Slashdot Mirror

preface: i own all 3 current gen consoles... i love how the ps3 and wii guys take shots at each other and the xbox crowd. all of their arguments are hardware based because they have no games to argue about. now...what do i want to play today on my 360....decisions, decisions...

Preface. I too own all 3 systems, and yes the 360 has more good games but currently that's like "Beating two quadruple amputies at swingball."

Amen to that. Check out Zero Punctuation's review of Bioshock. He does make some damn spot on right remarks about the game.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/1394-Zero-Punctuation-BioShock

Obviously the story, characters and villians are different... the graphics are no doubt different too. Check this video review of BioShock to see why it's like System Shock 2. Also, that video is good for a laugh or two.

You should check out this hilarious video review of Bioshock. He starts off by showing how BioShock isn't like System Shock 2, it *IS* System Shock 2. He then proceeds to tear the game to shreds by pointing out the numerous flaws. He still said it's the probably the best game of the year, and I'd tend to agree. But that isn't saying much considering the (lack of) competition.

I thought the theme, sound, story and art direction were fantastic. The only downside I noticed was how repetitive and how horribly easy it was. I still enjoyed the game and would give it atleast an 8.5/10. It was definitely worth the purchase, even aside from all the flaws.

If you found that review funny, check out his other reviews here and here.

You should check out this hilarious video review of Bioshock. He starts off by showing how BioShock isn't like System Shock 2, it *IS* System Shock 2. He then proceeds to tear the game to shreds by pointing out the numerous flaws. He still said it's the probably the best game of the year, and I'd tend to agree. But that isn't saying much considering the (lack of) competition.

I thought the theme, sound, story and art direction were fantastic. The only downside I noticed was how repetitive and how horribly easy it was. I still enjoyed the game and would give it atleast an 8.5/10. It was definitely worth the purchase, even aside from all the flaws.

If you found that review funny, check out his other reviews here and here.

I found Zero Punctuation's review to be much funnier...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/1394-Zero-Punctuation-BioShock

Enough said

Right here.

Posting anon because I modded in this thread.

Here is a great review that might put some of that sentiment into words: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/1394-Zero-Punctuation-BioShock

I didn't think it was that great either, mostly because it seems very shallow. They spent all this time talking about the cool enemies and all the dynamics with them.

Now maybe this was me, but I thought they were just highlighting ONE of MANY of these sorts of cool enemies/dynamics. But no, they were highlighting the only one. That big daddy/little sister thing is the games whole shtick. There is nothing else :P

My 2c

Does a game being old somehow preclude it from being a great game or one of the best of all time? I'll agree that a bit of nostalgia may have crept into IGN's list, mostly because Super Mario Bros. is rated as the number one game of all time (I contend that Super Mario Bros. 3 is a superior game, but that's only my opinion.) but many other games have legitimate reasons for being there. Super Metroid and Legent of Zelda: OOT are regarded as the best games in their series by many and as the best game of their type by many as well. I think there's a tendency for younger games to overlook many of these games or not appreciate them today. Bioshock has been lauded as an excellent FPS (which I won't argue with much) but does it deserve to be in the top 10 of all time? I'd suggest watching this review that actually takes a critical look at the game and doesn't spend the majority of the reivew lavashing praise on it.

As a personal example, I find Civilization II to be one of the most brilliant games ever designed. The fact that I can still sink hours of my life at a time into the game when it has to compete with the current generation of games speaks something of its excellence. It's not perfect, but there's not much I would change about the game if I could. There are some games like this that can't be improved upon in their gameplay aspect and updating the graphics only goes so far to enhance the experience. A game like Civilization II doesn't need new pretty graphics or anything that would normally cause a game to receive a 'mature' rating in order to be great.

It's also disingenuous to suggest that there weren't any mature games being made before than either. Metal Gear Solid received an M-rating almost a decade ago. There have also been mature themed games all the way back in the Atari generation. A game doesn't need to have an M rating in order to do well and the concept of Mature games isn't something new either. I only bring this up, because I feel that someone would likely use it as a rebuttle.

I'm not trying to say that any of the M rated games on the list are bad either, but with the exception of Half-Life it's hard to argue that any of them should be moved significantly up the list when the games placed in front of them are some of the pinacles of gaming. Some of these games are pushing the limits of the technology we have today, but some of the other games were also pushing those limits over a decade ago. Perhaps it's possible that our culture is becoming more accepting of mature themes in video games and that's why we're seeing more of them, but adding mature themes to a game just for the sake of having them there won't make a game good.

...i liked it better when it was called System Shock 2 :)

(If you liked Bioshock, SS2 is well worth the try. Still an amazing game after all these years)

It's interesting that a quote from an article about the law itself from its supporter Leyland Yee says "They fought efforts to publicize their rating system because they thought it would impact sales, and now they're again putting their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

The thing that gets me is he (and probably others) think that not having warning labels somehow infringes on the rights of individuals, in this case parents, to make an informed decision about purchases. Personally, I don't see how having a label or not having a label has anything to do with rights. Warning labels may fall into the realm of product liability, but I don't think that really applies to any form of intellectual property. The concept that certain ideas can be harmful is a very dangerous one; my opinion is that the only times certain ideas are harmful is if they are implemented, not if they are discussed or considered.

In this particular instance - video games - the parent always has the right to watch the games their child plays, as well as the right to take that game away from the child (well, I'm sure some people would argue against that right, but I think that's a valid parental responsibility - and therefore they have to have the right to do it. If you take away that parental 'right', then parents must also be indemnified for the actions of their children (because they don't have the right to 'interfere' in their child's life), and I don't see many courts wanting to tackle that issue. In fact, I don't think I want to live in a society that would do such a thing.)

Yes. Someone has reviewed it.

When I buy a Xbox, I can do whatever the Hell I want with it too. But that hasn't stopped The U.S. government from raiding companies that make mod chips for the Xbox.

It gets worse, google will be putting ads in games too: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/75572-Go ogle-Announces-Adsense-for-Games

Indie and casual game designers are discussing the Popcap interview at great length at the Indie Gamer forums. As I remarked there, many people have observed that the current syndrome of blatant, rampant plagiarism is dangerous to the casual game market's long-term health -- and whenever someone does observe this, the plagiarizers move immediately to smear that speaker's reputation. By demonstrating the speaker isn't a pure and saintly exemplar of all things holy, the plagiarizers believe they prove their arrant plagiarism represents no danger to the market. It's nothing but an unhelpful and short-sighted diversionary tactic.

I wrote about the cloning phenomenon in The Escapist issue #34, "Attack of the Parasites."

It's been well over a week since I last got to plug one of my Escapist articles, so let me mention " Red vs. Blue Makes Green" from issue #68. I also wrote another machinima-related article (not about RvB, though), "The French Democracy," in issue #88. (Both links go to the plain HTML text version of the articles.)

It's been well over a week since I last got to plug one of my Escapist articles, so let me mention " Red vs. Blue Makes Green" from issue #68. I also wrote another machinima-related article (not about RvB, though), "The French Democracy," in issue #88. (Both links go to the plain HTML text version of the articles.)

For the second time in two days, I get to plug one of my Escapist articles: "Uwe Boll and the German Tax Code," which answers the perennial question "Why do people keep giving Boll money to make movies?" (Link goes to HTML text version.)

I surveyed the surprisingly large field of Lego games a few weeks ago in an article in The Escapist #97, forthrightly titled "Lego Games." (Link goes to plain-vanilla HTML text version.)

True.

See this article in The Escapist for more info.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/39/11

The proof: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/17/27

(from a /. story awhile back I believe... worth recycling)

Magnus: Magnus Bergsson, the CMO at CCP.
Magnus: I don't get angry.
Magnus: I live there, I am one of those hardcore players.
Oh boy

The followup is
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/68604-Ju mpGate-EVEs-Devs-and-the-Friends-They-Keep-Part-2
here

I thought I would take a break. But with all the Corp Directors that are actually GMs and Devs poping up I guess I'm not going back. Eve is dead to me.

None of their 'hardcore' playerbase should still be playing and giving money to these people so they can build their private little playground with their old skool band of buddies.
Enjoy rotting in your elitist club masquerading as a sandbox.

Maybe I go try WoW or some thing I though was shit back when I loved Eve.

It was originally published in The Escapist. There's three parts to it.

Basically, a player gained access to the private forums of one of the top alliances in the game, Band of Brothers. After sifting through chat logs and tracing IPs, he then alleged that the head of BoB's Capital Ship force used to be, in fact, a CCP employee. He also claimed that the same employee gave himself valuable Tech 2 original blueprints which he eventually donated to his corporation after he left.

After a big brouhaha that resulted in the "hacking" player's banning, the employee in question revealed himself as T20, one of the developers of EVE Online. He also confessed to have illegally spawned the Tech 2 blueprints for himself.

Eventually, CCP set up an internal affairs department headed by an impartial and well-regarded GM, Arkanon and placed the improperly spawned blueprints into the lottery pool (Tech 2 blueprint distribution relies on a lottery system which I'll skip explaining). The "hacker" remains banned, T20 remains employed at the company and the profits that BoB gained from the blueprints have yet to have been stripped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dojin_softThis is your answer. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/44/12Here is an article about it. Games like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kofnEdB8BlcTouhou Soccer, Melty Blood, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1KxdbhLU0kImmateri al and Missing Power are great. I don't think many game companies have the balls to make a game lile Touhou Soccer.

While it might not have been just one guy changing it, according to http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/48/7 Diablo was originally intended to be turn-based.

The article that's linked to shows up very strnagely in my browser. The print view has article text all one page:

* http://www.escapistmagazine.com/print/83/12

One of the interesting questions is when will game designers who sell a certain type of game in Japan realize the vast untapped markets in the US for the same kind of game? I've seen tons of reviews on G4 TV for many Japan-only games that I know many many Americans would love to play.

Even if they were Japanese-spoken with English online help, my guess is the untapped market for such games is vast - and growing.

But if they just had some local American voice dub talent redub it, even if it were kind of quirky, the market would be huge.

One hopes the Wii designers will realize this and plan to port games they used to think of as Japan-only to US and Canadian markets.

If you can read The Escapist and The Gamer's Quarter , and get cheats and strategies at GameFAQs , all of that for free... what's the point? Printed mags cost money, usually lack depth, and may suffer an influence of ad-buyers in their ratings.

At least with Diehard Gamefan you knew what was their bias -- they were also an import store, of course they'd praise some Japan-only stuff... too bad they were usually right, I still wonder who's the idiot at Sega who thought a masterpiece like Monster World IV wasn't worth localizing!

This isn't particularly surprising. Lots of print media is being superceeded by digital media, and glossy, high-cost gaming mags are struggling to find a niche for themselves. Online gives you immediate feedback, immediate screenshots, immediate numbers. Metacritic will give you a more reliable game score than any individual review crew ever could. And cross referencing online is easy.

Probably the biggest complaint about gaming journalism is a lack of objectivity. Lots of it read like glorified advertisements, and lack cross-platform perspecive. It's not surprising, then, that an "official" magazine is going, as those tend to be the most notorious. Really, the only thing which glossies have done better than the online world is solid commentary on the world of gaming in general. But The Escapist now has that nailed as well.

Allow me to take a moment to single out Edge magazine for praise. They have consistently been solid in terms of information and relative objectivity... harkening back a bit to the early days of Die Hard: Game Fan but without the overboard Otaku. That and Game Developer magazine should be required reading for anyone in this industry.

I wrote the article Red Blindness (link goes to text version) for The Escapist issue #49. It's about China's fast-developing MMOG scene, the quality issues they're wrestling with, and the prospects for future improvement. The article lists some of the online games made by Shanda, NetEase, and The9.

I saw an interesting article about subsidies for computer games in Canada:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/70/15

The article points out that the companies in Canada that are getting the money (currently) are ones like Ubisoft - very large and able to move large numbers of jobs around... Money for independent gamers would be nice. But as things are set up, it makes more sense in some ways to give $$$$$$$(CD) to giant companies instead of the little guys - who I think make better games!

We'll see what happens in France, eh?

--LWM

According to the president of NCSoft North America, Robert Garriott (brother to Richard Garriott of Ultima fame, who now works as a game designer at NCSoft Austin), they're not competing against themselves. They're making churn their friend. From their insight into the MMOG space, they see customer paying and playing for around 10 months, then they move on to some other game. By having lots of MMOG games in their stable, they increase the chances that that, the next time you're looking for an MMOG, you land on another NCSoft product. In this particular case, I don't think they care that they already have a superhero-themed MMOG. Maybe people get sick of CoH/CoV, and they want a different superhero MMOG; in that case, NCSoft's got another option to sell you. Or maybe you go on to Guild Wars, or one of their other products. They don't really care which. At the same time, it allows them to get the Marvel lawsuit off their backs; even if the game barely breaks even, they'll come out way ahead. You can read more of their thoughts on these topics in this Escapist Magazine article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/63/28

That said, what implications might this have for Gran Turismo specifically? Having to pay for cars and tracks will certainly limit the appeal somewhat.

0. Having to purchase, presumably via credit card, vehicles to play online will restrict the audience. Especially in the U.S. where alternate forms of online payment are in their infancy.

1. It will encourage a new user to research the virtual autos available, and pick one/few suited to their desires/needs. This serves to extend the nature of the simulation somewhat.

2. It will encourage users to practice with that vehicle, to the point where they can actually handle it properly on the track. This also serves the overall simulation (if you buy all 750 cars, you aren't playing Gran Turismo, you're playing a game of Jay Leno).

3. A combination of 0, 1 and 2 will lead to a higher general level of competition online. Just like the barriers to real-life autocrossing; people mildly interested in cars are not to be found on a real racetrack. This will further serve the simulation. This will also tend to drive off casual players to a greater degree than 0 or 1. This will serve as a draw for the serious players, who will spend more money over time.

4. Which tracks I have will limit the number of other players I can race against. This reflects the real world in a rather un-fun way (I can't drive from Kansas to Japan to "attack the downhill" on their mountain passes).

5. Due to 4, the more casual players would tend to buy a few tracks, and practice them. They will likely have a favorite, likely one that matches their car well. This would put them at an advantage over another person who owns the track, but has a different sort of car and another favorite track. This could serve as sort of a handicap, skilled players challenging other players who specialize in one course or one type of course. Think Initial D, where you have an "86" (A sporty version of the early eighties Toyota Corrolla) defeating 400HP AWD R32 Nissan Skylines. Handicap races with cars unsuited to the course they are on could partially offset 4, because they might have a stream of more heavily invested/skilled players (i.e. bought more tracks and cars) interested in racing them on their home turf.

6. Over time, because the investment is low, the more casual players will get disatsfied with their tracks and vehicles and buy more. This would support the server infrastructure over time, and lend longevity to the game. Microsoft does a lot to support live, it is clear what Nintendo intends to do with the Wii, but Sony was approaching the new generation with the same general attitude towards online play as they did with the PS2; it is the publisher's problem. And since the publisher finds few people (proportionate to sales) are willing to pay any monthly or yearly fee at all to support online infrastructre, that makes those subscription fees high. Micropurchases over time

That said, what implications might this have for Gran Turismo specifically? Having to pay for cars and tracks will certainly limit the appeal somewhat.

0. Having to purchase, presumably via credit card, vehicles to play online will restrict the audience. Especially in the U.S. where alternate forms of online payment are in their infancy.

1. It will encourage a new user to research the virtual autos available, and pick one/few suited to their desires/needs. This serves to extend the nature of the simulation somewhat.

2. It will encourage users to practice with that vehicle, to the point where they can actually handle it properly on the track. This also serves the overall simulation (if you buy all 750 cars, you aren't playing Gran Turismo, you're playing a game of Jay Leno).

3. A combination of 0, 1 and 2 will lead to a higher general level of competition online. Just like the barriers to real-life autocrossing; people mildly interested in cars are not to be found on a real racetrack. This will further serve the simulation. This will also tend to drive off casual players to a greater degree than 0 or 1. This will serve as a draw for the serious players, who will spend more money over time.

4. Which tracks I have will limit the number of other players I can race against. This reflects the real world in a rather un-fun way (I can't drive from Kansas to Japan to "attack the downhill" on their mountain passes).

5. Due to 4, the more casual players would tend to buy a few tracks, and practice them. They will likely have a favorite, likely one that matches their car well. This would put them at an advantage over another person who owns the track, but has a different sort of car and another favorite track. This could serve as sort of a handicap, skilled players challenging other players who specialize in one course or one type of course. Think Initial D, where you have an "86" (A sporty version of the early eighties Toyota Corrolla) defeating 400HP AWD R32 Nissan Skylines. Handicap races with cars unsuited to the course they are on could partially offset 4, because they might have a stream of more heavily invested/skilled players (i.e. bought more tracks and cars) interested in racing them on their home turf.

6. Over time, because the investment is low, the more casual players will get disatsfied with their tracks and vehicles and buy more. This would support the server infrastructure over time, and lend longevity to the game. Microsoft does a lot to support live, it is clear what Nintendo intends to do with the Wii, but Sony was approaching the new generation with the same general attitude towards online play as they did with the PS2; it is the publisher's problem. And since the publisher finds few people (proportionate to sales) are willing to pay any monthly or yearly fee at all to support online infrastructre, that makes those subscription fees high. Micropurchases over time

That said, what implications might this have for Gran Turismo specifically? Having to pay for cars and tracks will certainly limit the appeal somewhat.

0. Having to purchase, presumably via credit card, vehicles to play online will restrict the audience. Especially in the U.S. where alternate forms of online payment are in their infancy.

1. It will encourage a new user to research the virtual autos available, and pick one/few suited to their desires/needs. This serves to extend the nature of the simulation somewhat.

2. It will encourage users to practice with that vehicle, to the point where they can actually handle it properly on the track. This also serves the overall simulation (if you buy all 750 cars, you aren't playing Gran Turismo, you're playing a game of Jay Leno).

3. A combination of 0, 1 and 2 will lead to a higher general level of competition online. Just like the barriers to real-life autocrossing; people mildly interested in cars are not to be found on a real racetrack. This will further serve the simulation. This will also tend to drive off casual players to a greater degree than 0 or 1. This will serve as a draw for the serious players, who will spend more money over time.

4. Which tracks I have will limit the number of other players I can race against. This reflects the real world in a rather un-fun way (I can't drive from Kansas to Japan to "attack the downhill" on their mountain passes).

5. Due to 4, the more casual players would tend to buy a few tracks, and practice them. They will likely have a favorite, likely one that matches their car well. This would put them at an advantage over another person who owns the track, but has a different sort of car and another favorite track. This could serve as sort of a handicap, skilled players challenging other players who specialize in one course or one type of course. Think Initial D, where you have an "86" (A sporty version of the early eighties Toyota Corrolla) defeating 400HP AWD R32 Nissan Skylines. Handicap races with cars unsuited to the course they are on could partially offset 4, because they might have a stream of more heavily invested/skilled players (i.e. bought more tracks and cars) interested in racing them on their home turf.

6. Over time, because the investment is low, the more casual players will get disatsfied with their tracks and vehicles and buy more. This would support the server infrastructure over time, and lend longevity to the game. Microsoft does a lot to support live, it is clear what Nintendo intends to do with the Wii, but Sony was approaching the new generation with the same general attitude towards online play as they did with the PS2; it is the publisher's problem. And since the publisher finds few people (proportionate to sales) are willing to pay any monthly or yearly fee at all to support online infrastructre, that makes those subscription fees high. Micropurchases over time

Us: "Really? Google? You guys are jumping on the guerilla marketing bandwagon?"

Google: "Hey! Look over there! A unicorn!"

Us: "Where?"

Google: "Guess it was just a regular horse . . ." (You know you love that movie)

Us: ::Searching for "google + DCI"::

Interweb: "404"

C'mon, you thought they'd only do it in China? I mean, they are doing this in an effort to gain the sympathies of our current regime...

And speaking of guerilla marketing, this article was disturbing:

Confessions of a guerilla marketer

"...they already have a good enough machine to do the job?"

Because it's just "good enough". And that's marketed as a computer, this would be marketed as a tivo/dvd player, sitting next to the other tivo/dvd players at Walmart, a completely different marketing direction.

Walmart is the 800 lbs in the retail world. Walmart decides what games get made and which ones don't because if walmart doesn't carry your game you're losing millions of dollars and who wants to bother creating a game they know they're going to lose millions of dollars on? Walmart carries ipods. Walmart does not carry iMacs. However if Apple sold a dvd player it's likely that Walmart would sell it, just like they sell the iPod.

Besides, your arguement about "So why would they want to put something else at a $200 or $300 price point when people are willing to shell out $500-$800." doesn't pan out. Look at Tivos, they're basically little computers that do one thing and do it very well, record TV shows for later playback

Or the Xbox. Despite having games on PCs already Microsoft still made the Xbox using relatively standard PC components and although it's reported they were losing money on each Xbox sold when they first came out Xbox is now the second most popular gaming console.

Once again, just when I'm about to complain the next story is actually interesting.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/57/16 Cry Havok, much better article, on Havok Engine and Immersion.

So thank you again for my Escapist reminder. I do commend you on linking to the print version though.

I wrote a similar article for The Escapist online gaming magazine, "Red Blindness". (The link goes to the HTML text version of the article, for those who hate the Escapist graphic approach.)

Out of all the articles that get linked here from the escapist, I never see the good ones. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/55/20 Titled :The Short, Happy Life of Infocom by Lara Crigger

News for nerds indeed. Actually most of the articles in this issue are better, 20Million Sims Online Failure, CyberSex

Thanks for the text editions http://www.escapistmagazine.com/print/55/18 Sims

Out of all the articles that get linked here from the escapist, I never see the good ones. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/55/20 Titled :The Short, Happy Life of Infocom by Lara Crigger

News for nerds indeed. Actually most of the articles in this issue are better, 20Million Sims Online Failure, CyberSex

Thanks for the text editions http://www.escapistmagazine.com/print/55/18 Sims

When I saw this, the first thing that came to my mind is the online only, just over a year old Escapist. It reminds me a great deal of NextGen, with very intellectual articles and outstanding writing throughout. They cover things from consoles to PC, with some very interesting takes on gaming that I thoroughly enjoy.

The Escapist

Read this article "Death to the Games Industry" in "The Escapist".

I think he's overly pessimistic and his solutions aren't novel (what he proposes as a solution is already happening, and all we're seeing is the games industry stratifying into blockbuster, arthouse, and indie streams like the movie industry), but he does articulate a lot of what's wrong with the industry.

I still have all of my copies of Next-Gen (minus one that I lent out and was never returned). All my other magazines get recycled or thrown out. Next-Gen was unique in that it really made me think about games rather than just inform me about them. It was still grounded in the games though, it never got too pretentious. Any high level concept they discussed, they would continually link back to how it would work in a game. Contrast this with The Escapist, which often seems to use video games as a jumping off point for any random intellectual curiosity.

Most articles in Next-Gen got me excited about games. They were often focused on the future, on the possibilites of gaming, not with what was wrong with the current state of gaming. I'd usually want to play some games after reading a few articles. I've read little in other magazines that elicit such feelings. At the same time, Next-Gen was a magazine you could hand off to an adult without worrying about looking juvenile. Compare this with most game magazines today that seem to be aimed squarely at the Bevis and Butthead demographic.

The Edge seems to be a decent Next-Gen replacement but its cost is prohibitive in the US, I'd rather buy games with my money.

The server checks the http:// refering link; off-site deep links to the print page go to the issue page. Solutions include: click on "text" once the page loads, paste the aforementioned URL into your browser from any other Escapist.com page, change the "issue" to "print" once the page loads manually, use a refer-spoof enabled browser, or read the article from one of the Anonymous Coward "reprints". If you feel guilty about the copyright violation, stop off and read the semi-pointless ad they stuck in the middle of the article... after their server finishes melting through the floor.

The server checks the http:// refering link; off-site deep links to the print page go to the issue page. Solutions include: click on "text" once the page loads, paste the aforementioned URL into your browser from any other Escapist.com page, change the "issue" to "print" once the page loads manually, use a refer-spoof enabled browser, or read the article from one of the Anonymous Coward "reprints". If you feel guilty about the copyright violation, stop off and read the semi-pointless ad they stuck in the middle of the article... after their server finishes melting through the floor.

The server checks the http:// refering link; off-site deep links to the print page go to the issue page. Solutions include: click on "text" once the page loads, paste the aforementioned URL into your browser from any other Escapist.com page, change the "issue" to "print" once the page loads manually, use a refer-spoof enabled browser, or read the article from one of the Anonymous Coward "reprints". If you feel guilty about the copyright violation, stop off and read the semi-pointless ad they stuck in the middle of the article... after their server finishes melting through the floor.

Well that's piss annoying ... it redirects the link to the ugly version ... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/print/48/3

full text cause that article is impossible to read otherwise!