PC version runs fine. My game time on Origin is 5 hours.
EpicSteve's forum posts
There are some stories where it wouldn't be applicable. There are no female characters in most war movies because the bulk of those are true stories or inspire to be close to reality and women aren't in the jobs that are subjected into those extreme situations.
Certain stories like Easy A or other "chick flicks" obviously have a larger female cast because the story is applicable to women.
A general story isn't bound by the gender ratios. For diversity sake there should be an even mix for the sake of not being boring, romance stories, and personality characteristics.
Games are kind of special in this case. The demographic is LARGELY male. So it's easy to make a mostly male cast for the sake of the audience. This kind of sucks and it will change as we move forward and talk about it more.
But I can't think of any instance when a story's quality was hindered by have a majority cast of a particular gender.
I mean, the majority of the demographic is male. Women tend to be more likable and friendly. Even to other women in a lot of cases. It's why most servers at restaurants are women and the men are hidden away in the back making the food. I feel like "exploited" tends to suggest the woman is getting a negative outcome to the job. Without knowing their side of the story, I assume they dig being on camera and don't mind that the majority of people like looking at a pretty face instead of some overweight dude.
Non of those women are (for lack of better term) "outrageously sexy". They're all normal looking pretty women. It isn't like Polygon is spending tons of time getting their girl caked in make up and showing off cleavage. Plus, most of us can admit this is a largely male dominated industry. So there's nothing wrong with putting females in the spotlight if your intention is to de-Sausage Party this industry a bit.
But all the Chobot and Olivia Munn bullshit back in the day was embarrassing.
@mb: Totally agree. That's why I'm going through a SWAT-taught course. But there is a shockingly lack of courses where I'm at. Most available classes at what I would consider a reasonable price, are presented as introduction to weapons. Which that is also what I want to do. Getting licensed to teach CCW classes is meant to be a stepping stone and get a handle on the civilian side of the gun world. I also hope to meet people and possibly get hired at an existing school. That's the realistic end-goal.
Gun debate short: I have a very Bill Maher approach to gun control. They should be available, but only to those formally trained, with a clean record, and potentially have to be re-certified with safety and skill.
I think most people that own guns and legally carry them are too stupid and unskilled to do so. You won't believe how many gun owners don't know guns need lube, or that rifles need to be zeroed. With that, I've become inspired to teach civilians shooting skills. I am in the middle of becoming certified to teach and allow county police to issue gun carry permits in the state of Ohio. In addition to going through a SWAT combat course.
I don't want average Joe being able to carry around this crap, but if they're going to do so I want them to know how to do it safely and be skilled with the weapon enough so if they are going to shoot someone in the mall they don't take half the mall with their target.
With my military background and combat experience, I want to sell advance shooting courses. Such as stress shooting, maneuvering through a house, long distance shooting, and advance weapon care.
I don't completely support the "FUCK YEAH, GUNS!". I'll probably be the only Liberal with a shooting course. But too many people with guns are dangerous with them and even cops don't have what I consider basic skills. So I want to teach people about not killing themselves or innocents. Also, some people think shooting is fun. So I want to provide a safe platform.
I'm in the middle of developing class plans. If you're into this kind of stuff, what "gun stuff" would you be interested in learning or think people would be into?
As someone who grew up in a Mormon household I found this play absolutely hilarious. It's certainly not the first time the South Park guys have made fun of Mormonism (the South Park episode about Mormons is by far my favorite one, even though when I saw it I still went to church and all that), but they always portray Mormons as nice and gentle people (which is true) who are a little overzealous. I went to church for 13 years and still don't understand the "Kolob" jokes (never once mentioned in primary school, we were taught that when you died you were placed in one of three heavenly "planes" based on your deeds on Earth) but mostly it was pretty funny and sadly accurate. Though I am an atheist now I still credit my Mormon upbringing for a lot of my morals. I would never suggest that my family watches this (as they are much more sensitive than I ever was about my faith), but there's certainly some lessons to learn.
I specifically read a bunch of reviews by alleged Mormons and they all basically said what you said. Like I said, it's a "friendly hazing". It's poking fun without ever being mean spirited. Stone and Parker also said in an interview they can tell who the Mormons in the audience are because there are specific jokes that only the religious followers will likely get.
He has no research presented to suggest the people buying those games on sale would've still ever bought them. Yes, some gamers just waste there money. If a developer cares about that, work for free. However, even is 99% of those sale buyers never download the game, that's still an incredible amount of people playing the game and even more people being happy that you charged a fair price and that might come back for your later titles.