Many of you need to sit back and consider just what is an RPG. RPG stands for Role-playing game. The definition of an RPG is a game in which you assume the role of a person you create.
First and foremost thing to understand, YOU CAN NOT PLAY AN RPG ON ANY SYSTEM OTHER THAN PEN & PAPER! On a board game, a computer game, a console game, card game, anything except for a pen & paper game, you are restricted by the rules of the game and the physical boundaries of the system used. Only in a pen & paper game can you truly assume the role of a character and interact with the fictional world in any way possible (within the laws of physics and what not from the game world, but we are bound by those limits in the real world as well).
Now, with that out of the way, there is still the fact that the term RPG has been applied to computer and console games (despite the fact that it's impossible). Traditionally RPGs on a console or computer have been considered to be a game which included stats of characters with growth values, something you could call a storyline, and a non-real time combat system. With the passing of time, the RPG definition has generalized to where the only defining trait of an RPG now (on a computer or console system) is having stats that grow in one manner or another.
Take a few minutes and reflect on that, then share your comments. I'd love to have someone prove me wrong, but I've spent the last few years trying to figure this out. The only other trait on a pure RPG game is a non-real time combat system, but for the full definition of an RPG (be it pure or hybrid) is simply a game with stats that grow.
As was mentioned before this is just another "if you haven't played X, you're not a gamer". Just look at the selection of games. I'm not going to go over them one by one, but I'll use one examples that stands out to everyone as a game that must be included, half-life.
There was nothing new or innovative about Half-life, nothing. It was so successful for one reason, multiplayer. When it was released the internet was really starting too boom, and people were looking for a game to play with friends online now that everyone else was getting a connection. What's the best solution at the time? Half-life.
That same reason spreads to a majority of the other games. Blizzard is a good example, they released Warcraft at the right time, which made it succesful instead of it being innovative. Starcraft as well, there is nothing new in Starcraft, but people loved it because of the setting, it was the first mass-market Sci-fi RTS after the boom of computing.
Also, I can't believe he said Elder Scrolls III (Morrowind) instead of Elder Scrolls II (Daggerfall). All Morrowind was is an extension of Daggerfall with better graphics.
That's another thing that is common throughout the list, some of the games are future versions of other games.
You're right it does. Especially when you consider that $299 computer takes up extra space, and you've got to spend the money on the KVM (or another monitor/keyboard/mouse).
Plus why a machine set up specifically to be a honeypot that you only need once a month when you can use a VM? I've got about 30 VMs of machines of various OS types at various patch levels with various software on each VM. Imagine how much space that would take up using individual PCs.
There was a court decision (I think it was settled in court at least, or maybe someone just found a loophole and no one contested it) a long time ago that stated exclusive releases on a console did not have bearing on a PC given the seperate classification. (A console is well... a console, whereas a PC is a personal computer and not associated with the definition of a "console"). The idea is that exclusive rights on a console means that those rights apply to console classified systems only.
If you consider D&D to be a huge ripoff of LOTR, then you have to consider LOTR a huge rip-off of folklore. Or consider that ever robot novel is a ripoff of Asimov's work.
Not sure if this has been mentioned (probably has), but the new Longhorn release of Windows is supposed to be shipped with a new file system (WinFS) which does exactly what you need. It (again, all just theory right now) will work by using a SQL database instead of a FAT table. This means you can now classify files.
So you'll access a "folder" which basically has a list of properties, and all files with those properties will be show. So if I want all my pictures from my vacation to hawaii, as well as my monthly financial reports, I'd create a folder that "contains" all files on those subjects, and whenever I accessed that folder it'd show me all files that fit those catagories. But on the same hand I can have another "folder" which shows me just my vacation pictures.
You just proved your word has no bearing. Listen, when you think of a consumer market you have to think of an actual consumer, not yourself. Most people don't even know that you can buy a mini-PC and use it as you would a game console. Furthermore there is a definited distinction in a consumers mind between "PC" and "Console". The Phantom is being marketed as a "Console", which right there puts it into a different class of equipment in 50% of the minds that will buy one.
You didn't read the article. The very FIRST LINE of the article states:
"Sony Computer Entertainment boss Ken Kutaragi has confirmed that the PlayStation 3 will feature backwards compatibility with the PS2 and PSone..."
A) It's an online matter, so that makes a huge difference, I'm refering to only solo play.
B) Tribes 2 is cracked, I know because I have a cracked copy I obtained a few weeks ago when my brother destroyed my original since I wouldn't ever give up playing to let him play. (It didn't occur to me until afterwards that I could use my old information (hey, I was extremely pissed and not thinking straight), but after I realized that I stopped using my illegal information, so for all I know it may have been tracked down over time)
C) You can still easily use cracked copies in LAN parties.
However, you're forgetting that online services are another matter altogether. And even that isn't fool-proof (with one exception, there are a few games that keep a database of all currently available codes and every new user registers against that database, so that prevents anyone from using a keygen to generate a random value that fits in with the programs algorithims).
Golias mentioned one point, allow me to mention another. A third-party has been developing a completely SEPERATE service similar to X-Box Live, I believe it's called XBoxConnect (although don't quote me on that).
Why do companies continue to insist on spending more and more resources on copy protection?
A) It's been proven ineffective, everything from the first disc-copy protection format to activation has been proven to be worthless. About the only thing left to try is hardware DRM, but even that's not fool-proof (X-Box).
B) If anyone is willing to go through the effort to search, or learn, how to copy games they'll find a way to do it. Those that don't bother with passing copy protection either don't buy the game or will be turned aside by anything beyond a key code.
Half and half. Part of the whole deal is to simply build support for your cause, which is a bunch of reptitive minor tasks. On the other hand there ARE actions that make life interesting and cause some mayhem. I haven't gotten to any personally (but I haven't played very far either) but I've heard on the GameFAQs forums that you can spark riots, set fires, order beat downs, etc...
It's sort of like another Sim game, but this time you're a trying to start a revolution, instead of build a city or something. The problem with the game is that you assign your tasks for your people to do over the course of the day (three phases in each day), and sit back and watch. It takes quite some time for anything to happen (which I've got patience and I love games that require critical thinking, so it wasn't a big deal for me), most of your time is spent doing tasks that seem mundane and repetitive (well, they are reptitive).
I'd highly suggest trying it if you can enjoy extreme micro-management and politics. However, the thing you have to get past is the fact that you spend several minutes just staring at your screen with short bouts of interaction in-between. That's because you can give orders as far in advance as you want, and (as I mentioned above) change just doesn't happen all that fast. The time-compression really doesn't help much either, because at the fastest speed it still takes roughly a minute or two (didn't actually time it) to pass one phase of the day.
I enjoy it personally because it's one hell of a challenge overall, and because it's a new concept. I'd probably see if you could borrow it from a friend, wait for a demo, or buy it from a place you can return it before decided to stick with it. As the Gamespot review mentioned, it's going to seriously divide gamers between 95% that hate it with a passion, and the 5% that will form another eternal underground cults that rise up for those games that require too much thinking for most people to deal with.
(BTW, that last line wasn't meant as an insult, it's just true that most people who don't play games like Republic because it's simply too much to worry about, and they play games for pure actiony goodness and not to think about things)
I see most people saying that the author doesn't know what he's talking about, how Windows changes the interface every edition, and that Linux is all the better for allowing someone to pick.
That's all wrong. Windows does change it's interface but it still leaves people with NO CHOICE in the matter as to which to use (although you can change it after Windows is installed through themes or 3rd Party Programs). That makes a huge difference to not give someone a choice, than it is to say "This is the default option, but you can also select this desktop." Whether you like it or not there is a serious issue when it comes to offering someone a choice in Linux when they're used to Windows forcing them to use something. It's basic psychology.
Despite the editor's lack of insight into Linux GUIs, that comment was uncalled for. It's comments like those that stop Windows users (be they simply home users, or actual tech savvy people) from switching over to Linux, whether you mean them or not. Grow up.
Are you people brain dead or something? Carmageddon and Test Drive (mentioned by one of the other people who replied) are NOT similar to Driver.
Carmageddon is more or less a destruction derby with goals in a city enviroment.
Test Drive is a typical open-ended course racing games in a city.
The original GTA is however, a valid point to consider. Although you seem to be forgetting the that the original GTA was 2D and Driver is 3D, which makes a big difference.
Driver is a storyline based mission-set game. It is NOT a racing game! You simply do the missions, by majority, in a car as opposed to on foot or something else...
They aren't constrainted within the context of a movie set. Re-read the interview. For one thing they specifically say that it isn't like Stuntman, which is a game with car chases in a movie style format.
What they are doing with Driver is to make a game that takes driving games away from the "official" track, and away from the open-ended courses in games like Midnight City, yet still retaining the fun, and focus, of the driving aspect.
And last but not least, they plan to implement stuff like outrun the cops, but that isn't their only focus.
Actually the PC gamepads have always fallen in line with the console standards. If you look back when the SNES was king, Gamepads for the PC generally had the same amount of buttons as a SNES gamepad (been so long can't even remember how many that was).
Now, most gamepads have two analog sticks, a directional pad, and 8-12 buttons (depending on extra features).
There is no simply answer to this debate. However, I'd like to present an analogy to explain why that is.
Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com). To those of you who aren't familiar with it Combat Mission (Beyond Overlord and Barbarossa to Berlin) are games that take the number crunching of a old-fashioned (but still good) hex style war-game and combine it with a RTS. This is new and original because you've either got massive scope war-games where the difference of life or death can rest on any number of factors (how well you manage your troops and their stats) and you've got the RTS which is basically just build up massive armies in Real Time and rush your opponent hoping for a victory. Then throw in battlefield tactics (such as cover and concealment) which you usually only see in Tactical squad level games, and you've got Combat Mission.
These games are incredible, and very original. Anyone who enjoyes strategy or tactical games of any level should enjoy these games. However, there's one problem, no one is willing to field it in the market because it's new, no matter how good it seems. Luckily enough there was enough word of mouth on the net (in between scattered advertisements) that the Combat Missions were semi-successful games. Eventually they gained enough popularity that the retail stores started looking into it. I believe Combat Mission Beyond Overlord was released in mid-2000, and it wasn't on store shelves until early 2002.
Despite doing well, the sequel (Barbarossa to Berlin) isn't even out in stores yet (I don't think) even though it's been completed for some time.
Yes gamers want new games because they are usually fun just for that fact. However, people believe they don't want games because that's what mob rule has decided.
Actually FFX was quite original in it's execution. At least as far as I know, it's the first console RPG that ever combined real-time switching of characters with defined weaknesses (combination of the two, not each individually).
Also, I've never seen a game that had something similar to BlitzBall, sure it was a bunch of concepts from other games thrown together, but you seem to be forgetting what original really means today. You'll never find a TRULY original game, you'll only find a game that takes several ocncepts from other games and combines them in a way no one has tried before, FFX did that. Therefore it's an original game.
You, and people like you, just look at the storyline and say "Oh! It's an RPG that's been done several thousand times in the past!" Or you might even look at the gameplay and say "Oh! It's a real-time standard RPG combat system, been there, done that."
There is no such thing as a "original" game engine anymore (at least for the moment). EVERYTHING out there, in terms of an engine, has been used by some game at least 5 years ago. As a matter of fact that least truly original engine I ever saw was the true 3D RTS (instead of just using 3D graphics and physics with 2D movement, you could know move in 3D in an RTS engine) from Homeworld. And I think there was a game that did it before Homeworld, just can't remember the name.
I don't know about RedMoon, but most companies i"ve dealt with have Terms of Service with specific clauses for this kind of thing. So the whole discussion of sueing other companies becomes moot (unless there is another stupid company out there with similar terms).
No matter how you look at it Linux sucks as a game platform. Same with Mac. Aside from Bungie I don't know of any company that has made a game that rivals the Windows port, or native version in Windows.
Don't ask me to explain it, all I know is that every game I've ever seen looks better, and plays better on Windows. I'm even counting those games that were developed on Mac or Linux (well Mac at least, I don't know of any games developed for Linux then ported to Windows) that were ported to Windows (with the exception being Bungie).
It's the job of an IT administrator to provide the best support possible for his company. You can't do that with a Mac for two reasons:
1) Hardware. It's a fact of life, you can't keep a steady supply of equipment on hand for replacements. It's not only impractical but extremely expensive when you can no longer use those old cards that no longer work with your baseline. Furthermore if I need ANY piece of hardware that can work on a x86 architecture I can go to a local store and buy it in case of emergency, instantaneous delievery. I can't do that with a Mac architecture. No store in my area (and I've got a lot of local stores from Mom & Pop shops to Walmart to Best Buy) sells Mac equipment.
Also have you considered price? Whether you like it or not you can get a much better deal on more readily available hardware (sales, neogotiating, whatever). In todays world readily available hardware is x86 hardware.
2) Compatiability. Face it, no matter how much security is pumped up today it still doesn't beat range of use. With Linux or Windows I can use just about any piece of software made for any version of the OS, can Mac boost that? Cost comes into this factor as well, if I want to update my Mac machines, I've got to update just about everything, which can be very costly. If I want to update my Windows or Linux machine I can update just this server, or just these workstations. That's not even taking into account I'm just updating the OS, not all the required software.
So lets see:
I can go with the Mac which is less widely used, meaning higher chance of training required for new employees, which guarntees if something goes wrong I'll probably have to wait for a part unless I'm lucky enough to have a replacement in stock. When upgrade time comes close I've got to seriously conserve my budget or beg upper management for more to make way for the cost of upgrading so much junk to ensure everything works properly.
Or I can go with a Linux/Windows solution, find parts falling around me for cheap prices I've scammed from distributors. I've got cheap upgrades, minor training requirements, and an much larger support base to fall back on. And guess what, stability isn't a problem because a properly administered Windows box is just a stable as a properly administered Linux box, which is just as stable a properly administered Mac box.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of you need to sit back and consider just what is an RPG. RPG stands for Role-playing game. The definition of an RPG is a game in which you assume the role of a person you create. First and foremost thing to understand, YOU CAN NOT PLAY AN RPG ON ANY SYSTEM OTHER THAN PEN & PAPER! On a board game, a computer game, a console game, card game, anything except for a pen & paper game, you are restricted by the rules of the game and the physical boundaries of the system used. Only in a pen & paper game can you truly assume the role of a character and interact with the fictional world in any way possible (within the laws of physics and what not from the game world, but we are bound by those limits in the real world as well). Now, with that out of the way, there is still the fact that the term RPG has been applied to computer and console games (despite the fact that it's impossible). Traditionally RPGs on a console or computer have been considered to be a game which included stats of characters with growth values, something you could call a storyline, and a non-real time combat system. With the passing of time, the RPG definition has generalized to where the only defining trait of an RPG now (on a computer or console system) is having stats that grow in one manner or another. Take a few minutes and reflect on that, then share your comments. I'd love to have someone prove me wrong, but I've spent the last few years trying to figure this out. The only other trait on a pure RPG game is a non-real time combat system, but for the full definition of an RPG (be it pure or hybrid) is simply a game with stats that grow.
As was mentioned before this is just another "if you haven't played X, you're not a gamer". Just look at the selection of games. I'm not going to go over them one by one, but I'll use one examples that stands out to everyone as a game that must be included, half-life.
There was nothing new or innovative about Half-life, nothing. It was so successful for one reason, multiplayer. When it was released the internet was really starting too boom, and people were looking for a game to play with friends online now that everyone else was getting a connection. What's the best solution at the time? Half-life.
That same reason spreads to a majority of the other games. Blizzard is a good example, they released Warcraft at the right time, which made it succesful instead of it being innovative. Starcraft as well, there is nothing new in Starcraft, but people loved it because of the setting, it was the first mass-market Sci-fi RTS after the boom of computing.
Also, I can't believe he said Elder Scrolls III (Morrowind) instead of Elder Scrolls II (Daggerfall). All Morrowind was is an extension of Daggerfall with better graphics.
That's another thing that is common throughout the list, some of the games are future versions of other games.
You're right it does. Especially when you consider that $299 computer takes up extra space, and you've got to spend the money on the KVM (or another monitor/keyboard/mouse). Plus why a machine set up specifically to be a honeypot that you only need once a month when you can use a VM? I've got about 30 VMs of machines of various OS types at various patch levels with various software on each VM. Imagine how much space that would take up using individual PCs.
There was a court decision (I think it was settled in court at least, or maybe someone just found a loophole and no one contested it) a long time ago that stated exclusive releases on a console did not have bearing on a PC given the seperate classification. (A console is well... a console, whereas a PC is a personal computer and not associated with the definition of a "console"). The idea is that exclusive rights on a console means that those rights apply to console classified systems only.
If you consider D&D to be a huge ripoff of LOTR, then you have to consider LOTR a huge rip-off of folklore. Or consider that ever robot novel is a ripoff of Asimov's work.
Not sure if this has been mentioned (probably has), but the new Longhorn release of Windows is supposed to be shipped with a new file system (WinFS) which does exactly what you need. It (again, all just theory right now) will work by using a SQL database instead of a FAT table. This means you can now classify files.
So you'll access a "folder" which basically has a list of properties, and all files with those properties will be show. So if I want all my pictures from my vacation to hawaii, as well as my monthly financial reports, I'd create a folder that "contains" all files on those subjects, and whenever I accessed that folder it'd show me all files that fit those catagories. But on the same hand I can have another "folder" which shows me just my vacation pictures.
You just proved your word has no bearing. Listen, when you think of a consumer market you have to think of an actual consumer, not yourself. Most people don't even know that you can buy a mini-PC and use it as you would a game console. Furthermore there is a definited distinction in a consumers mind between "PC" and "Console". The Phantom is being marketed as a "Console", which right there puts it into a different class of equipment in 50% of the minds that will buy one.
You didn't read the article. The very FIRST LINE of the article states: "Sony Computer Entertainment boss Ken Kutaragi has confirmed that the PlayStation 3 will feature backwards compatibility with the PS2 and PSone..."
A) It's an online matter, so that makes a huge difference, I'm refering to only solo play.
B) Tribes 2 is cracked, I know because I have a cracked copy I obtained a few weeks ago when my brother destroyed my original since I wouldn't ever give up playing to let him play. (It didn't occur to me until afterwards that I could use my old information (hey, I was extremely pissed and not thinking straight), but after I realized that I stopped using my illegal information, so for all I know it may have been tracked down over time)
C) You can still easily use cracked copies in LAN parties.
However, you're forgetting that online services are another matter altogether. And even that isn't fool-proof (with one exception, there are a few games that keep a database of all currently available codes and every new user registers against that database, so that prevents anyone from using a keygen to generate a random value that fits in with the programs algorithims).
Golias mentioned one point, allow me to mention another. A third-party has been developing a completely SEPERATE service similar to X-Box Live, I believe it's called XBoxConnect (although don't quote me on that).
Why do companies continue to insist on spending more and more resources on copy protection?
A) It's been proven ineffective, everything from the first disc-copy protection format to activation has been proven to be worthless. About the only thing left to try is hardware DRM, but even that's not fool-proof (X-Box).
B) If anyone is willing to go through the effort to search, or learn, how to copy games they'll find a way to do it. Those that don't bother with passing copy protection either don't buy the game or will be turned aside by anything beyond a key code.
Half and half. Part of the whole deal is to simply build support for your cause, which is a bunch of reptitive minor tasks. On the other hand there ARE actions that make life interesting and cause some mayhem. I haven't gotten to any personally (but I haven't played very far either) but I've heard on the GameFAQs forums that you can spark riots, set fires, order beat downs, etc...
It's sort of like another Sim game, but this time you're a trying to start a revolution, instead of build a city or something. The problem with the game is that you assign your tasks for your people to do over the course of the day (three phases in each day), and sit back and watch. It takes quite some time for anything to happen (which I've got patience and I love games that require critical thinking, so it wasn't a big deal for me), most of your time is spent doing tasks that seem mundane and repetitive (well, they are reptitive).
I'd highly suggest trying it if you can enjoy extreme micro-management and politics. However, the thing you have to get past is the fact that you spend several minutes just staring at your screen with short bouts of interaction in-between. That's because you can give orders as far in advance as you want, and (as I mentioned above) change just doesn't happen all that fast. The time-compression really doesn't help much either, because at the fastest speed it still takes roughly a minute or two (didn't actually time it) to pass one phase of the day.
I enjoy it personally because it's one hell of a challenge overall, and because it's a new concept. I'd probably see if you could borrow it from a friend, wait for a demo, or buy it from a place you can return it before decided to stick with it. As the Gamespot review mentioned, it's going to seriously divide gamers between 95% that hate it with a passion, and the 5% that will form another eternal underground cults that rise up for those games that require too much thinking for most people to deal with.
(BTW, that last line wasn't meant as an insult, it's just true that most people who don't play games like Republic because it's simply too much to worry about, and they play games for pure actiony goodness and not to think about things)
I see most people saying that the author doesn't know what he's talking about, how Windows changes the interface every edition, and that Linux is all the better for allowing someone to pick.
That's all wrong. Windows does change it's interface but it still leaves people with NO CHOICE in the matter as to which to use (although you can change it after Windows is installed through themes or 3rd Party Programs). That makes a huge difference to not give someone a choice, than it is to say "This is the default option, but you can also select this desktop." Whether you like it or not there is a serious issue when it comes to offering someone a choice in Linux when they're used to Windows forcing them to use something. It's basic psychology.
Despite the editor's lack of insight into Linux GUIs, that comment was uncalled for. It's comments like those that stop Windows users (be they simply home users, or actual tech savvy people) from switching over to Linux, whether you mean them or not. Grow up.
Are you people brain dead or something? Carmageddon and Test Drive (mentioned by one of the other people who replied) are NOT similar to Driver.
Carmageddon is more or less a destruction derby with goals in a city enviroment.
Test Drive is a typical open-ended course racing games in a city.
The original GTA is however, a valid point to consider. Although you seem to be forgetting the that the original GTA was 2D and Driver is 3D, which makes a big difference.
Driver is a storyline based mission-set game. It is NOT a racing game! You simply do the missions, by majority, in a car as opposed to on foot or something else...
They aren't constrainted within the context of a movie set. Re-read the interview. For one thing they specifically say that it isn't like Stuntman, which is a game with car chases in a movie style format.
What they are doing with Driver is to make a game that takes driving games away from the "official" track, and away from the open-ended courses in games like Midnight City, yet still retaining the fun, and focus, of the driving aspect.
And last but not least, they plan to implement stuff like outrun the cops, but that isn't their only focus.
Actually the PC gamepads have always fallen in line with the console standards. If you look back when the SNES was king, Gamepads for the PC generally had the same amount of buttons as a SNES gamepad (been so long can't even remember how many that was).
Now, most gamepads have two analog sticks, a directional pad, and 8-12 buttons (depending on extra features).
There is no simply answer to this debate. However, I'd like to present an analogy to explain why that is.
Combat Mission (www.battlefront.com). To those of you who aren't familiar with it Combat Mission (Beyond Overlord and Barbarossa to Berlin) are games that take the number crunching of a old-fashioned (but still good) hex style war-game and combine it with a RTS. This is new and original because you've either got massive scope war-games where the difference of life or death can rest on any number of factors (how well you manage your troops and their stats) and you've got the RTS which is basically just build up massive armies in Real Time and rush your opponent hoping for a victory. Then throw in battlefield tactics (such as cover and concealment) which you usually only see in Tactical squad level games, and you've got Combat Mission.
These games are incredible, and very original. Anyone who enjoyes strategy or tactical games of any level should enjoy these games. However, there's one problem, no one is willing to field it in the market because it's new, no matter how good it seems. Luckily enough there was enough word of mouth on the net (in between scattered advertisements) that the Combat Missions were semi-successful games. Eventually they gained enough popularity that the retail stores started looking into it. I believe Combat Mission Beyond Overlord was released in mid-2000, and it wasn't on store shelves until early 2002.
Despite doing well, the sequel (Barbarossa to Berlin) isn't even out in stores yet (I don't think) even though it's been completed for some time.
Yes gamers want new games because they are usually fun just for that fact. However, people believe they don't want games because that's what mob rule has decided.
Actually FFX was quite original in it's execution. At least as far as I know, it's the first console RPG that ever combined real-time switching of characters with defined weaknesses (combination of the two, not each individually).
Also, I've never seen a game that had something similar to BlitzBall, sure it was a bunch of concepts from other games thrown together, but you seem to be forgetting what original really means today. You'll never find a TRULY original game, you'll only find a game that takes several ocncepts from other games and combines them in a way no one has tried before, FFX did that. Therefore it's an original game.
You, and people like you, just look at the storyline and say "Oh! It's an RPG that's been done several thousand times in the past!" Or you might even look at the gameplay and say "Oh! It's a real-time standard RPG combat system, been there, done that."
There is no such thing as a "original" game engine anymore (at least for the moment). EVERYTHING out there, in terms of an engine, has been used by some game at least 5 years ago. As a matter of fact that least truly original engine I ever saw was the true 3D RTS (instead of just using 3D graphics and physics with 2D movement, you could know move in 3D in an RTS engine) from Homeworld. And I think there was a game that did it before Homeworld, just can't remember the name.
I don't know about RedMoon, but most companies i"ve dealt with have Terms of Service with specific clauses for this kind of thing. So the whole discussion of sueing other companies becomes moot (unless there is another stupid company out there with similar terms).
No matter how you look at it Linux sucks as a game platform. Same with Mac. Aside from Bungie I don't know of any company that has made a game that rivals the Windows port, or native version in Windows.
Don't ask me to explain it, all I know is that every game I've ever seen looks better, and plays better on Windows. I'm even counting those games that were developed on Mac or Linux (well Mac at least, I don't know of any games developed for Linux then ported to Windows) that were ported to Windows (with the exception being Bungie).
It's the job of an IT administrator to provide the best support possible for his company. You can't do that with a Mac for two reasons: 1) Hardware. It's a fact of life, you can't keep a steady supply of equipment on hand for replacements. It's not only impractical but extremely expensive when you can no longer use those old cards that no longer work with your baseline. Furthermore if I need ANY piece of hardware that can work on a x86 architecture I can go to a local store and buy it in case of emergency, instantaneous delievery. I can't do that with a Mac architecture. No store in my area (and I've got a lot of local stores from Mom & Pop shops to Walmart to Best Buy) sells Mac equipment. Also have you considered price? Whether you like it or not you can get a much better deal on more readily available hardware (sales, neogotiating, whatever). In todays world readily available hardware is x86 hardware. 2) Compatiability. Face it, no matter how much security is pumped up today it still doesn't beat range of use. With Linux or Windows I can use just about any piece of software made for any version of the OS, can Mac boost that? Cost comes into this factor as well, if I want to update my Mac machines, I've got to update just about everything, which can be very costly. If I want to update my Windows or Linux machine I can update just this server, or just these workstations. That's not even taking into account I'm just updating the OS, not all the required software. So lets see: I can go with the Mac which is less widely used, meaning higher chance of training required for new employees, which guarntees if something goes wrong I'll probably have to wait for a part unless I'm lucky enough to have a replacement in stock. When upgrade time comes close I've got to seriously conserve my budget or beg upper management for more to make way for the cost of upgrading so much junk to ensure everything works properly. Or I can go with a Linux/Windows solution, find parts falling around me for cheap prices I've scammed from distributors. I've got cheap upgrades, minor training requirements, and an much larger support base to fall back on. And guess what, stability isn't a problem because a properly administered Windows box is just a stable as a properly administered Linux box, which is just as stable a properly administered Mac box.
I know that, can also use the paragraph tag, but I wanted to know if it was possible to edit the post.