That was true in the past, but look at the GBA. It supports the previous two incarnations of Gameboy games as well as the new format of GBA games. The PS2 plays PS1 games. They've already (mostly) confirmed that the PS3 will be backwards compatible. If Nintendo follows suit and has backwards compatibility with their next console, and Microsoft decides not to, they will be basically guaranteeing a third place finish. I'm not saying people won't buy XBox2s (or whatever they're called), I'm just saying people being able to play the games they currently have on new (i.e. not worn out) hardware is a selling point. It also immediately gives them a library of games on which to build, so when the hardware is initially released their customers don't have to sit around lamenting the fact that there are only 4 games out for XBox2 and only one of them is good. They can always go back and play whatever XBox1 games they have or can get their hands on.
The place where that comparison breaks down, though, is in the development phase. The movie industry has been around a lot longer than the video game industry. They've nearly got the development cycle down to a science. If they want to release a movie around Christmas time, they have a very good idea of when they need to begin each phase of development based on the length of the movie they want, budget, etc. It doesn't seem that game developers and publishers have quite figured that part out yet. Far too often release dates get pushed back for one reason or another and there's a mad rush to get the game out near Q4.
I think someone forgot to mail you your Slashdot Moronity, Acrimony, Rubbish, Triviality, And Sarcasm Sensor (SMARTASS) when you signed up. It's standard operating equipment here.
is this not just another "I hate campers" rant? I guess I wasn't supposed to read the part about the "chickenshits" who use sniper rifles all the time.
Someone who is this concerned with kill ratios and winning in a video game probably needs to find something better to do. It's a game. Get over it.
Well, that part I understood. I knew he wasn't referring to the visual perspective of the game but rather to the narrative perspective. What I was wondering, though, is the bit about "-player". Most people can discern what first-person games means, but why "first-person-player"?
It's not because I don't think it's a word. It's because it's used improperly. If you want to use the word 'irregardless', be my guest. However, let's break it down: ir- : a prefix meaning not regard: to take into account; consider -less: a suffix meaning without or lacking
So, if 'regardless' means without consideration, then 'irregardless' means NOT without consideration. In other words, it means the exact opposite of what the person using it is usually trying to say. If you insist upon using the word, at least use it properly.
For the love of FUCK, stop using the word 'irregardless'.
And yes, you have the right to backup your games and movies even if you are a "laxy" slob. Also, there's this thing called the Internet. One of the neat things it lets you do is update software you own in case the software maker wants to add some new features or functionality. You should check it out.
"No, you're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole." hehe
I think you meant stealing, and the answer is yes, you're wrong. The whole concept of intellectual property is idiotic anyway, but that's a different argument, so I'll leave it alone.
Copyright infringement (in the U.S. at least) is a civil matter. If you call something stealing (i.e. theft) then it becomes a criminal matter. This is why I have a problem with referring to it as "pirating". Equating people that download music illegally with people that pillage, plunder, rape, and kill for fun and profit is unnecessarily harsh. Putting people in prison for downloading or sharing mp3s is not something I think we as a society should condone.
When you make a copy of a song that you don't have the right to copy for your own personal entertainment, you're violating someone's copyright for sure. But are you stealing? Does your copy of a copy prevent the copyright holder from making copies of his/her work and making a profit from selling those copies? No, of course not.
I don't like to get into these arguments about the legality of copyright lengths and whatnot since I'm not really well-versed on the subject, but I refuse to apply the label of 'thief' to someone who makes a copy of something they shouldn't.
Well, nearly all killings have some justification, whether real or imagined. I guess that wasn't really my point.
My point was that if I tell you I beat someone to death with a baseball bat, you might be pretty horrified. But if I tell you right before that he was running at me full speed, swinging a bloody knife, and screaming how he was going to gut me, then you probably understand why I did it.
P.S. I've never seen any of the Silence of the Lambs movies nor have I read the books. I'm only familiar with the character through references to him in parodies and such. It probably was a poor choice of an example.
I don't try to stop people from playing anything; I don't know where you got that impression.
It wasn't directed at you, it was just a general statement. And it's not really about stopping people from playing the game. If you want to discourage people from playing it, that's your business. But I draw the line at lobbying governments for the purpose of passing legislation that would make the creation and distribution of these types of games illegal. Again, not saying you do that.
I'm in favor of more diligent age verification by retailers and harsher penalties imposed on those that sell M-rated games to kids, but I think they should be self-imposed. If the ESRB doesn't like Wal-Mart's ID checking policy, then they need to fine them. Of course, Wal-Mart is probably a bad example since the video game industry probably needs Wal-Mart more than Wal-Mart needs video games. It's just that governmental bans of "objectionable" art (no matter what the form) just piss me off to no end.
Acceptable to whom? Should it be acceptable that you even mention the rape of little girls? Some people might be offended or disturbed just by the mention of it. That example is ridiculous anyway. There's a difference between killing someone who would kill you if you didn't and raping an innocent person to prevent yourself from being raped by someone else.
Objecting to the narrative isn't the same as forcing the narrative to not exist. However, you can't object to things within the game outside the context of the game. It's unfair, for example, to call what you do in the game "senseless murder". If you don't like it, fine. If you don't think kids should play it, I don't disagree. But if you actively pursue activities to prevent other people from making things available that I might enjoy because you think your morals are the standard by which all others should live, then you're just an asshole.
Going through all the comments in this thread, there's one important point missing from the discussion.
In many films and other literature about ruthless murderers, they murder innocents. The people they kill are killed for no reason. Hannibal Lecter didn't kill people in self defense. In Manhunt, you are forced to kill people. That's the whole plot of the game. Your character is already a murderer who was about to be executed, but instead your execution was faked and you were handed over to a man (for a price) and he is forcing you to kill for his own amusement. How does he force you? By putting you in a kill-or-be-killed situation. The people around you will kill you if you don't kill them. There's no getting around it. It's not like in GTA where you might run over some innocent pedestrians or something.
It's important to look at the game within its narrative context, otherwise all the discussion is pointless. The game is not just brutal, disgusting murders for the sake of killing (except maybe in the eyes of the Director who apparently gets off on seeing other people killed) rather your character kills others because he must.
The reason that the drinking age is 21 in the U.S. is because of lobbying and federal intervention. States are denied federal transportation money if the drinking age isn't 21 because of the Uniform Drinking Age Act passed in 1984.
the reality is that these are laws that do not affect the lawmakers.
Maybe not directly, but they have children and grandchildren.
You also can't run for President or get a senior citizen's discount at Denny's. What's your point? None of those things have anything to do with drinking age.
The long history of white slave owners and black slaves is over, lets let it pass and remember it as a bad time that is gone and must never be brought back.
Part of that "bad time" was the usage of the word by slave masters to refer to their African slaves. That's where the negativity comes from. If you want to let the long history of slavery pass, be my guest, but the word goes with it.
And don't use one particular experience you had with a Jewish friend as an example of how the entire group feels. There are plenty of Jews who are extremely offended by the notion that they should endure persecution because the person who put Christ to death was Jewish. Just look at all the uproar over Mel Gibson's movie.
Everything is about context. If my best friend is Jewish and I call him a dirty penny-pinching Yid, the ADL isn't going to hold a press conference and condemn me. But if I walk into a Vietnamese shop and call the clerk a gook, he's probably going to be pretty pissed. The word nigger isn't bothersome, but the way it's used (and has been used in recent history) is what causes it to have a negative connotation for black people.
We should keep in mind that this story isn't about our politicians. He's from Hong Kong, not Norway or the U.S.
Also, I'm not sure how it works in Hong Kong, but in the U.S., the Secretary of Education isn't an elected position and wouldn't have a vote on any sort of legislation.
You most certainly do not. Film ratings and video game ratings are different. There doesn't have to be exact age correlation between the two rating systems. The Lion and Lamb project seem to be searching for the same correlation. They complain that a game that's rated T was made using a movie that's rated R, but R-rated movies are accessible by teenagers with (13-16) or without (17-19) parents, so how is it wrong? If you use movie, TV, and/or video game ratings as a concrete way of deciding whether some piece of media is appropriate for your child, then you're a miserable excuse for a parent anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Bo Jackson in Tecmo Bowl was probably the most insane video game athlete of all time.
That was true in the past, but look at the GBA. It supports the previous two incarnations of Gameboy games as well as the new format of GBA games. The PS2 plays PS1 games. They've already (mostly) confirmed that the PS3 will be backwards compatible. If Nintendo follows suit and has backwards compatibility with their next console, and Microsoft decides not to, they will be basically guaranteeing a third place finish. I'm not saying people won't buy XBox2s (or whatever they're called), I'm just saying people being able to play the games they currently have on new (i.e. not worn out) hardware is a selling point. It also immediately gives them a library of games on which to build, so when the hardware is initially released their customers don't have to sit around lamenting the fact that there are only 4 games out for XBox2 and only one of them is good. They can always go back and play whatever XBox1 games they have or can get their hands on.
The place where that comparison breaks down, though, is in the development phase. The movie industry has been around a lot longer than the video game industry. They've nearly got the development cycle down to a science. If they want to release a movie around Christmas time, they have a very good idea of when they need to begin each phase of development based on the length of the movie they want, budget, etc. It doesn't seem that game developers and publishers have quite figured that part out yet. Far too often release dates get pushed back for one reason or another and there's a mad rush to get the game out near Q4.
I think someone forgot to mail you your Slashdot Moronity, Acrimony, Rubbish, Triviality, And Sarcasm Sensor (SMARTASS) when you signed up. It's standard operating equipment here.
is this not just another "I hate campers" rant? I guess I wasn't supposed to read the part about the "chickenshits" who use sniper rifles all the time.
Someone who is this concerned with kill ratios and winning in a video game probably needs to find something better to do. It's a game. Get over it.
Well, that part I understood. I knew he wasn't referring to the visual perspective of the game but rather to the narrative perspective. What I was wondering, though, is the bit about "-player". Most people can discern what first-person games means, but why "first-person-player"?
Incidentally, what do you suppose he means by "first-person-player games"?
In other words, get good at playing Rollercoaster Tycoon.
It's not because I don't think it's a word. It's because it's used improperly. If you want to use the word 'irregardless', be my guest. However, let's break it down:
ir- : a prefix meaning not
regard: to take into account; consider
-less: a suffix meaning without or lacking
So, if 'regardless' means without consideration, then 'irregardless' means NOT without consideration. In other words, it means the exact opposite of what the person using it is usually trying to say. If you insist upon using the word, at least use it properly.
For the love of FUCK, stop using the word 'irregardless'.
And yes, you have the right to backup your games and movies even if you are a "laxy" slob. Also, there's this thing called the Internet. One of the neat things it lets you do is update software you own in case the software maker wants to add some new features or functionality. You should check it out.
Yeah, I heard that was the release date for DNF too. And it's also the day that Infinium's Phantom service goes live. Wow, what a big day for gamers.
"No, you're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole." hehe
I think you meant stealing, and the answer is yes, you're wrong. The whole concept of intellectual property is idiotic anyway, but that's a different argument, so I'll leave it alone.
Copyright infringement (in the U.S. at least) is a civil matter. If you call something stealing (i.e. theft) then it becomes a criminal matter. This is why I have a problem with referring to it as "pirating". Equating people that download music illegally with people that pillage, plunder, rape, and kill for fun and profit is unnecessarily harsh. Putting people in prison for downloading or sharing mp3s is not something I think we as a society should condone.
When you make a copy of a song that you don't have the right to copy for your own personal entertainment, you're violating someone's copyright for sure. But are you stealing? Does your copy of a copy prevent the copyright holder from making copies of his/her work and making a profit from selling those copies? No, of course not.
I don't like to get into these arguments about the legality of copyright lengths and whatnot since I'm not really well-versed on the subject, but I refuse to apply the label of 'thief' to someone who makes a copy of something they shouldn't.
Well, nearly all killings have some justification, whether real or imagined. I guess that wasn't really my point.
My point was that if I tell you I beat someone to death with a baseball bat, you might be pretty horrified. But if I tell you right before that he was running at me full speed, swinging a bloody knife, and screaming how he was going to gut me, then you probably understand why I did it.
P.S. I've never seen any of the Silence of the Lambs movies nor have I read the books. I'm only familiar with the character through references to him in parodies and such. It probably was a poor choice of an example.
I don't try to stop people from playing anything; I don't know where you got that impression.
It wasn't directed at you, it was just a general statement. And it's not really about stopping people from playing the game. If you want to discourage people from playing it, that's your business. But I draw the line at lobbying governments for the purpose of passing legislation that would make the creation and distribution of these types of games illegal. Again, not saying you do that.
I'm in favor of more diligent age verification by retailers and harsher penalties imposed on those that sell M-rated games to kids, but I think they should be self-imposed. If the ESRB doesn't like Wal-Mart's ID checking policy, then they need to fine them. Of course, Wal-Mart is probably a bad example since the video game industry probably needs Wal-Mart more than Wal-Mart needs video games. It's just that governmental bans of "objectionable" art (no matter what the form) just piss me off to no end.
Acceptable to whom? Should it be acceptable that you even mention the rape of little girls? Some people might be offended or disturbed just by the mention of it. That example is ridiculous anyway. There's a difference between killing someone who would kill you if you didn't and raping an innocent person to prevent yourself from being raped by someone else.
Objecting to the narrative isn't the same as forcing the narrative to not exist. However, you can't object to things within the game outside the context of the game. It's unfair, for example, to call what you do in the game "senseless murder". If you don't like it, fine. If you don't think kids should play it, I don't disagree. But if you actively pursue activities to prevent other people from making things available that I might enjoy because you think your morals are the standard by which all others should live, then you're just an asshole.
Going through all the comments in this thread, there's one important point missing from the discussion.
In many films and other literature about ruthless murderers, they murder innocents. The people they kill are killed for no reason. Hannibal Lecter didn't kill people in self defense. In Manhunt, you are forced to kill people. That's the whole plot of the game. Your character is already a murderer who was about to be executed, but instead your execution was faked and you were handed over to a man (for a price) and he is forcing you to kill for his own amusement. How does he force you? By putting you in a kill-or-be-killed situation. The people around you will kill you if you don't kill them. There's no getting around it. It's not like in GTA where you might run over some innocent pedestrians or something.
It's important to look at the game within its narrative context, otherwise all the discussion is pointless. The game is not just brutal, disgusting murders for the sake of killing (except maybe in the eyes of the Director who apparently gets off on seeing other people killed) rather your character kills others because he must.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that.
The reason that the drinking age is 21 in the U.S. is because of lobbying and federal intervention. States are denied federal transportation money if the drinking age isn't 21 because of the Uniform Drinking Age Act passed in 1984.
the reality is that these are laws that do not affect the lawmakers.
Maybe not directly, but they have children and grandchildren.
You also can't run for President or get a senior citizen's discount at Denny's. What's your point? None of those things have anything to do with drinking age.
The long history of white slave owners and black slaves is over, lets let it pass and remember it as a bad time that is gone and must never be brought back.
Part of that "bad time" was the usage of the word by slave masters to refer to their African slaves. That's where the negativity comes from. If you want to let the long history of slavery pass, be my guest, but the word goes with it.
And don't use one particular experience you had with a Jewish friend as an example of how the entire group feels. There are plenty of Jews who are extremely offended by the notion that they should endure persecution because the person who put Christ to death was Jewish. Just look at all the uproar over Mel Gibson's movie.
Everything is about context. If my best friend is Jewish and I call him a dirty penny-pinching Yid, the ADL isn't going to hold a press conference and condemn me. But if I walk into a Vietnamese shop and call the clerk a gook, he's probably going to be pretty pissed. The word nigger isn't bothersome, but the way it's used (and has been used in recent history) is what causes it to have a negative connotation for black people.
Beware this is Slashdot. You aren't supposed to wonder those kinds of things lest ye be mocked.
Also, when you use a line from George Carlin, you might want to give credit.
Well, it's either play video games or sit and daydream about their interns' tits. I'm not sure I prefer one over the other.
We should keep in mind that this story isn't about our politicians. He's from Hong Kong, not Norway or the U.S.
Also, I'm not sure how it works in Hong Kong, but in the U.S., the Secretary of Education isn't an elected position and wouldn't have a vote on any sort of legislation.
unrelated game of which your mastery is directly proportional to your sex appeal.
I'm pretty sure you meant inversely, not directly.
You most certainly do not. Film ratings and video game ratings are different. There doesn't have to be exact age correlation between the two rating systems. The Lion and Lamb project seem to be searching for the same correlation. They complain that a game that's rated T was made using a movie that's rated R, but R-rated movies are accessible by teenagers with (13-16) or without (17-19) parents, so how is it wrong? If you use movie, TV, and/or video game ratings as a concrete way of deciding whether some piece of media is appropriate for your child, then you're a miserable excuse for a parent anyway.