No Profile Found
Apr 3rd 2012 5:09PM First off, chainmail bikini's will always have a place in gaming as long as Gary Gygax's ghost is watching over nerds in their basements.
The inclusion of them in video games is not a dig against woman kind or females in general, but there is no question that it is less practical. We have all but forgotten (on non RP realms that is) that armor like that exists because it is nearly all from Vanilla WoW. Not an excuse, but Blizzard is at least getting better. (Frankly the tier 13 valor plate gear looks FAR better on a female in most cases imho). To not allow armor like that would be to take that away from people who want it, and furthermore sends the message that women are powerless against objectifying clothes (while the option exists to not wear it/ignore it). Don't forget that Wonder Woman kicked so much @#$ in a lot less than I will ever let any kid of mine wear.
As far as Ji's behavior, I find your assumption of cultural values as offensive as his potential sexism. We frankly have no idea how the pandaren view strength and beauty as far as noteworthy values. For all we know, saying that someone is beautiful could be the highest compliment to either gender, and the men are getting shafted.
While I agree that there are more than a few bad apples that basically ruin gaming for women, there are just as many women finding empowerment through chainmail bikinis, clubbing Deathwing to death with their tanking shields. Blizzard cannot possibly be blamed for including a trope in with their other armor sets or having an NPC say that female characters beautiful. I am all for defending equality and making sure that women are given an equal opportunity to safely and annoyance free enjoy their favorite pasttime, but there comes a point where we go beyond rationality into full on berkas and gender neutral pro nouns.
Mar 2nd 2012 9:36AM This is a bit TFH of me here, but I feel it is the appropriate place for it.
We are getting a "neutral" race this expansion, the wow TCG introduced a third faction, infighting is rampant, and a war between light and darkness is coming that will make all mortal suffering trivial (or something....I'm a hordie, you should be happy I even know who Velen the boring is).
Do faction divisions make sense? Absolutely. People will always have different views on how to accomplish things. But do the divisions along the current lines make sense? No.
Why aren't the Tauren and the Night Elves on the same side? Most High Elves are Alliance at this point, and many of the Blood Elf Paladins (and others for that matter) could easily be more in keeping with those ideals. The Humans and Gnomes seems fine, but the Dwarves could easily be usurped by infighting and bad politics and become a hostile faction. The trolls have shown no distaste for working with the Alliance and have even stopped cannibalism (for the most part). The Goblins are all about the Benjamins, so they could go either way. The Forsaken have more in common with the Naga than any of their allies. The Draenei are taking a stance of non-involvement, barring the world ending. Where do you draw 2 groups out of those list of ideals?
Oh, and its the age of mortals, and the aspects are totally mortal now. Balancing factions around the Aspects makes just as much sense as the current Horde v Alliance nonsense.
I'm thinking we are either gonna get another faction or the choice of faction is going to be extended to a whole lot more than Pandas the expansion after MoP.
Feb 24th 2012 10:19AM Stupid commenting system -_-....my bad.
Feb 24th 2012 10:17AM I started to write a long rant and thought I would keep it short and punchy.
This article is about a specific issue that has been discussed for years at this point among a certain group of people.
The target demographic (people who have interest in the future of DotA style games [Called AoS games before that] and how the trademark will affect both the studios and the gaming landscape) already has the SUPER BASIC bit of information that DotA stands for Defense of the Ancients.
In addition, he says it in the article AND IT IS NOT IMPORTANT WHAT IT STANDS FOR. Unless the words BLIZZARD or VALVE are in there, it doesn't fundamentally change the issue at hand.
TL;DR: Play more WC3; know stuff.
Feb 24th 2012 10:12AM Honestly, anyone who has enough knowledge on the subject to be reading this article other than because you know him personally and want to read whatever he writes (hi matt's mom!), should know what it stands for by now.
This issue has been going on for years, and this is just the culmination of the awkward naming debacle. DotA has been around for at least 5 years (not stopping my rant to go look it up), so at this point, he is writing a specialized article for a target audience who should have at least that minimal bit of background knowledge.
TL;DR: Play more WC3, know stuff.
Feb 20th 2012 3:27PM I am going to be the bad guy here, but LFR needing is something I actually approve of. Here's why:
I roll need on a piece of gear that I already have. I get no use out of it, but there are two scenario's moving forward.
A: Someone gets a piece of gear I need and wants to trade
B: Someone gets a piece of gear I need and doesn't want to trade/no one gets gear I need.
In scenario A, 2 players get gear and none of it is vendored. A 100% useful gear distribution.
In scenario B, I will give the gear to someone who legitimately needs it. Again, a 100% useful gear distribution.
However, if half the people are following the accepted rules and half are not, you end up with scenarios where people miss out on gear they could use or vendor un-needed pieces. Mathematically, it is a sound system as long as people are willing to actually talk with one another and treat each other with decency.
I agree completely with your point of human decency being the crucial element, I just think you are looking at implementing it too early in the process. Get the gear into the hands of as many honest, decent people as you can, and everything goes better.
Feb 15th 2012 9:32AM Normally I don't comment, but I had to take a stand for all of the tanks out there.
The best we can offer is a druids flightiness!? I buy warriors, charging around thunder clapping and screaming at everything, but Paladins? The DK argument was already made quite well, and Druids weren't too bad, but Pallys just got raged on! We have tons of heals, we taunt mobs off you, are fairly self sufficient, understand the importance of a good shield, and never die.
If anything, I would have accepted that they won't stop putting their hands on everyone and don't understand why you get mad (whether or not it is that they are oblivious to the connotations or nefarious is up to the individual paladins/priests).
(In case it wasn't clear, I loved the article!)
Dec 21st 2011 8:42AM Help me earn Brownie points!
Dec 21st 2011 8:21AM I use mumble right now and its the best. My year is about to run out too, so this would be perfect!
Dec 19th 2011 11:00AM *need*