So he mentioned it, you responded and when I'm asking for proof for the claims that were made it's suddenly too far off-topic?
The claims being made are that the interview was good and that the interview was bad. Those claims are being made against an agreed backdrop which itself is quite irrelevant to the topic of this thread, namely the interviews/streams.
I think it's worth noting that the Civ playing experience of the female interviewer is a topic of discussion while the experience of the other interviewers hasn't come up. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I think it's at least worth recognizing that this is very trend - to assume that men are qualified for the job they're doing while it has to be proven that women are qualified for the job they're doing, especially in gaming.
Just to address this, I get what you're saying because it's definitely something that can and does happen, but in terms of my comment, a) that was the only one of these livestreams I saw, and b) the subtext was instead meant to relate to the weak information we typically get from 'big' interviews designed for a wider audience.
(etc.)
That's not how it works. You make a claim. You provide evidence. If you don't, then your claim can be dismissed. Easy.I think if you're going to drag the thread down this kind of route you should provide evidence to back up your claims that m15a's claims are indeed wild claims because all anyone has to go on here are claims![]()
This is evidence for what? That the women made herself look bad at the beginning while the men didn't? Well, d'oh. Again, say stupid things and people will make fun about you. Doesn't matter which gender.Unless of course you actually know a bit about the industry and Twitch / stream chats in general in which case it's pretty much common knowledge, sorry.
I watched the German stream and the later-on stream with an English chat channel and the difference in quality of the comments made was absurd. I mean my German is by no means anywhere near great but I was with friends who ostensibly are, and there were a lot more insults (particular around the woman interviewees, for that one where Ed had two women interviewing him) on the second stream. There's some evidence for you!
Yeah, I have to look up the vague cases that in your opinion totally exist but that you too weren't able or willing to link to.It does happen. This isn't a formal debate, burden of proof is nonexistent. If you don't want to look up the numerous documented cases where this happens, people shouldn't have to fall over themselves to oblige.
This could be a good point if you yourself hadn't chosen to join in on the discussion.Particularly, as Camikaze keeps pointing out, given that this is completely tangential to the discussion at large.
Anyone got a link where we can hear Cleopatra talking?
Yes, I dismiss your claims, because they're nonsensical. If they were so well documented then you would provide some evidence, it's that simple. You could prove your point, you could point me and anyone who may be reading this and may not be too sure whether you're right or not to some cases that prove that I'm wrong and show anyone else that the thing that was brought up is a real problem and not just an imaginary one.Ryika, it's not on me to do your background reading for you. You seem to think that it is. That's entirely fair, but you'll be waiting a while
Feel free to dismiss said claims. Maybe you should've lead with that, instead of repeatedly dissecting posts to try and prove your logical superiority. The abuse women suffer from compared to the abuse men suffer from (and the stereotypes that perpetuate these beliefs) is a tad more well-documented than the existence of unicorns, sorry.
Those units are too big.
Overall the leaderscreens seem to be lower budget/less background detail so that they're less work intensive to create than V's. Yet at the same time we're still only getting 18 civs in the base game, so unless they reintroduce multiple leaders per civ I'm pretty disappointed with them.
Sure - if the entirety of the design process of implementing a civilization into the game rested on it's leader portrait, then less production time should equal more civs.
But with a combination of a possible 18(+) units; a possible 18(+) buildings; a possible 18(+) traits (or UAs); This, along with the existence of 18 civ-specific agendas and then an undetermined amount of hidden agendas that cycle in and out across games; as well as the languages and cultural aesthetics (building appearances, in-game art assets/icons such as flags, buttons, colors, etc), make for a sizable amount of dev time to add 1 civilization the game before you even get to the diplo screen.
Most of the above also needs to be balanced, as well. It doesn't really matter if the section of the art department can (in your opinion) crank out a leader and diplo screen easy as pie if the rest of the design team can't catch up.
The last two major releases of civ have had 18 civs at release, and civ 3 had 16.
Is this all Firaxis will show in E3?
There is still an IGN showing scheduled for today and probably some unannounced showings popping up as well. However, they will probably just be showing the same video over and over.
It is possible that Ed will slip up and accidentally reveal something he didn't mean to release at this point, but that is wishful thinking.
There is still an IGN showing scheduled for today and probably some unannounced showings popping up as well. However, they will probably just be showing the same video over and over.
It is possible that Ed will slip up and accidentally reveal something he didn't mean to release at this point, but that is wishful thinking.