Man has vision of what interactive entertainment could be.

Man is excited.

Man shares vision with future potential audience.

Audience lauds man as visionary.

Man works hard to realize vision, but falls short.

Man delivers somewhat less revolutionary project.

Man is shit on by aforementioned audience for the rest of his life, called a liar, and vilified at every mention of his name.

The moral of the story, Lisa, is to never try - Homer Simpson

@Fenlig I don't personally agree with your evaluation of the games (I liked 2 and 3 a great deal) but your analogy is tres amusant

@SSL_Syn Stick around. they'll get WAY more sad

@Poodlejumper @nikolakrstic987 If "filthy" casuals are the majority of the consumers of a product, then they're pretty much the reason that product exists.

@IanNottinghamX You do realize that this is a business, right? And that you need people who have experience RUNNING a business to be succesful, right? No matter what the end result/product is, right?

@grbolivar @Sefrix Gearbox and Randy Pitchford give out Shift codes for golden keys CONSTANTLY on their twitter accounts, btw.

@Psycold What does being "perfectly capable" have to do with anything? Because one entity chooses to give you something for free, you expect it from all of them?

If some guy at your work decides to come in and work for free, and your boss tells you "Well, Billy works for free, so obviously it's possible and anyone can do it!", are you gonna decide "Oh, hey, if BILLY does it that way, maybe EVERYONE should!!!"

No, you're not, because that's stupid.

@suplax There are more male chefs with Michelin stars and James Beard awards than female. Not sure where this whole "women should cook" idiocy comes from

@Hurvl @Overeduk8ed There's a difference between "not doing anything to address it" and "making such a big deal that one undermines the process". In fact, simply by saying that we need "to get more of a balance" implies that balance isn't a natural state- that if we don't actively work at making things balance, then things won't balance. The same issues arose during the equal rights movements in the 60s and 70s. It's a well-meaning idea, but the underlying sociological premise is still rooted in the ideals that caused the inequality to begin with. This is how these things happen- a society takes on as true a false idea (group X is not up to par) and it grows from there. Now, we all say "That's false! Group X is up to par, maybe even better!" but then we say "We need to HELP group X!". Again, noble idea, but what we really need to do is separate ourselves from the false premise. We need to recognize that what we need is not to "help" that group, but to get the F out of the way. There's a sociologist named DiTamaso (might have spelled it wrong) who recently published a book on it in terms of racial inequities; same concept applies.

And I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, by the way, just trying to share something I recently learned myself.

Making a big deal about her gender actually enforces the whole gender divide.