[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] If you play the game for the story AND gameplay then what I said just sounds stupid.

I haven't played Spec Ops so I don't know exactly why the story is so special from an interactive perspective. But the way I hear it, the story (as good as it was) was still more observable than interactive. The story does provide context for the gameplay, but as I said before, assuming one plays games for the story and only the story (gameplay aside), why pick a game with a story that can only be experience passively, ofcourse excluding an obvious reason like "there isn't a movie/book equivalent of it" ?

Lulu_Lulu

The reason was given. No matter how many times we explain it you're not going to understand. Your problem is that you separate the gameplay from the story. You act as if when the gameplay starts, the story is put on hold. This is not true. We can't have a discussion about story in games without bringing up the gameplay. If you can't understand that then you don't understand games. And it's this kind of thinking that is holding back the industry. 

Not from what I've experienced. And I'm not just talking about games where my actions affect the story. When I play the game, I'm living the story. Even if the gameplay isn't fun. Killer 7 is another game where the gameplay isn't fun and I have no control over the story. But it's one of my favourite games of all time. I play it for the story and it would not work nearly as well if it was in any other medium. It's an extremely surreal world which is truly enhanced by being able to explore it myself. The gameplay segments serves to enhance the story. If the story was removed I would not enjoy it at all.

Now if you still don't like my answer then I don't know what else I can say. That's the answer to why I play a game for the story and why I would prefer it over another medium. If you're still confused then I can't help you. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

Yes and no. There are legitimate concerns that men should be concerned about. Men have a much harder time getting a job that requires working with children, for example. And once they do get it, they are watched far more closely than a woman. As a pre-service teacher, this is a concern to me. Parents often prefer that their child's teacher be a female than a male. It's true that a male is statistically more likely to sexually abuse someone than a female, but prejudice behaviour such as this is not justified. Blacks are also statistically more likely to commit a crime, but they should not be denied jobs or treated like a criminal once they get in. And neither should a man simply because he is a man. 

That being said, I don't agree with the Men's Rights Movement. I also don't agree with a Women's Rights Movement. I've been saying for years that men and women need to work together to resolve this. We should create a Gender Equality Movement composed of both men and women. All issues based on sex or gender will be addressed. It's the only way things will be taken seriously. 

GummiRaccoon

http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=400

I never noticed that you posted this in response to me until now. It looks like an interesting read. I just want you to know that I do intend to read it but I don't have time tonight. 

[QUOTE="Bucked20"][QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

No it's not. Context is VERY important. A friend and I may throw insults at each other that we don't mean. But there's a big difference between a jest between friends and a legitimate insult.

And most blacks I met don't use this word at all, so I don't see where people get the idea that they throw it around all the time. Do you base this off of movies? 

Chutebox

It depends on who you say it to and who's around. In other words, it depends on the context. If I hear you say it, I'd be offended. With everything, you have to choose your audience. There are certain jokes I will only say around certain people. And I will never joke about certain things in a public forum like this. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

Yes and no. There are legitimate concerns that men should be concerned about. Men have a much harder time getting a job that requires working with children, for example. And once they do get it, they are watched far more closely than a woman. As a pre-service teacher, this is a concern to me. Parents often prefer that their child's teacher be a female than a male. It's true that a male is statistically more likely to sexually abuse someone than a female, but prejudice behaviour such as this is not justified. Blacks are also statistically more likely to commit a crime, but they should not be denied jobs or treated like a criminal once they get in. And neither should a man simply because he is a man. 

That being said, I don't agree with the Men's Rights Movement. I also don't agree with a Women's Rights Movement. I've been saying for years that men and women need to work together to resolve this. We should create a Gender Equality Movement composed of both men and women. All issues based on sex or gender will be addressed. It's the only way things will be taken seriously. 

theone86

Isn't that just a semantic difference?  I don't even think most women's right acitivists identify with a women's rights movement all that much anymore, they identify as feminists.  And really, most of the time when I see men rallying against feminism they're either nitpicking one issue to make the entire movement look bad or they're trying to dismiss feminist issues as "whining."  I think that if more men really bought into feminism there might be a more constructive dialogue.

Not surprised to see that there was a lot of activity in this thread since I left and I'm too lazy to read it all. But to address your concern, yes. It's mostly a semantic difference. As someone else also pointed out to me, feminism was intended to address both and I'm aware of this. This is also why I support feminism. However, the world no longer sees it this way for the most part and I think it's because the name itself is biased. I understand that it was necessary at first in order for it to be taken seriously and to be effective, but in today's society it is counter-productive. For example, at my university we have both a Women's Centre and a Sexual Diversity centre. The Women's Centre is often active in fighting for women's rights and the Sexual Diversity centre is often active in supporting the rights of the LGBT community. But the Sexual Diversity centre makes it clear that it is open to those of all sexual practices, the Women's Centre doesn't. I see heterosexuals visiting the Sexual Diversity Centre (myself included) but I've never seen or heard of men visiting the Women's Centre. And I definitely never saw them out at the tables when they're supporting a cause or raising funds. If we had a Gender Equality Centre instead I believe this would not be the case and it would be far more effective. A name is extremely important. 

Yes and no. There are legitimate concerns that men should be concerned about. Men have a much harder time getting a job that requires working with children, for example. And once they do get it, they are watched far more closely than a woman. As a pre-service teacher, this is a concern to me. Parents often prefer that their child's teacher be a female than a male. It's true that a male is statistically more likely to sexually abuse someone than a female, but prejudice behaviour such as this is not justified. Blacks are also statistically more likely to commit a crime, but they should not be denied jobs or treated like a criminal once they get in. And neither should a man simply because he is a man. 

That being said, I don't agree with the Men's Rights Movement. I also don't agree with a Women's Rights Movement. I've been saying for years that men and women need to work together to resolve this. We should create a Gender Equality Movement composed of both men and women. All issues based on sex or gender will be addressed. It's the only way things will be taken seriously. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="keech"]

On playing a game only for the story:

I've done this quite a few times.  It was the major selling point for me playing the Legacy of Kain games, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, hell it was the ONLY reason I played Spec Ops: The Line.  Which is the one that has the best points for a strong story in a video game.

Spec Ops as a game is nothing but uninspired, run-of-the-mill cover based shooting, with very little to break up the tedium.  The story however, is fantastic.  It was clearly inspired by Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, the short novel the movie Apocalypse Now was based on.

The game really explores the grey uncertainty in war, that the "us versus them" mentality we as Americans tend to have is nice and idyllic, but hardly realistic.  It drives home that war is neither fun nor entertaining.  It also very clearly exposes just how disingenuous and downright disrespectful games like Battlefield and Call of Duty can be to these real world issues of war and terrorism.  Guaranteeing I'll never be able to enjoy another modern military shooter again that treats war like popcorn entertainment.

Now I know most would say "Then why not just read the book or watch the movie if the game isn't very good?", because I would have never made the connection to video games on this issue if the message wasn't through a video game.  Reading a book or watching a movie would have never made me consider the insincerity that's so pervasive in the military shooter genre.  Most people play video games seeing themselves as the main character, when they screw up in Mass Effect they don't say or think "Commander Shepard died", they say "I died".  They are the ones doing these actions, they aren't some passive observer, in their mind they are the ones causing these events to unfold.  So when terrible things happen in a video game that are a direct cause to the actions of the player, it carries far more impact than it would in a movie or book.

Lulu_Lulu

Exactly. This is what point I've been trying to get across. 

I haven't played Spec Ops so I don't know exactly why the story is so special from an interactive perspective. But the way I hear it, the story (as good as it was) was still more observable than interactive. The story does provide context for the gameplay, but as I said before, assuming one plays games for the story and only the story (gameplay aside), why pick a game with a story that can only be experience passively, ofcourse excluding an obvious reason like "there isn't a movie/book equivalent of it" ?

The reason was given. No matter how many times we explain it you're not going to understand. Your problem is that you separate the gameplay from the story. You act as if when the gameplay starts, the story is put on hold. This is not true. We can't have a discussion about story in games without bringing up the gameplay. If you can't understand that then you don't understand games. And it's this kind of thinking that is holding back the industry. 

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]

Oh yea cause when black people say the N word its intended to hurt people mastershake575

No it's not. Context is VERY important. A friend and I may throw insults at each other that we don't mean. But there's a big difference between a jest between friends and a legitimate insult.

And most blacks I met don't use this word at all, so I don't see where people get the idea that they throw it around all the time. Do you base this off of movies? 

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Those masks are so stupid. Might as well tattoo 'loser' on your forehead. Ricardomz

No they're not, people are just overusing them, even when it makes no sense...

This is how I feel too. I'm a big fan of V for Vendetta, both the book and movie. I own the mask. But now if you're seen wearing it people think you're associated with anonymous or something. I used to have a picture of me wearing it as my msn display picture back in the day. Nowadays I can't do that without people interpreting it wrong.

On playing a game only for the story:

I've done this quite a few times.  It was the major selling point for me playing the Legacy of Kain games, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, hell it was the ONLY reason I played Spec Ops: The Line.  Which is the one that has the best points for a strong story in a video game.

Spec Ops as a game is nothing but uninspired, run-of-the-mill cover based shooting, with very little to break up the tedium.  The story however, is fantastic.  It was clearly inspired by Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, the short novel the movie Apocalypse Now was based on.

The game really explores the grey uncertainty in war, that the "us versus them" mentality we as Americans tend to have is nice and idyllic, but hardly realistic.  It drives home that war is neither fun nor entertaining.  It also very clearly exposes just how disingenuous and downright disrespectful games like Battlefield and Call of Duty can be to these real world issues of war and terrorism.  Guaranteeing I'll never be able to enjoy another modern military shooter again that treats war like popcorn entertainment.

Now I know most would say "Then why not just read the book or watch the movie if the game isn't very good?", because I would have never made the connection to video games on this issue if the message wasn't through a video game.  Reading a book or watching a movie would have never made me consider the insincerity that's so pervasive in the military shooter genre.  Most people play video games seeing themselves as the main character, when they screw up in Mass Effect they don't say or think "Commander Shepard died", they say "I died".  They are the ones doing these actions, they aren't some passive observer, in their mind they are the ones causing these events to unfold.  So when terrible things happen in a video game that are a direct cause to the actions of the player, it carries far more impact than it would in a movie or book.

keech

Exactly. This is what point I've been trying to get across. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"] My post was actualy suppose to be read hypothetically, I tried not give any specifics or examples, its quite obvious that stories in FF7 will be unique and different, you know, to prevent redundancy and confusion.Lulu_Lulu

And you completely ignored my second point again. 

And how it enhances the story, yes.