To be fair, the department of Canadian Heritage is supposed to give out some funding relating to Canadian culture, which Canadian music is.
Fine. Sponsor some musicians or something. Don't sponsor a study with an agenda backed by a cartel of multinationals seeking to line their pockets at the expense of the Canadian people.
Surely you meant to say "Both Fallout games". Otherwise someone might think that there had been a third game made with that name, which of course there wasn't.
lol. That's what I meant of course. I've managed to suppress my painful memories.:)
Not necessarily. A good programmer who had the proper tools to develop on that platform could easily produce such a game, but what you received next week would have more in common with the simpler games of the 80s and 90s than with the overproduced "A-list" titles that line the shelves today.
I wouldn't call some of the more recent "A-list" games "overproduced". Some were great games because of the high production values, including time spent on developing a good story, development of graphics that help suck the user in, and great gameplay to keep people interested for a long time to come. Just because they took a long time and a lot of people to produce doesn't mean they are "overproduced". I'm thinking of games like System Shock, Baldur's Gate, The Fallout games, Deus Ex, Half-Life, etc. I could go on for quite a while.
Right. Of course the internet will still exist. It just won't be anything like it is today. It will become more and more like cable tv and cell phone service. Users will be limited to whatever their particular provider wants to give them access to.
I think a better example would be Company X owns a road they charge a toll. The Toll road gets you to where you want to faster but you have to pay for it. It does not discrimiate for or against Fedex compared to UPS because it makes money off both.
Ok, but that's not very accurate in this case either. We've paid for these roads already. Through hundreds of billions of dollars in handouts to these companies over the years, as well as the fees we pay them, as well as giving them the rights (and monopoly status) to build these roads in the first place. For them to try to take these existing roads and turn them into toll roads is them trying to make us pay for them all over again.
People whine because they don't have 20mbit connections to their houses yet.
Sure, after we've given massive tax breaks and other financial incentives to the telcos who promised we'd all have 45mbit connections. We're talking about broadband options here. Satellite is possible in a lot of areas, but has horrible latency issues. Dialup isn't broadband, so it doesn't matter.
There are places in the world with just dialup, places where they *do* vote for the theves who run the telcom system.
And there are a lot of countries that our kicking our asses in broadband service offerings. Japan, S. Korea, and China all have a much higher number of households with broadband speeds that make our broadband look like dialup.
You want a better connection.. go build one and find out just how hard it is. The system is working just fine.
That's just the thing. I'm not allowed to build one. The only reason the current system got built is because the companies had monopolies. The only reason it got expanded at all is because they got massive tax breaks and incentives. Then they didn't even deliver the service they promised. So sure, as soon as the government gives me a big ass handout, I'll get started building.
They are often run by people who have a phone company mindset and are used to being in a monopoly situation but they aren't a monopoly so that either will go away or they will lose customers until *they* go away.
That might make sense if there was actually anywhere near enough competition out there. They still are effectively monopolies in a lot of areas. In my town, we have 2 options. DSL from AT&T or cable from Time Warner. So, when they both start doing tiered service, where are the customers supposed to go? The problem is access to infrastructure. We've been ripped off for years by the telcos with their promises of fat pipes to every house if we would just pitch in for the costs. A couple hundred billion later, where are we? Pretty much right back where we started. These companies are run by thieves, and I would rather the whole thing be run by the thieves that I can at least vote against.
Ok, I get what you're saying now. You're probably right about that. But the point still stands that the industry promised to regulate itself, and it should do so. That said, I don't think Rockstar actually did anything wrong in this case.
Therefore, the entire argument is invalid until that issue is settled. And I guarantee you which way the chips would fall -- and it wouldn't be on the side of government censorship.
If you can guarantee that, then I think there's some game industry lawyers who want to hire you. Also, it doesn't invalidate the argument, it is simply a fact that the government may be able to regulate the industry if there is enough of an outcry over things like this. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Regardless though, the industry promised to regulate itself, so it should do so.
No. You are wrong. The right to not be deceived by false advertising is a right, not a privilege. If a product advertises a certain feature, it better well have it. In this case, the producers of the game made certain statements about their product, which led to the rating they received, which turned out to be false. The game did not comply with the standards for the advertised rating.
I don't think they made any false statements at all. The game, as it was sold to people, deserved the rating it had. That only changes if you modify the game yourself later. The users took action specifically to change the underlying code of the game in order to make this content available in the game. The users knew what they were doing. It's not the fault of the developer.
Now of course you'll say "But game A ships with naughty-bits!". It doesn't matter - to the end user running show_naughty_bits.exe, it's the exact same experience. Out here in the real world, there's no difference. Once a game is modified from its original form, why can a company be held responsible?
Exactly. If the user takes an action specifically to modify the game in a way that would violate its rating, then that's the user's fault, not the game developer's fault. If you don't want to see naughty bits, then don't modify the game. If you don't want your kids seeing naughty bits, then don't let them play unsupervised. This crap has gotten way out of hand and is just ridiculous now.
Parents don't have the right to rely on ESRB ratings. They have the ability to do so -- and can if they want -- but that is not a right. If a parent decides the ESRB rating is untrustworthy, or that Take2 is untrustworthy, that is their right. It is their right to not purchase games they feel might not adhere to the voluntary ratings system. Parents have the rihght to choose what's best for their kids -- and if they don't have all the information, that's nobody's fault but their own.
The difference in this case is that the ESRB ratings were established by the industry as a substitute for government regulation. They claimed they could self-regulate, and didn't need the government to step in. Same thing as the movie industry. Now if the ratings aren't reliable, then the government will have cause to step in and establish its own system for informing people of what's in the games. Not that they'd do any better probably, but that's the argument. That's why they say that parents have a right to rely on the ratings.
There's even a better argument, though; it's an independent, third-party, non-government-mandated/regulated ratings system. Why the hell should parents have the "right" to anything regarding it? It's paid for by publishers, not taxes.
Because if the parents can't rely on the ESRB rating, then the ESRB is worthless and we'll end up with government regulation, which is the last thing that the industry wants. That said, I still disagree with their priorities. Heinous acts and all sorts of violence are more ok than sex, or even just seeing a nipple. That's just some messed up thinking right there.
Not returning something when you know it doesn't belong to you, and additionally using the phone service that someone else paid for is theft. If I find a bike laying in the street and I pick it up and walk off with it, even though there's a kid yelling and chasing me and saying that it's his and he just left it there for a minute, then yeah, I just stole his bike.
I think we've seen from her myspace posts that she's not exactly a morally upstanding kid. She seems to think she's being cool by saying she's going to keep the phone and that they don't deserve to have it back. Not sure where she learned to act like this, but it's pretty messed up.
'Cause they don't want to pay for a new version or bother getting a pirate copy, or deal with the headaches of upgrading, and maybe it simply works for them and feel no obligation to change?
If it just worked for them, then they wouldn't need to worry about their security, would they? After they get rooted or loaded down with malware, maybe they'll feel a bit of that obligation to change. I'd think that moving to an OS that is more secure, and for which modern versions of applications are maintained, would be incentive in itself.
That makes sense, but the only problem with it is -- in this case -- the unsupported OS's are the ones most badly in need of the protected that Firefox offers to its users.
I think they're just the ones most in need of an upgrade. You can't support these OSes forever. When the developer gives up on them, I think it's time to move on.
Wow, I've gotten 2 comments deleted so far that have criticized the fact that this article shows up. Let me try one more time:
How does a player not liking a game and a developer going on record saying he likes it actual news? I'm really sick of seeing Zonk post all this crap on/.
You got modded down. Probably because you didn't even bother to RTFA before posting uninformed criticisms. The guy is the program manager for Microsoft's CRM team, not just "a player". He's not a dev either. There are reasons to criticize the article and the writeup. You didn't hit on any though.
I was kind of hoping that Shadowrun would more like Deus Ex or System Shock, but I guess that's not the case.
I was hoping for that too. Unfortunately, it looks like the offspring of Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike, but with elves! I'm not gonna say that the game will suck. It might actually be fun. But it's nothing revolutionary, and it's definitely not Shadowrun. Shame the graphics looks so mediocre. It's going to have some stiff competition when it comes out. I think it will probably end up moving quickly to the bargain bin.
You are confusing means and ends. It provides a form of entertainment as a means to making a profit (the ends). You don't aim for the means, you aim for the ends.
Not all games are produced solely to make money. Many are produced because the developers wanted to create something cool and fun that they would enjoy themselves. Especially indie developers. They are primarily concerned with being able to sell the game, but they are also concerned with it being something worth creating in the first place.
I'll still pick this game up. Looks like a blast, and it also appears they're producing it for Windows Vista.
This is supposed to be the flagship product for showing off LiveAnywhere, Microsoft's term for the ability to have Windows Vista and XBox 360 players playing on the same servers together. That's probably why they wanted to use the SR name in the first place. They wanted something recognizable that people would get excited about. Too bad they butchered it and the people that actually recognize the name are pissed off, and the ones that don't recognize it, well the name doesn't matter to them. What a waste.
No Matrix (half the game in my opinion), limited magic (Combat only) and no real story (but that is just a random guess).
It's 4-minute rounds, you keep your cyber and magic upgrades between rounds, and magic is Non-combat only. There are no offensive spells in the game. There are no RPG elements to the game really. Retaining upgrades between rounds is as close to an RPG-ish feature as you'll find. There is no story worth reading for this game. The one they came up with is just boring, and basically unrelated to Shadowrun in general aside from the fact that it has tech and magic. That's not unique to SR though. There have been several proposed changes to the backstory that would rectify many of the problems and bring the game at least somewhat closer to Shadowrun canon, but it remains to be seen whether they will want to fix the problems or not.
Read the guy's original critique after the announcement was made. If that doesn't convince you the guy played the game and honestly thought it was decent, then nothing will.
How do you figure that? Seems to me like someone high up (and recall that Billg himself has been touting this game and its Vista/360 LiveAnywhere capabilities) didn't like his comments, and he was told that he should "take a closer look", and then take another shot at making public comments. So he toned down his comments to a much less critical, yet still somewhat credible level.
The thing is, the game is still the same as he first saw, and all his initial comments still hold up. The only difference now is that he thinks it is a fun game. Nobody has been disputing that. Pretty much any SR fan you talk to on the official boards for this game or most other SR-related boards say that the game could be a fun shooter. But that doesn't make it a Shadowrun game. I think most of us would be happy if they'd just drop the SR name, or at least do a major rework of the backstory so that it doesn't mangle SR quite so badly (which, given the type of game and the fact that there is not much backstory to begin with, should take a few hours, a bit more if they actually decide to do a little research this time).
The sad thing is that this probably spells the end for SR computer games. Either this game will bomb, and no more SR games will be made, or it will do well, and we'll just see more crappy sequels. I'm hoping that it bombs. At least then we won't have some unrecognizable crap out there abusing the Shadowrun license.
I mean, it would only seem reasonable that Microsoft would think, 'You know, the biggest criticism of our Xbox console was that it was nothing but FPS', there just wasn't a big enough variety of games. Hey, we have this great RPG licensce that we own the rights to. Let's make an FPS out of it, and trick the people who like RPGs into buying an FPS. Then they'll have to buy all our other FPS', or be ridiculed by all their friends!'.
Anyone dumb enough to buy this game because of the Shadowrun name deserves to be ridiculed.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. Sponsor some musicians or something. Don't sponsor a study with an agenda backed by a cartel of multinationals seeking to line their pockets at the expense of the Canadian people.
lol. That's what I meant of course. I've managed to suppress my painful memories.
I wouldn't call some of the more recent "A-list" games "overproduced". Some were great games because of the high production values, including time spent on developing a good story, development of graphics that help suck the user in, and great gameplay to keep people interested for a long time to come. Just because they took a long time and a lot of people to produce doesn't mean they are "overproduced". I'm thinking of games like System Shock, Baldur's Gate, The Fallout games, Deus Ex, Half-Life, etc. I could go on for quite a while.
Right. Of course the internet will still exist. It just won't be anything like it is today. It will become more and more like cable tv and cell phone service. Users will be limited to whatever their particular provider wants to give them access to.
Ok, but that's not very accurate in this case either. We've paid for these roads already. Through hundreds of billions of dollars in handouts to these companies over the years, as well as the fees we pay them, as well as giving them the rights (and monopoly status) to build these roads in the first place. For them to try to take these existing roads and turn them into toll roads is them trying to make us pay for them all over again.
Sure, after we've given massive tax breaks and other financial incentives to the telcos who promised we'd all have 45mbit connections. We're talking about broadband options here. Satellite is possible in a lot of areas, but has horrible latency issues. Dialup isn't broadband, so it doesn't matter.
And there are a lot of countries that our kicking our asses in broadband service offerings. Japan, S. Korea, and China all have a much higher number of households with broadband speeds that make our broadband look like dialup.
That's just the thing. I'm not allowed to build one. The only reason the current system got built is because the companies had monopolies. The only reason it got expanded at all is because they got massive tax breaks and incentives. Then they didn't even deliver the service they promised. So sure, as soon as the government gives me a big ass handout, I'll get started building.
That might make sense if there was actually anywhere near enough competition out there. They still are effectively monopolies in a lot of areas. In my town, we have 2 options. DSL from AT&T or cable from Time Warner. So, when they both start doing tiered service, where are the customers supposed to go? The problem is access to infrastructure. We've been ripped off for years by the telcos with their promises of fat pipes to every house if we would just pitch in for the costs. A couple hundred billion later, where are we? Pretty much right back where we started. These companies are run by thieves, and I would rather the whole thing be run by the thieves that I can at least vote against.
Ok, I get what you're saying now. You're probably right about that. But the point still stands that the industry promised to regulate itself, and it should do so. That said, I don't think Rockstar actually did anything wrong in this case.
If you can guarantee that, then I think there's some game industry lawyers who want to hire you. Also, it doesn't invalidate the argument, it is simply a fact that the government may be able to regulate the industry if there is enough of an outcry over things like this. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Regardless though, the industry promised to regulate itself, so it should do so.
I don't think they made any false statements at all. The game, as it was sold to people, deserved the rating it had. That only changes if you modify the game yourself later. The users took action specifically to change the underlying code of the game in order to make this content available in the game. The users knew what they were doing. It's not the fault of the developer.
Exactly. If the user takes an action specifically to modify the game in a way that would violate its rating, then that's the user's fault, not the game developer's fault. If you don't want to see naughty bits, then don't modify the game. If you don't want your kids seeing naughty bits, then don't let them play unsupervised. This crap has gotten way out of hand and is just ridiculous now.
The difference in this case is that the ESRB ratings were established by the industry as a substitute for government regulation. They claimed they could self-regulate, and didn't need the government to step in. Same thing as the movie industry. Now if the ratings aren't reliable, then the government will have cause to step in and establish its own system for informing people of what's in the games. Not that they'd do any better probably, but that's the argument. That's why they say that parents have a right to rely on the ratings.
Because if the parents can't rely on the ESRB rating, then the ESRB is worthless and we'll end up with government regulation, which is the last thing that the industry wants. That said, I still disagree with their priorities. Heinous acts and all sorts of violence are more ok than sex, or even just seeing a nipple. That's just some messed up thinking right there.
Not returning something when you know it doesn't belong to you, and additionally using the phone service that someone else paid for is theft. If I find a bike laying in the street and I pick it up and walk off with it, even though there's a kid yelling and chasing me and saying that it's his and he just left it there for a minute, then yeah, I just stole his bike.
I think we've seen from her myspace posts that she's not exactly a morally upstanding kid. She seems to think she's being cool by saying she's going to keep the phone and that they don't deserve to have it back. Not sure where she learned to act like this, but it's pretty messed up.
Can't you boot from the floppy, and then once it's loaded up, switch out the floppy drive with the cd drive?
If it just worked for them, then they wouldn't need to worry about their security, would they? After they get rooted or loaded down with malware, maybe they'll feel a bit of that obligation to change. I'd think that moving to an OS that is more secure, and for which modern versions of applications are maintained, would be incentive in itself.
I think they're just the ones most in need of an upgrade. You can't support these OSes forever. When the developer gives up on them, I think it's time to move on.
You got modded down. Probably because you didn't even bother to RTFA before posting uninformed criticisms. The guy is the program manager for Microsoft's CRM team, not just "a player". He's not a dev either. There are reasons to criticize the article and the writeup. You didn't hit on any though.
I was hoping for that too. Unfortunately, it looks like the offspring of Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike, but with elves! I'm not gonna say that the game will suck. It might actually be fun. But it's nothing revolutionary, and it's definitely not Shadowrun. Shame the graphics looks so mediocre. It's going to have some stiff competition when it comes out. I think it will probably end up moving quickly to the bargain bin.
Not all games are produced solely to make money. Many are produced because the developers wanted to create something cool and fun that they would enjoy themselves. Especially indie developers. They are primarily concerned with being able to sell the game, but they are also concerned with it being something worth creating in the first place.
This is supposed to be the flagship product for showing off LiveAnywhere, Microsoft's term for the ability to have Windows Vista and XBox 360 players playing on the same servers together. That's probably why they wanted to use the SR name in the first place. They wanted something recognizable that people would get excited about. Too bad they butchered it and the people that actually recognize the name are pissed off, and the ones that don't recognize it, well the name doesn't matter to them. What a waste.
It's 4-minute rounds, you keep your cyber and magic upgrades between rounds, and magic is Non-combat only. There are no offensive spells in the game. There are no RPG elements to the game really. Retaining upgrades between rounds is as close to an RPG-ish feature as you'll find. There is no story worth reading for this game. The one they came up with is just boring, and basically unrelated to Shadowrun in general aside from the fact that it has tech and magic. That's not unique to SR though. There have been several proposed changes to the backstory that would rectify many of the problems and bring the game at least somewhat closer to Shadowrun canon, but it remains to be seen whether they will want to fix the problems or not.
How do you figure that? Seems to me like someone high up (and recall that Billg himself has been touting this game and its Vista/360 LiveAnywhere capabilities) didn't like his comments, and he was told that he should "take a closer look", and then take another shot at making public comments. So he toned down his comments to a much less critical, yet still somewhat credible level.
The thing is, the game is still the same as he first saw, and all his initial comments still hold up. The only difference now is that he thinks it is a fun game. Nobody has been disputing that. Pretty much any SR fan you talk to on the official boards for this game or most other SR-related boards say that the game could be a fun shooter. But that doesn't make it a Shadowrun game. I think most of us would be happy if they'd just drop the SR name, or at least do a major rework of the backstory so that it doesn't mangle SR quite so badly (which, given the type of game and the fact that there is not much backstory to begin with, should take a few hours, a bit more if they actually decide to do a little research this time).
The sad thing is that this probably spells the end for SR computer games. Either this game will bomb, and no more SR games will be made, or it will do well, and we'll just see more crappy sequels. I'm hoping that it bombs. At least then we won't have some unrecognizable crap out there abusing the Shadowrun license.
Anyone dumb enough to buy this game because of the Shadowrun name deserves to be ridiculed.