’t even need to play that far for the first: As to the Inquisitor storyline, I couldn’t breathe at end of the first act or upon reaching any major 'revelation.' I was laughing too much. I’m presuming the inspired writer that placed the odd locker-dweller on Manaan in KoTOR had input for the Inquisitor storyline.
  2. My personal generic explanation is to state that it feels like a hospital rather than a home at the moment; it’s too clinical, hollow, and transactional to be fun. Personally, I won’t pay for something I deem incomplete. I still think there’s a great deal of potential and the reason I keep frequenting the forum is because I’m longing for something to restore my faith in the foresight of those responsible for the future of the game. I will keep checking fastidiously in the hope I can return in the future but, as a consumer, I will not pay for a flawed product. I appreciate that some people are willing to defer out of loyalty but I think the best thing I can do to provide incentive for change is to remove my support. It may be very little, but it's the best available.
  3. For me, the most boring planet is Alderaan. Personally, I find it repetitive, bland, and think the attempt at 'politics' is incredibly simplistic or predictable in nature. I'm glad it gets destroyed. I have no idea why the Empire thought its destruction would have a significant impact, people were probably happy. As for most fun, I enjoyed Belsavis a great deal due to its aesthetics, the mutual amorality revealed in quests, and the Rakata emphasis.
  4. I’ve seen this topic previously and find it somewhat curious that people are treating this as if they’re capable of far greater productivity without 'restriction.' Do you any empirical evidence to suggest that these creations work consistently rather than in rare, carefully contrived circumstances for the purposes of demonstration? That they’ve been subjected to appropriate analysis so that all ramifications for gameplay have been accounted for (e.g. balancing)? Some of them might be rather minor modifications but I don’t see this as ‘wow, look what they can do in a week’ but rather regard it as an insight into their imagination, which is still impressive. Furthermore, we have no idea how already existing tools or infrastructure made this easier and whether or not the creations were derived from ideas explored, professionally or privately, prior to being granted this opportunity. Ultimately, I accept that publishers could be a restrictive influence, or a supportive one, but do not see how this is linked to it.
  5. I felt a similar sense of confusion for a while upon encountering this particular choice. However, I believe the justification is rooted in the potential consequences of your actions. If you liberate the machine then you allow a super-powerful entity with unknown true intent to do as it wishes. Accordingly, you’ve demonstrated either a lack of care for the impact your actions have on the future or understand that you’re risking/actively wish to generate chaos. Equally, the Rakata researchers haven’t succeeded in many thousands of years thus their capacity to use the machine for overarching ‘evil’ imperialistic purposes is minimal or non-existent. As a result, if you retain the constraints on the machine, there’s very little risk of a negative outcome for the planet and galaxy. Conversely, the machine claims to have maternal instincts but may act in an incredibly callous manner due to its ultimate roots in cold logic (by virtue of being a computer), may create more life-forms that are a threat, or may be very aggressive in order to protect its ‘children,’ therefore there’s a far greater risk of a negative outcome for the planet or galaxy. Naturally, this is a complete guess but it’s the only reasoning that seems to explain it for me. There may be other reasons that I simply missed. After all, I think ‘she’ generated a population of the rather militant creatures you encounter across Belsavis so imagine if she created something equally, or more, aggressive once restraints on her abilities are removed.
  6. In my view, levels of subjectivity vary and this argument is highly reliant on subjectivity. Of course, you could use metaphysical whimsy, solipsistic silliness, and extreme Cartesian doubt in order to suggest that even the material is unknowable, thus subjective too, but who actually does that? However, whether subjectivity is inherent to any argument is quite different to determining whether or not such variability should be sufficient reason to impose on others or whether we should omit subjective preferences entirely via an absolutist principle. Firstly, mocking ad hominem attacks are frivolous, I would ask that you refrain. Secondly, whilst there is overlap, libertarianism and egalitarianism are complete contrasts in many areas. Consequently, don’t presume that I think you ‘aren’t allowed to have opinions.’ In fact, the libertarian attitude is that the right to speak is always worth preserving, even if you fundamentally disagree. In fact, I think majoritarian attitudes actually undermine the point you’re trying to make here as it is when libertarian attitudes to individual sovereignty aren’t applied that you cease to have an inviolable right to an opinion. If you allow an ochlocracy to rise and use mob strength to justify the exclusion or acceptance of preferences then nobody is inherently ‘allowed to have opinions,’ the mob can simply rule otherwise. I regard this as pedantry; your ultimate motivation remains the same but simply has an additional step added to the causal sequence. You dislike something due to personal preference and wish to avoid that ‘result,’ that remains true irrespective of how you phrase it. I apologise for failing to elaborate further, my usage of ‘insecurity’ was due to the fact that games notoriously defer to objectification for females via choices such as dedicating a curious amount of resources to the physics of breasts, the size of/focus on secondary sexual characteristics, proportions of revealing outfits, etc. It has been shown in previous journal articles (several years old, I can't recall the article or citations) that such excessive emphasis on gender disparity and sexualisation is to avoid conflicting with the 'macho' basis to identity. Consequently, if somebody is made uncomfortable when games become more representative and reflective of society, actual or idealised, then I can only conclude that they have some kind of identity insecurity. Naturally, that’s speculative but it was one word in an entire argument, you’re being excessively pedantic. Perhaps I should have said ‘male entitlement’ or 'patriarchal remnants.' Equally, I don’t mean to suggest that such ‘insecurity’ is the only motivation for opposition or that such insecurity is the sole problem. I meant that it is conceivable that my opinion has been influenced by confirmation bias i.e. my observations are influenced by expectations. This is true of anyone outside of a scientifically rigorous environment. I would direct you to the comment about those not experiencing such disparities or those that haven’t successfully empathised with such experiences being inherently unable to see any ‘problem.’ For those in a position untouched by the relevant issue, it will always seem like it’s ‘not a big deal.’ If you compare it to starvation in Africa or the depletion of the Earth’s resources, then it isn’t ‘big’ in objective terms but that doesn’t make it any more acceptable or unworthy of attention. I did not suggest that the entirety of the MMO population was predisposed to that, or even the majority. I merely meant to convey the notion that it is irritating when the perspective mentioned in the post you quoted is accommodated to such an excessive extent. Naturally, that’s a matter of personal perception but there are many articles and studies into this area, you only need to look at sexist platitudes that still exist (there are no women on the internet, Guy-In-Real-Life, and the gaming studies that show how uncomfortable women are made to feel when their gender becomes known) in order to get a glimpse. As for expecting more, you’re the one using ad hominem argumentation. I regard this as a startlingly inaccurate observation since everything is political in nature, and this most certainly is by virtue of being a product entered into the public sphere for members of the public to engage with. You cannot simply compartmentalise things in such a manner, there isn’t a single area of your life that isn’t affected by politics. Consequently, I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the same concepts as seen in political philosophy or public policy debates. I did use ‘hoping’ and emotive notions such as being unable to ‘wait’ for a reason, it was speculative and I made no comment on the probability of such a product arising. I simply know that I’ll try to influence them towards that in whatever small way I can. Firstly, I fail to see whatever distinction you’re making between ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ because anything you say, by virtue of you saying it, is an opinion. Consequently, if somebody uses majoritarianism as a basis for their argument, I will attack that. I do not ‘assume’ anything beyond that they have asserted it. Equally, it would hardly be consistent if I thought that people can only speak out if the majority is on their ‘side’ as the right to express is wholly independent of that for me, it's another matter entirely if people then attempt to use majoritarianism as justification for that opinion. Further, I’m afraid I regard this as a poor attempt to veil the fact that you are simply trying to foist your preferences on to the choices of others. There is no principle to ‘stand up’ for and defend. I fail to see how I’m ‘abusing’ logic to ‘bolster’ the argument, please feel free to read anything subsequent to, and inclusive of, Hobbes to appreciate the elegance of social libertarianism as means via which we can consistently decide the appropriateness of prohibiting or accommodating choices in a principled manner. Anything less is absurdly arbitrary in nature because it places no boundaries and would inevitably be conducive to conflict. I wonder how many people have said ‘absolutely not’ because they were ‘in total opposition’ to the possibility of social choices that we now regard as perfectly permissible due their concordance with individual autonomy and inviolability. As you so rightly identified, if it isn’t ‘based solely on objectivity’ in the sense of procedural fairness then anybody can try to impose on any other for whatever reason they wish. It isn’t ‘courage’ to happily engage in that whenever it benefits you. I’m afraid this may be my cynicism, but I view this as a transparent attempt to falsely change the parameters of the debate in order to nullify your opposition. I also think it is utterly incomprehensible to try to distinguish ‘reasoning’ from opinion, what on Earth are opinions based upon then? Gut instinct? Even if emotive in nature, there is underlying reasoning causing that emotional reaction. For instance, a person may vehemently oppose changes to the status quo due to the inherent risk associated with change. If a person then enters their opinion into a public sphere, others are perfectly able to dissect it and attempt to question the reasoning in whatever manner they wish. If people have opinions based on incomplete reasoning then that’s their will, but I won’t respect it. It is you that has misunderstood the purpose of this topic, the opening post contains the following:” Why can't I dress up my male companion - and myself for that matter - in fun and sexy gear?” Furthermore, the post details the disparity in [Flirt] options. This clearly pertains to the subject of ‘equal and fair’ opportunity for sexualisation. As far as I have seen, no contributor has acknowledged that this would be fair, thus should be included, but they are opposed. If they were to claim it would be fair but oppose it anyway then that is complete hypocrisy. Personally, I won't enjoy seeing either sex wearing revealing outfits but I'm not one to impose my views on others simply because I don't like it (provided that it doesn't directly violate my sphere of influence, and this doesn't). I will not take my ‘incomprehensible babble’ elsewhere, I have the capacity to participate here and will. If you wish to rely on ad hominem argumentation and dislike reading it then don’t bother engaging with it. As a libertarian, I respect your right to choose that path whereas a majoritarian wouldn’t, how ironic. The very fact you’re trying to encourage me to leave and even guess what ‘most’ people want reveals a great, great deal. I don’t care if this is incomprehensible to you; it is entered in case others wish to take the time to read it. I don’t care how probable or improbable that is. As consumers, they are more than able to utilise the Suggestion area for this purpose. I’m using this medium to argue that removal of disparities via the introduction of mirrored options is the appropriate thing to do, you’re arguing the converse. You have no innate authority simply due to the game’s present incarnation. As stated earlier, it is never the masses that change things spontaneously but small, dedicated groups that grow, merge, and persist hence people can, and are, using this area to that end. They may not be ‘entitled’ to accommodation but those that wish to gain accommodation can ceaselessly argue as to why it should be the dominant, applied view in the hope that discourse will achieve their desired end.
  7. You may be, I don’t think that’s the point of the opening post or most of the posts in this topic. In fact, I would suggest that the tone strongly suggests they’re focused on remedying the disparity in available clothing options and [Flirt] choices rather than on lambasting Bioware for allowing sexualisation at all. Is this really what you want to see in a game, male entertainment slaves? not probable, Why should my preferences matter? See above as to why I deem that a useless path of reasoning. It’s very clear that every preference is subjective thus, provided that there is no direct violation of my sovereignty and I’m not forced to wear such outfits, why should I have any say over it whatsoever? It is supreme arrogance to expect to interfere in the enjoyment and choices of others because you don’t like it. Having said that, if you’re willing to let others that don’t like the height, sex, hair colour, outfit colour, eye colour, etc impose their will by demanding that such options be omitted in future content or removed from the present then I’ll retract that criticism. However, I sincerely doubt that you genuinely have such a position as I'm yet to meet a person that uses the 'I don't want to look it' argument that applies the same standard to their own preferences. Firstly, I still don’t regard this as relevant since absence cannot be equated with prohibition. Equally, the social function of men and women is utterly irrelevant to their choices of personal attire. Further, what evidence have you based this on when there are cybernetics, droids, adrenals, stims, genetic engineering, and innumerable other technological measures to reduce disparities? In an entire galaxy that we’ve only ever seen a fraction of in any form of canon material, I fail to see how you can categorically make a statement of probability. In my mind, the sheer scope of the Star Wars universe allows for considerable adaptation if the story-writers desire due to the plethora of cultures they can create or reference. Conversely, that option is ruled out if they included the disparity as an intentional dramatic device akin to slavery or torture rather than by virtue of their imaginations being limited by socialised values of the time/relevant social group. If they did, then I’ll have no problem and accept that as I have accepted the slavery, torture, and xenophobia as plot devices. Finally, I’ve just noticed you’ve edited your post considerably since I began typing and I have no idea what your diatribe means anymore. I can only conclude that you’ve been a successful troll as I make no statement on the capacity of men and women to choose sexualisation or the ‘scandalised’ nature of the bikini. I wouldn’t care less how sexualised both sexes are provided that they have equal capacity for it so I have no idea where you’re deriving this vaunted ‘double standard.’ If people choose to sexualise their female characters more than males when the option arises then that is a problem derived from real-life social values, thus any debate has to take place there.
  8. In my view, the majority of your post is completely irrelevant and illogical as it relies on a straw-man. Specifically, stating ‘you could see more nudity elsewhere' has absolutely nothing to do with the issue in question as people seem to be focusing upon the lack of equal potential for such things. If your analogy is used, you’d see equally nude men at the beach too . The opening post doesn’t focus on saying “oh my, a lack of clothes proves sexism,” it deals with equal capacity to access such outfits and how the disparity shows it. It isn't even as if the players can choose outfits and self-generate such disparities, there's simply no alternative (wearing nothing isn't an alternative, you can't place modifications into nothing). Beyond that, you seem to commit the typical fallacy of suggesting that ‘mature’ people reconcile themselves with society irrespective of its composition and rely on the notion that X is worse thus Y is suddenly acceptable. As for your reference to the Romans, that’s utterly irrelevant to the Star Wars universe as the mere existence of slavery doesn’t mean that they’ll be utilised in the same manner due to technological and social differences. The one argument that has merit is the fact that the outfit possibilities are appropriate to the films, but I think that’s undermined by pointing out that absence does not preclude introduction in the future. Equally, I still don’t think that sexism was included intentionally for dramatic effect by whoever was, and is, responsible for story composition. I think it was latent in nature and entered the story via the implicit social values of the story-creators, whether male or female. Of course, that remains speculative. In conclusion, did you even read the topic prior to posting?
  9. It amuses me that so many individuals are willing to rely on subjective arguments of personal preference in order to justify the limitations of choices for others. I can only presume they think they’re entitled to do such via majoritarian thinking rather than libertarian, thus I’m very happy to know that I can interfere in the game and life choices of others if I get sufficient numbers of people to support me. It won’t matter if the feature is a ‘choice’ that I can bypass; not wanting to see it is apparently sufficient reason. As for SW:TOR being sexist, I regard Star Wars as a whole as sexist thus it makes sense for TOR to emulate that to some degree but I also think the entire gaming domain is saturated with immature male insecurity. It is entirely possible that this is simply derived from confirmation bias but the slavery, torture, etc seems far more overt in nature than the sexism. It’s as if sexism, both now and in the original films, was latent and unconscious in nature due to the social values of the time rather than an intentionally selected story-element. Of course, that’s speculative. Whilst extreme sexual dimorphism renders males and females absurd, the sexualisation of women is almost always far greater by virtue of lower quantities of body-covering outfits in relation to men. It would appear that so many people are either incapable of seeing it or choose not to for egotistical reasons. Personally, I can’t wait for a major MMO that embraces all choices and truly attempts to take advantage of the increasing market share attributable to women and minority groups. It is entirely speculative but I expect that a game that manages to truly purge rigid social roles and the drooling, fawning, belittling ‘herr herr, Guy-In-Real-Life’ attitude will be highly successful via its decreased reliance on immature males. It’s very easy to blame the game or players in isolation from each other but there’s feedback and many variables, such as the composition of the development team and the respective beliefs of its members, thus I blame both for not being willing to take some responsibility or to risk something new. Ultimately, I have no problem with sexualisation but only if each sex has equal opportunity for that. One might argue that it is a fantasy world thus it doesn’t need to be ‘equalised’ but there’s a reason that rampant racism, homophobia, etc aren’t prevalent in gaming whilst objectification of women is; the composition is derived from the perceived social values of the audience and its creators. In reality, it is always small groups that change the masses or spark dormant feelings rather than the ‘majority’ imposing their will as the majority are ‘cattle’ and ‘moral slaves,’ as Nietzsche put it. Any change is inevitably viral in nature. Consequently, I’m hoping change in this domain can be sparked by developers willing to try that path. For me, any game that crafts a fantasy social structure with complete silent equality will get my custom over something akin to this. Majoritarianism is irrelevant when the majority get swept up in change and are persuaded so easily. If ochlocracy were a reality in every nation then nothing would change as the static majority would always prevent it. Fortunately, that isn’t the case as per the above. I would argue that the de facto oligarchies render the majority a minor factor, but that's another discussion. I would hardly place much stock in the whims of the mobile vulgus as justification for anything because the very values they supposedly threaten to impose via force (how anyone can claim to speak on their behalf without rigorous evidence, I'll never know) are shifting constantly due to new inputs. I'll always regard the idea that the 'majority wants it' as an easily rectified argumentum ad populum that can be overturned with logic due to the inherent desire to avoid cognitive dissonance.
  10. Sufran

    Guard.....

    As far as I’m aware, the interrupt prevents the specific heal rather there being ‘schools.’ Personally, I’d suggest being cautious about the healing abilities that you interrupt. For instance, as a Corruption Sorceress it is amazing to see how many opponents pointlessly interrupt Revivification. It would appear that they’ll interrupt any generic healer ability thus the relatively long cast gives them sufficient time to react and mash their key-bind instinctively. After that, I’m free to use Innervate, Resurgence, and a talented Dark Infusion. Equally, I regard assaulting a healer with Guard applied as akin to assaulting DPS whilst they have a personal healer. Furthermore, I fail to see how a good DPS player with Guard is much less of an issue due to the increased capacity to inflict harm prior to dying. It increases their probability of victory, and they can simply recover subsequent to any such victories. Ultimately, it is important to remember that the damage is simply redirected rather than neutralised, thus judicious use of interrupts and CC on the healer should allow you to re-impose any pressure that was alleviated via Guard. Naturally, this is difficult to achieve in practice but I have no desire to see Tanks lose one of their significant roles, especially when I believe many of their medals are reliant on it (I'm assuming 'Protection' is related to this, apologies if it isn't). More often than not, I don’t even have Guard yet still find PvP entertaining.
  11. I can appreciate that this would be irritating if it were unavoidable but receiving the ball can be avoided by virtue of the blue circle that appears to indicate its destination. If you are remaining near the spawn location then it is entirely feasible that you will try to use your elevated, unreachable position as an advantage to kill the enemy. Flowing from that, there has to be a counter to pulling people into an instant-death spawn location or attacking from an unreachable position beyond hoping that grapple/pull users are present. Equally, if you aren’t playing the game ‘properly,’ irrespective of how doomed you may be then, in my view, you should simply leave or accept the deaths for your collective failure. Consequently, I regard the capacity to instantly kill the opposition team as perfectly acceptable since it remedies the environmental imbalance and punishes people for ‘hiding.' Naturally, the most important purpose is to prevent the ball from being inaccessible to the opposition by being able to hide it in your spawn location. Conversely, waiting to pull enemy ball carriers into your spawn location when they are playing the game ‘properly’ via attempting to achieve the objective is something I think is unacceptable since it doesn't remedy any inherent environmental imbalance that can’t be dealt with in another manner.
  12. Personally, I’m of the opinion that games should restrict protracted crowd-control to PvE as NPCs aren't paying customers that are subjected to roots, interrupts, stuns, knockbacks, mesmerisation, etc. I much prefer mechanics that are based on players reacting to the actions of other players in a defensive capacity rather than preventing other players acting at all. For instance, active teleports, portals, reflects, deflects, neutralising shields, greater focus on speed abilities, etc. It may achieve the same end but I think the perception of being able to 'act' is far less likely to generate frustration. Of course, it could simply be me that finds it irritating. Equally, I loathe the Resolve system since false-casting can only do so to mitigate interrupts and Resolve isn’t universally applicable. Having said that, I’m sure that such a desire must be impractical and incompatible with any realistic incarnation of game mechanics or else I’m sure they would have done it. Alternatively, statistics simply show that this opinion isn't shared thus isn't worth catering for. Ah well.
  13. Whilst I'm enjoying the game considerably and understand that more content will be added in the future, I must admit that I dislike the abrupt end to the class quest. I had hoped for post-50 class content as I loathe MMOs that provide personalised 'story'... but only during the levelling experience.
  14. I’m against enforcing absurd sexual dimorphism in any medium, I think it’s pointlessly unrepresentative and see no ‘entertainment’ value in creating impractical ideals. If people think that’s how things ‘should’ be then I merely see a problem with socialisation. Specifically, I fail to appreciate why successful escapism requires such an extreme aversion to so many aspects of reality; the player is rooted in reality so it inevitably has to be acknowledged. In games where there’s the possibility, I create something akin to Lalafell or Taru-Taru since sexualisation of such a child-like race is, obviously, avoided thus dimorphism seems lessened. I’d love to have character creation that allows women to be masculinised, men to be feminine, either to be androgynous, or any other combination conceivable. After all, so many people make a point about ‘enjoying the game’ so why shouldn’t people paying for it be capable of creating whatever form they feel comfortable with, whether grossly obese or exceedingly gamine. If people are opposed then I hope they're more willing to abide by that principle when others try to enforce preferences on to their sphere of influence. Personally, I think ubiquitous men with triangular chests and women unable to see their feet are 'boring' but I would never support removing that as an option, I just think it's unfair to make such so forcibly prevalent or to restrict choices.
  15. Firstly, I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with you since I think the fundamental interaction between consumer and service provider is identical to almost every other realm in life hence see no logic in trying to distinguish between this and ‘reality’ via the burger reference. You do not pay with fictional finance and the nature of the service is irrelevant, it is still a service for recompense. However, I must also state that I do appreciate the point you’re trying to make about distance and excessive involvement, I just deviate from it. Anyhoo, the reason I’m posting is because the analogy you’ve provided is somewhat unrepresentative of the reality. If you had specifically paid a shop for their services and staying open was included in that contract, then how would you feel if they made the illogical choice to close for quite a few hours during the busiest trading days for something that could be performed during the hours with lowest visitor volume? After all, you’ve paid them to stay open and it’s when you, and others, are most likely to utilise the services. If they provided you with justification, such as the ill-health of a staff member (i.e. emergency fix in this case) in advance then that’s a different matter but simply plonking it at such an inappropriate time with a generic announcement would, at least in my case, be a tad irritating therefore would warrant a complaint. Equally, that doesn't necessarily mean you state how much they 'hate you,' you're simply questioning the oddness of their choice given you paid them to be available and they chose to be unavailable at the worst possible time despite potential alternatives. Naturally, if they do have legitimate reasons akin to an ill staff member then failing to inform you indicates poor communication so warrants its own complaint.
×
×
  • Create New...