ANARYU'S PROFILE

There's no way people can agree on whether something like this is legitimate or not - there is no standard and no moderator. Flaming comments back and forth like a courtroom drama, but with no judge or jury, just a bunch of lawyers with their own rulebooks spouting their version and interpretation of the law.

From my point of view it's been very obvious for a long time how much of all the satire and snark has been to 'improve RMN.'

If we're all so savvy and the methods so effective, why are they being employed here instead of doing it on a larger site with more matured indie developers?

I'm sure we'll all have plenty of snarky or clever responses, but isn't that really just kind of sad when you think about it?

the reason not many people aren't posting in this topic

I believe the reason is because they feel no need to get involved in something like this - nothing would be added or even considered. When have any of us really given a care at all about others opinions?

The games will be made as inappropriately as sells.

As long as the audience for those games is males who haven't really sexually matured or find that level of overbearing 'ripeness' attractive, they'll continue to make it - because it sells.

Is it unfair? Yes. But so is most of life, because you can rarely find a global 'fair.'

This question is a comparison of morals and people's view on life and the opposite gender and sex. There is no real answer or consensus with even as non-diverse a crowd as we have. If you posted this on a forum for middle-aged salary men and soccer-moms, your response would be the overwhelming opposite of this - they'd make points about how it teaches children to expect these standards and makes girls feel depressed about their reality, and boys think sexual prowess is a defining feature of their gender.

And both sides have perfectly valid points - this kind of thing DOES affect children, teenagers, college-age students, and even adults. Anyone who thinks media doesn't really control them to some extent are just deceiving themselves (if you think not, ask yourself if you find the current societal 'standard' attractive - hundreds of years ago a 'motherly' figure was considered amazingly attractive.)

But it isn't fair to say you can't over-sexualize women if that how you want to represent them. If you want to create something and you want to objectify women, that's your right. Same if you want them all to be ugly and horrendously obese.

These are all questions with no 'right' answer - artists need to consider the lessons they're teaching and parents need to be more responsible for what their children experience and educate them properly.

ADDITION:
Regarding Bayonetta - my wife and I both liked the game and felt the way they presented it was fine - you knew exactly what it was about and they represented her strongly as powerful and comfortable in her sexuality.

She actually made sense as a character - she may have been quite flirtatious, but the rest of her character supported it, versus say a super shy character that's afraid of men but is constantly wearing skimpy clothing and getting herself into questionable situations.

Shmup wave organization and AI components.

Couldn't get any of them to lag for me; Windows 7, 64bit.

Will try on my laptop instead of my gaming PC later - while your video card has basically no bearing on VX's performance, processor and memory can.

author=ChaosProductions
I've often toyed with the idea of rates in the place of chances - having results that occur with a fixed distribution. For example, inflicting Burn every third use for a fire-damage spell.

One way to handle this would be to have some sort of counter - when it hits some arbitrary amount, the result occurs. Maybe you add 40 out of 100 to a Burn counter. If the enemy resists Burn, you might have to hit 200 to inflict it. At that point it does get very technical and that's usually the point I drop it - invisible counters for every normally randomized effect isn't sleek or intuitive at all.

It's still a thought, though.

City of Heroes used something like this - your status resist was based on a status resist factor (based on your skills and defenses) - each status effect had a rating that would sum with other status effects to try to beat your resist.

When someone hit you with a status effect, as long as the sum of your existing status effects + the new status effect was less than your resist it wouldn't affect you. If that one was equal to or greater, that status effect would be in effect on you (but not the others still.)

When a status effect duration wore off it would be removed (even if it wasn't affecting you) - so if you had 3 status effects with a rating of 1, and your resist was 3, you'd be affected by the last status effect until the first wore off.

If you had 1 status effect from a boss that had a rating of 2, then even a rating 1 status effect would take effect when it hit you, so more status effects could be more powerful separate from their duration and what the actual status effect was (speed, poison, etc.)