I don't visit the main forums here anymore. I stopped visiting them a long time ago, and then earlier this year I decided to try them again. I quickly stopped again. I do read the reviews here and follow some of the news, but the only boards that interest me are unions. A lot of my favorite unions have died but there are still some good ones around. It's too bad this is happening. 

No. I don't think so. I've been gaming since the NES and going back to those games are a source of nostalgia, but I still prefer newer titles. And whenever I play a new game from the earlier eras I rarely find myself enjoying it. Even though I used to love these kinds of games and would spent as much time as I could in front of a new game back in the early 90's. Gameplay has certainly improved. 

I don't mind gay characters at all. I don't like when they're one-dimensional characters and the fact that their gay is their only personality trait. But the fact that their gay isn't the problem, they're just bad characters. There are plenty of bad heterosexual characters as well.

As others have pointed out, there have been plenty of good gay characters on tv. I don't see the problem. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] It is a person at the moment it becomes a living thing (conception). It is a unique, living entity with unique, human DNA. If it is not a person then what is it? Any other definition is necessarily arbitrary. Before conception it is simply two cells of its parents and therefore not a unique entity; at any point past conception it is its own entity in any of many different stages of development. To say that a fetus is less deserving of its right to live because it is in a less complex stage of development is logically no different than saying it's okay to kill retarded people or babies; both are less developed than a healthy adult.famicommander

At conception it has not yet developed a neural system. It is not capable of thought or action. It is no more alive than a flower. 

A newborn child is capable of thought and action. So is an unborn when you're late enough in development. Do you seriously believe an infant can't think? Can't play and learn? It doesn't dream? Doesn't love? Doesn't show emotion? None of this is present at conception. It's less developed than a flower. And far less developed than the bugs you likely kill when you find them in your home. If you spare those bugs, then you have my respect. However, I highly doubt you consider picking a flower murder. And why is that? 

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] The funny part is that we're actually at the lowest point of teen pregnancies since like the 1950s or something like that.XilePrincess

It still surprises me that there are schools out there that don't do that. I was taught of pregnancy and contraception when I was in grade 5. And this was back in the 90's. 

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] I'm completely non-religious and I am against abortion on the grounds that it constitutes aggression against an innocent. It is non-compatible with the nonaggression principle. Your reasoning that pro-lifers should just not have abortions themselves is exactly the same thing as saying that if you're against theft or murder your only course of action should be to not commit theft and murder. That's obvious, but it doesn't address the problem of OTHER people murdering and stealing. The whole debate is patently dishonest. When you say, "Nobody should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body" you ignore the fact that the woman getting the abortion is herself telling someone else what to do with THEIR body; namely, she's telling the unborn child to die. This is not the same thing as prohibiting someone from taking drugs, which is wrong because it truly does only involve THEIR body. An abortion by definition involves TWO bodies; that one resides inside the other doesn't change the fact that they are distinct.famicommander

But when is it a person?

At conception it has not yet developed a neural system. It is not capable of thought or action. It is no more alive than a flower. 

Doesn't bother me when it's on tv. But it does bother me when women in the real world start acting like the stereotype is true.

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] [QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] Uhm . . . . Wow okay. Great example with the scarecrow by the way. Anyway you're under the impression I'm trying to win an Argument, I'm not. I'm saying there are people, many of them infact, who play games for the story and only for the story with their reasoning being its for the interativity, for the scarecrow segment in AA it makes sense, for the Joker segments it doesn't. I replayed it once, skipping many of the cutscenes and believe me, The Joker was nothing compared to Dr. Crane. I'm not trying to win anything here nor am I oblivious to video game's true potential, I just wana see if you see things the way I do . . . . . If not then I gladly embrace losing whatever it is you think we're arguing about and by on my merry way.Lulu_Lulu

Yes there are many people like that. And I'm trying to explain why that's the case. And you're unable to see why that is the case. 

No I don't.

Uhm . . . . Wow okay. Great example with the scarecrow by the way. Anyway you're under the impression I'm trying to win an Argument, I'm not. I'm saying there are people, many of them infact, who play games for the story and only for the story with their reasoning being its for the interativity, for the scarecrow segment in AA it makes sense, for the Joker segments it doesn't. I replayed it once, skipping many of the cutscenes and believe me, The Joker was nothing compared to Dr. Crane. I'm not trying to win anything here nor am I oblivious to video game's true potential, I just wana see if you see things the way I do . . . . . If not then I gladly embrace losing whatever it is you think we're arguing about and by on my merry way.Lulu_Lulu

Yes there are many people like that. And I'm trying to explain why that's the case. And you're unable to see why that is the case. 

And I stand by what I said. I'm just having a hard time turning it into words because Mr. Train keeps mentioning gameplay where I didn't (or didn't mean to).

and yeah one can treat gameplay and story as seperate entities.

Lulu_Lulu

Well then you'll never understand why someone would play a video game for the story. If you ignore the gameplay and only look at the cutscenes then obviously a movie would be the better option. But if you ignore the gameplay you ignore what makes it a video game. It's like asking "Why would someone watch a movie for the story instead of the book? (Ignore the audio and visuals.)" You position the question so that no one can possibly answer it and act as if you're victorious. The interactive component of the medium can do a lot more to deliver narrative than allowing the player to change the story. If you don't see that then you don't understand a video game's true potential. And no matter how many times we explain it to you, you never will. You think cut scenes are the only way to tell story. Since I'm playing through it right now, I'll point to Batman Arkham Asylum as an example that proves you wrong. The story is definitely not put on hold during gameplay. The Scarecrow segments in particular tell more story through the gameplay than through cutscenes. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You can't discuss story in games without bringing up gameplay. This is at least the case when the developer is trying to take full advantage of the medium. This, perhaps, doesn't happen as often as it should but you seem to refuse to believe it can happen at all. And yet you complain that developers don't take full advantage of the interactive component of games. Some games, such as Arkham Asylum, just don't lend themselves to a branching narrative. But they take advantage of the gameplay to enhance the story. And they do a very good job of it.