Nivash

@chavtheworld: They did, if somewhat reluctantly.

I also can't help but chuckle each time I read about the sanctions. They aim to hit the North Korean leadership where it hurts: in their luxury yachts and sport cars.

@jdh5153: Like I said: two different things. Both military campaigns were successful beyond even the most optimistic expectations. The failures were the occupations, which were of dubious usefulness anyway. In both cases the US could have been satisfied by neutralizing the Taliban and deposing Hussein, but they weren't, and instead attempted futile and poorly managed "nation building".

There is absolutely no need for this in Korea. If war breaks out, the US and other NATO combatants would have no need to stick around for years in the former North Korea. South Korea would handle that and, like I said, would be in a much better position to do so because, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, they wouldn't be seen as conquerors from another continent worshiping different gods and speaking a foreign language.

North Koreans and South Koreans are the same people. They were part of the same nation less then 70 years ago - there are still people remembering growing up in a unified Korea. The unification would be much more Germany than Iraq.

@jdh5153: In both of those cases they were wiped from the map in a matter of weeks. That the US decided to essentially occupy the countries for god-knows-why - best guess is neocon fantasies of creating permanent allies in restructuring the entire region - is another matter entirely.

This is not the case with North Korea. If war breaks out, South Korea will be in a much better position to create lasting peace since they are actually part of the same people as the North Koreans.

6 months is actually a pessimistic assessment of how long the war could last. It is well known that North Korea doesn't even have enough fuel to fight for 30 days. After that, any maneuvers would have to be done on foot - and this isn't the 19th century any more.

North Korea is in no position to "launch" any nukes. The few they possible have are too large to fit on missiles. So possibly dropped over South Korea, but hardly "launched".

I also seriously doubt they're going to make good on the threats. They have nothing to gain and literally everything to lose. What this most likely is about is the new Kim needing to assert himself and gain the respect of the North Korean top brass - he's been having trouble in this area because of his youth. Ratcheting up the rhetoric is his way of showing off as a dependable leader rather than a controllable child.

As for China getting involved... I don't think they are willing to take that risk. China likes their current relationship with the US and that would obviously disintegrate if they go to war with them, which they would have to in order to support North Korea. Not to mention the risks of such a military enterprise.

And by the way, the US (more correctly the UN) didn't "lose" the Korean War. It was fought to a standstill. The UN strategic objective of preserving South Korea was achieved.

@legion_: Actually, I think that's mostly because it's worded badly (sorry OP). I actually answered "No" by accident because of the thread title - the thread title makes it sound like the question is if you can ever use "female" in any context. Hence the number of oneliner posts pointing out that it depends on context.

Lazy by me? Sure. But that's kind of the way people answer polls.

It's not just weird, it's actually wrong. "Female" is typically never used as a noun when referring to humans, only as an adjective. The correct word in your first example is obviously "woman" and in the second "girl". The correct use of "female" is contexts like "female gamer" or similar. And yes, I've noticed this too.

While on the topic: I've seen a lot of people on this very forum being incapable of using "woman" and "women" correctly. Learn the difference people;the first is singular, the second plural.

Strangely, I almost never encounter similar problems when using "male" or "man/men". It's an oddly selective error.

@tennmuerti: There are also more than a few hints that BF4 will likely feature a Chinese faction. If that is true then introducing female characters would be even more work than in BF3.

As long as there are games out there that I enjoy playing I really don't give a damn what direction or pace the medium develops in. And there are. The industry can sort itself out just fine without me constantly fretting about the future. And what kind of utopian "future of game design" were you honestly expecting? We've kind of reached a point of diminishing returns in our current paradigm: ever since the very invention of video games one of the overarching goals has been to strive towards creating photorealistic worlds and we are pretty much there now. There are incremental improvements to be made graphically, in design, in control fidelity and in such things as digital actors, world size as well as believability and vibrancy of said worlds. Bioshock Infinite, and yes, likely BF4, represent our latest advances in these areas. The new console generation is likely to push that even further.

What you are obviously longing for is some kind of revolution, apparently based on the seemingly explosive development during the 90s. And I agree - the difference between your average game in 1993 and 2003 were worlds apart compared to the difference between 2003 and 2013. But you have to keep in mind that that explosion was not at all unexpected - we were always aiming to create amazing 3D worlds because of the simple fact that we happen to live in an amazing 3D world. So that development was hardware-based, not creativity-based. Once we reached the point of diminishing returns in that department it understandably slowed down, and here we are today.

In order to revolutionize videogames from here on forward we either need revolutionize how we use that 3D space or create paradigm-braking hardware that interacts with that space in a new and revolutionizing way. As for the first one, I have no idea what that could be. God knows there are plenty of skilled designers trying to find that elusive golden ticket every day - if it is doable, some day some genius will. And we will never have seen it coming. As for hardware there are certainly attempts there as well - the Wii and the Kinect where both honest attempts at this but, as we know now, it didn't have staying power because the control fidelity wasn't enough. Attempts at introducing "real 3D" the way movies do are still niche because it doesn't really add much to the experience. Devices like the Oculus Rift represent our latest crack at Virtual Reality but as you may notice it's still the same type of games because in the end, at least until we can hook games directly up to our brain stems, VR is nothing more than a 360 degree field of view and surround sound.

So to summarize, the reason development seems so slow now is because the "next step" in gaming is the hardest the industry has ever tried to do - easily equivalent to the very invention of video games themselves or the first introduction of the NES after the video game crash. It requires us to re-imagine what video games are, and very few people are capable of both doing that and acting on it.

I will be as happy as a child on Christmas morning the day that happens. But until that time I will continue to play the games I like and appreciate how they are made better by the development that we after all still have. Like you say, life's too short fixating on what could have been. Life is definitely too short to fixate on where we expected a goddamn industry to be ten years ago.

EDIT: Oh right, what the guys above me said about Indie games - if you want creative innovation in how we use the 3D or 2D space, look at them. These are the kind of people who will be at the forefront whenever we reach the next paradigm.

@soldierg654342: Gustavsson's answer just screams of him being completely blindsided by the question and reverting to some kind of media trained "provide non-answer but be sure to pay respect to the military" behavior if you ask me. It's perfectly possible DICE's design team simply never considered a female protagonist an option (like in the rest of the military shooters) and never thought anyone would question that decision. Really, you could probably have asked him if there would be playable dinosaurs as multiplayer characters, or why the game can't have a campaign with a Russian or Chinese protagonist, and you would have likely gotten a similar answer.

Yeah it sucks, but that's what media training does to you - makes everyone answer unexpected questions like a politician.

@soldierg654342: It (probably) is but the ban was lifted a mere two months ago, and BF4 has probably been in development for two years at least. It might have influenced them to include the female soldier in the trailer but that could very well be no more than a fluke. I think it's safe to say either way that DICE hasn't had enough time since the ban was lifted to seriously reconsider what the future US military they are depicting should look like in regards to the playable characters in multiplayer.