Wow! Why all the hate for the exclamation point? He may not be the most popular puncuation mark but at least he's peppy. If you're gonna hate, hate on the semi-colon. He and the ampersand can both kiss my ass!
Err, are you plagiarisming me or parodying me here? *scratches head*;-)
I'll teach you the difference for $4.99. But hold on! Call in the next five minutes, and I'll throw in the correct spelling of "plagiarisming" at absolutely no additional cost. Order quickly, supplies are limited.
"Parody" is not the same as "ripping a game off". Parody does copy aspects of story and style from one piece of work to another, but parody only exists in light of its source material and is used to convey a point or make a statement. I'm not going to teach you the finer points of literature without a fee, but suffice it to say, if grand theft auto didn't exist, grand theft scratchy would have no connotation and would therefore make no sense. Parody has long been a significant, legitimate literary tool and while humorous, is mostly meant to convey a point. It is the point that is original in the case of satire. The point of satire is what distinguishes it from blatant plagiarism.
Similarly, in reference to your suggested point that there is somehow a difference between parodies of "old" things and parodies of concurring events, South Park did a parody of the Simpsons that lasted a whole episode. It was humorous and clever, and while they used plenty of references to the Simpsons and in fact, during one segment, actually went so far as to copy the Simpson's art style, I never remember hearing any complaints from the Simpson's camp. I'm sure, as active participants in the world of satire, the Simpson's executives appreciated the parody more than anything. I would expect that as associate members of the world of satire, the GTA execs would come to the same understanding. I find it sad that they do not.
If you can't tell the difference between parody and plagiarism, then consider your intelligence insulted.
Well, we're not talking about copied gameplay, we're talking about parody. From the article, it seems the only real complaint was the use of the name "Grand Theft Scratchy" which was an obvious parody of the grand theft auto games. So its parody, not gameplay, that is the issue. And if you want to know what grand theft auto paradies, here's a quick list.
Miami Vice.
Scarface.
The Godfather.
Menace 2 Society.
Goodfellas.
Boys in the hood.
The list goes on and on. Rockstar is blatently guilty of using parody in it's games, so I see no reason why they should be so uptight about others doing the same with their material.
I don't disagree that some games are art, I'm just saying I don't really care. Whether Bioshock is art or not, it's a great game and that's all that concerns me. Now if only someone would only make that Mona Lisa dating sim I've been waitin for.
Well, that depends. If you're looking for a blue-ray player, its actually a good deal. If you want it to play first rate, exclusive game titles, then yeah, it's still overpriced. God I hope they get some games soon.
Backwards compatibility has always been a nice perk, but seriously, I rarely ever use it. I think I used backwards capabilities on the ps2 to play ff tactics, and thats it. I think people put too much value in it. Besides, if you want backwards capability, you can still get it. Just cough up the extra 100
I strongly feel there is a big difference between the pre and post nintendo generations. The pre nintendo generations were into games purely for the reactionary elements of the game. It's not their fault, but games were designed to solicit quarters and hi-score was the ultimate achievement. I know very few people who spent their childhood playing games like pacman or space invaders and went on to play games as adult.
Sadly, these people still think of games like pacman or space invaders when someone mentions videogames today. They have a distinct misunderstanding of the gaming experience of today's titles. Games today are meant to be experienced on multiple levels, not just gameplay but story, atmosphere, and many more. With that said, while the gaming industry may technically be over forty years old, I'd have to say that I believe "modern" gaming started around the era of Nintendo and I truly believe it will be the Nintendo generation that will have to come to power before anything truly changes.
Before anyone pipes up "but I'm just pressing back-back-forward-punch and making a hotspot collide with a hit rectangle" - what do you *think* when you do it? Do you think "back-back-forward-punch"? Or do you think "dragon punch! eat it bitch!"?
2-way street, though. When I "dragon" punch someone in real life, I think "back-back-forward-punch". I've fallen off bleachers that way.
The promise of Halo in the pre MS days was so much more than what was ultimately delivered.
The promise of most games is much more than what is ultimately delivered. It's a very rare thing that a game lives up to its hype. If only I had a "what-if" machine, I'd bet you a sizeable amount of coinage that even without MS influence, the game Bungie promised would not be the game that they delivered. Stop assuming that MS influence prevented what in your eyes would have been a better game when you really have no basis for that assumption.
I love that the legendary, mythical non-MS Halo game gets respect simply because of what was "promised" by Bungie. You know how the grass is always greener on the other side? That's kind of how I see that mythical game. People "blame" Microsoft for the way Halo turned out and long for this perfect version of Halo that should have been. In reality, the Halo game probably wouldn't have been that amazing. And as for the way Halo did turn out, well, it turned out great. I completely respect the fact that you don't care much for game, but I thinks it's fairly clear that many people do. A lot. I can't say with absolute certainty that I like the current Halo series better than what might have been, but I wouldn't take a chance and change it.
I'm not going to try to defend Microsoft as a company, since that would be a futile effort here on slashdot. All I'm saying is that there is absolutely no proof that Bungie has any ill-will towards Microsoft, and even if they do, it's their own fault for selling out to Microsoft in the first place. I personally believe Halo wouldn't have achieved the type of success it has now without the aid of Microsoft. They probably wouldn't have been anywhere close, and if you're right and the split between Microsoft and Bungie really is part of some Bungie mutiny, then I'd have to point the "ungrateful" finger in Bungie's direction. Still, I don't think Bungie is that petty. I'm sure they are very grateful for Microsoft's influence, and all the evidence I've seen reinforces that opinion.
I don't get it. Where have you ever read/seen/heard that Microsoft was stifling Bungie's creativity. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you think about it. Microsoft paid a lot of money for Bungie. It's not like the abducted Bungie and forced them to be their slaves. It was a two way deal, and it's easy to see why Bungie accepted the deal. With all the extra money, they could do bigger things. It's no lie that building games costs a lot of money.
From the looks of things, it seems that Microsoft is trying very hard to please Bungie. Hell, they're letting them go. How does the saying go, "if you love someone, let them go, blah blah blah". It hardly sounds like Microsoft is being the tyranical Bungie-opressing overlords some people are trying to make them out to be.
Don't be ridiculous. There are only two opinions. Either you're a total halo fanboy who would whore yourself out to fat, middle-aged men who sweat when they piss if thats what it took to aquire your next halo fix, or you're a complete halo hater who swears grinding your genitals against asphalt is more fun then sitting through a multiplayer match. Saying that Halo is anywhere in between is not adherent to the/. culture. Assimilate please.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! Why all the hate for the exclamation point? He may not be the most popular puncuation mark but at least he's peppy. If you're gonna hate, hate on the semi-colon. He and the ampersand can both kiss my ass!
great, now THAT part is stuck in my head. Thanks a lot.
The song is EVIL. I've had that thing stuck in my head for two days. Especially the part
"And the Science gets done,
And you make a neat gun,
For the people who are still alive."
This kind of catchiness can only be the work of dark powers.
ENOUGH with the cake already! Stop perpetuating the lie!
um, yes. "Parodying" is the correct way to spell parodying. good job... What were we talking about?
Err, are you plagiarisming me or parodying me here? *scratches head* ;-)
I'll teach you the difference for $4.99. But hold on! Call in the next five minutes, and I'll throw in the correct spelling of "plagiarisming" at absolutely no additional cost. Order quickly, supplies are limited.
"Parody" is not the same as "ripping a game off". Parody does copy aspects of story and style from one piece of work to another, but parody only exists in light of its source material and is used to convey a point or make a statement. I'm not going to teach you the finer points of literature without a fee, but suffice it to say, if grand theft auto didn't exist, grand theft scratchy would have no connotation and would therefore make no sense. Parody has long been a significant, legitimate literary tool and while humorous, is mostly meant to convey a point. It is the point that is original in the case of satire. The point of satire is what distinguishes it from blatant plagiarism.
Similarly, in reference to your suggested point that there is somehow a difference between parodies of "old" things and parodies of concurring events, South Park did a parody of the Simpsons that lasted a whole episode. It was humorous and clever, and while they used plenty of references to the Simpsons and in fact, during one segment, actually went so far as to copy the Simpson's art style, I never remember hearing any complaints from the Simpson's camp. I'm sure, as active participants in the world of satire, the Simpson's executives appreciated the parody more than anything. I would expect that as associate members of the world of satire, the GTA execs would come to the same understanding. I find it sad that they do not.
If you can't tell the difference between parody and plagiarism, then consider your intelligence insulted.
Well, we're not talking about copied gameplay, we're talking about parody. From the article, it seems the only real complaint was the use of the name "Grand Theft Scratchy" which was an obvious parody of the grand theft auto games. So its parody, not gameplay, that is the issue. And if you want to know what grand theft auto paradies, here's a quick list. Miami Vice. Scarface. The Godfather. Menace 2 Society. Goodfellas. Boys in the hood. The list goes on and on. Rockstar is blatently guilty of using parody in it's games, so I see no reason why they should be so uptight about others doing the same with their material.
I don't disagree that some games are art, I'm just saying I don't really care. Whether Bioshock is art or not, it's a great game and that's all that concerns me. Now if only someone would only make that Mona Lisa dating sim I've been waitin for.
"games as games" has always been more important to me than "games as art". Maybe it's just me.
"Excellent post, should be modded up" gets modded up to 3? I think he was talking about the parent post, not his own post.
Pay no attention to the modders. Most of them are on prescription pain meds. They get cranky.
Why would you wait for a new tv to buy a Wii. I guarantee, the Wii would work just fine on the same tv you had your Gamecube hooked up to.
Well, that depends. If you're looking for a blue-ray player, its actually a good deal. If you want it to play first rate, exclusive game titles, then yeah, it's still overpriced. God I hope they get some games soon.
Blakey Rat, never before has someone been able to form the words I wished to say but was never articulate enough to express. Sir, you complete me.
Backwards compatibility has always been a nice perk, but seriously, I rarely ever use it. I think I used backwards capabilities on the ps2 to play ff tactics, and thats it. I think people put too much value in it. Besides, if you want backwards capability, you can still get it. Just cough up the extra 100
From what I know of the European and Japanese versions, there will be no backwards compatibility and no memory card ports.
I strongly feel there is a big difference between the pre and post nintendo generations. The pre nintendo generations were into games purely for the reactionary elements of the game. It's not their fault, but games were designed to solicit quarters and hi-score was the ultimate achievement. I know very few people who spent their childhood playing games like pacman or space invaders and went on to play games as adult.
Sadly, these people still think of games like pacman or space invaders when someone mentions videogames today. They have a distinct misunderstanding of the gaming experience of today's titles. Games today are meant to be experienced on multiple levels, not just gameplay but story, atmosphere, and many more. With that said, while the gaming industry may technically be over forty years old, I'd have to say that I believe "modern" gaming started around the era of Nintendo and I truly believe it will be the Nintendo generation that will have to come to power before anything truly changes.
2-way street, though. When I "dragon" punch someone in real life, I think "back-back-forward-punch". I've fallen off bleachers that way.
I'm still waiting for Call of Duty, book-on-tape. Cheers to cross-format publication.
The promise of most games is much more than what is ultimately delivered. It's a very rare thing that a game lives up to its hype. If only I had a "what-if" machine, I'd bet you a sizeable amount of coinage that even without MS influence, the game Bungie promised would not be the game that they delivered. Stop assuming that MS influence prevented what in your eyes would have been a better game when you really have no basis for that assumption.
I love that the legendary, mythical non-MS Halo game gets respect simply because of what was "promised" by Bungie. You know how the grass is always greener on the other side? That's kind of how I see that mythical game. People "blame" Microsoft for the way Halo turned out and long for this perfect version of Halo that should have been. In reality, the Halo game probably wouldn't have been that amazing. And as for the way Halo did turn out, well, it turned out great. I completely respect the fact that you don't care much for game, but I thinks it's fairly clear that many people do. A lot. I can't say with absolute certainty that I like the current Halo series better than what might have been, but I wouldn't take a chance and change it.
I'm not going to try to defend Microsoft as a company, since that would be a futile effort here on slashdot. All I'm saying is that there is absolutely no proof that Bungie has any ill-will towards Microsoft, and even if they do, it's their own fault for selling out to Microsoft in the first place. I personally believe Halo wouldn't have achieved the type of success it has now without the aid of Microsoft. They probably wouldn't have been anywhere close, and if you're right and the split between Microsoft and Bungie really is part of some Bungie mutiny, then I'd have to point the "ungrateful" finger in Bungie's direction. Still, I don't think Bungie is that petty. I'm sure they are very grateful for Microsoft's influence, and all the evidence I've seen reinforces that opinion.
I don't get it. Where have you ever read/seen/heard that Microsoft was stifling Bungie's creativity. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you think about it. Microsoft paid a lot of money for Bungie. It's not like the abducted Bungie and forced them to be their slaves. It was a two way deal, and it's easy to see why Bungie accepted the deal. With all the extra money, they could do bigger things. It's no lie that building games costs a lot of money.
From the looks of things, it seems that Microsoft is trying very hard to please Bungie. Hell, they're letting them go. How does the saying go, "if you love someone, let them go, blah blah blah". It hardly sounds like Microsoft is being the tyranical Bungie-opressing overlords some people are trying to make them out to be.
Don't be ridiculous. There are only two opinions. Either you're a total halo fanboy who would whore yourself out to fat, middle-aged men who sweat when they piss if thats what it took to aquire your next halo fix, or you're a complete halo hater who swears grinding your genitals against asphalt is more fun then sitting through a multiplayer match. Saying that Halo is anywhere in between is not adherent to the /. culture. Assimilate please.