Despite this, Capcom is saying that the second hand value will be retained. Sure it will.
Definately not getting it myself, I like to be able to play through this sort of game again. I understand the main point is playing for high score, but getting all the unlocks is still part of the experience. Only letting anyone do it once, and taking it away from second hand purchasers entirely blows.
Sadly there is no system level means of resetting a games data to original settings. Nintendo probably should have included being able to delete data in their "what games on the 3DS need to be able to do" list.
To be honest it should retain its value. The average Joe does not pay attention to this stuff at all. They'll buy it from Gamestop a year from now, get it home and either get upset but whoops too late now, or shrug and not care.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the video game industry and retailers in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly known as Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association). The full opinion can be found is here. According to Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion: "the act forbidding sale or rental of violent games to minors does not comport with the 1st Amendment." Alito concurred with the judgment, joined by the Chief Justice. Justices Thomas and Breyer dissent, in an opinion by Thomas - according to SCOTUSBlog.
The court had to decide if a state law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the EMA, saying that the law violated the First Amendment.
The law was written by California State Senator (D-San Francisco) Leland Yee and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. The law was immediately challenged by the video game industry and retail advocacy groups in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A judge put a permanent injunction on the law, ruling that it was unconstitutional because it violated rights protected by the First Amendment.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
DietarySupplementStill not approved by the FDADublin, OHRegistered Userregular
The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the video game industry and retailers in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly known as Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association). The full opinion can be found is here. According to Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion: "the act forbidding sale or rental of violent games to minors does not comport with the 1st Amendment." Alito concurred with the judgment, joined by the Chief Justice. Justices Thomas and Breyer dissent, in an opinion by Thomas - according to SCOTUSBlog.
The court had to decide if a state law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the EMA, saying that the law violated the First Amendment.
The law was written by California State Senator (D-San Francisco) Leland Yee and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. The law was immediately challenged by the video game industry and retail advocacy groups in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A judge put a permanent injunction on the law, ruling that it was unconstitutional because it violated rights protected by the First Amendment.
Man... Brown can take on the board of education and win, but can't take down big business?
The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the video game industry and retailers in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly known as Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association). The full opinion can be found is here. According to Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion: "the act forbidding sale or rental of violent games to minors does not comport with the 1st Amendment." Alito concurred with the judgment, joined by the Chief Justice. Justices Thomas and Breyer dissent, in an opinion by Thomas - according to SCOTUSBlog.
The court had to decide if a state law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the EMA, saying that the law violated the First Amendment.
The law was written by California State Senator (D-San Francisco) Leland Yee and signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. The law was immediately challenged by the video game industry and retail advocacy groups in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A judge put a permanent injunction on the law, ruling that it was unconstitutional because it violated rights protected by the First Amendment.
...and here is the full opinon mentioned... all 92 pages of it.
Man... Brown can take on the board of education and win, but can't take down big business?
Huhwhat? This was a good decision, a win for our side. How does big business fit into this or are you arguing from a "Why won't someone think of the children" angle?
I also started up a thread here in D&D if anyone wants to talk about it over there.
The fact that Justice Scalia of all people wrote the majority opinion on this one means that violent vidja game laws are dead dead dead. He's about as conservative as it gets. Then again, the dude hasn't met a court ruling that benefits big businesses that he doesn't like.
Meanwhile, today's comic is totally for us. And slightly NSFW.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
The fact that Justice Scalia of all people wrote the majority opinion on this one means that violent vidja game laws are dead dead dead.
"Of all people"? Scalia has historically been one of the most pro-free expression justices on the Court; he sided with the majority in the flag-burning and corporate donation cases, you know. Scalia deciding against the state is probably the least surprising thing about this ruling.
Man... Brown can take on the board of education and win, but can't take down big business?
Huhwhat? This was a good decision, a win for our side. How does big business fit into this or are you arguing from a "Why won't someone think of the children" angle?
I also started up a thread here in D&D if anyone wants to talk about it over there.
It's a pretty funny joke. Gov. Brown of California as opposed to the guy from Brown v. Board of Education, the case about segregation and how it was not allowed.
Man... Brown can take on the board of education and win, but can't take down big business?
Huhwhat? This was a good decision, a win for our side. How does big business fit into this or are you arguing from a "Why won't someone think of the children" angle?
I also started up a thread here in D&D if anyone wants to talk about it over there.
It's a pretty funny joke. Gov. Brown of California as opposed to the guy from Brown v. Board of Education, the case about segregation and how it was not allowed.
Ah, I get it now. I still think of the case as Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
DietarySupplementStill not approved by the FDADublin, OHRegistered Userregular
Man... Brown can take on the board of education and win, but can't take down big business?
Huhwhat? This was a good decision, a win for our side. How does big business fit into this or are you arguing from a "Why won't someone think of the children" angle?
I also started up a thread here in D&D if anyone wants to talk about it over there.
It's a pretty funny joke. Gov. Brown of California as opposed to the guy from Brown v. Board of Education, the case about segregation and how it was not allowed.
The fact that Justice Scalia of all people wrote the majority opinion on this one means that violent vidja game laws are dead dead dead.
"Of all people"? Scalia has historically been one of the most pro-free expression justices on the Court; he sided with the majority in the flag-burning and corporate donation cases, you know. Scalia deciding against the state is probably the least surprising thing about this ruling.
At least in this case, he's become the most subtle troll you've ever seen.
Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.
lolsaxandviolins
And, of course, Clarance Thomas is insane.
"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote.
Speaking of things that can be interpreted as trolling, heeeeeeeere's Molyneux!
Do you think that Microsoft, especially in your role above studios in Europe, is doing enough to incubate that independent talent or to give it a platform, or the nurturing it needs?
PM: Well, I don't think anybody is. I think that's in history -- I don't think anyone is. I think it's more you can do some very functional things which are very helpful: You can give out development kits and have conferences and have events like this, which really help, but I think it's giving those independent people maybe a small amount of funding which would be really good because obviously funding is quite often the biggest problem.
Although... I was going to say... I don't know about "harsh" -- I think there is a catalyst... Hunger is a great catalyst for creation. If your life is made too comfortable when you're starting out and you're creative, if you're not risking something and you're not a little bit hungry, I don't think it works the same way. That has to be carefully balanced.
Then just giving access not only to the tech, but also to some people that can say, "Okay, that idea's a great idea, but have you thought about it this way?" You know, just a little bit of time.
But I don't say that our industry does it any better or any worse; I can't think of any form of industry that does a great job with mentoring and with helping people to grow. We could do what business does and have television programs about mentoring people -- and we've got something called the Dragon's Den [in the UK] -- we could do things like that, but it's never enough.
...
Games like Fable III are quite large productions. You look at the way the console space is moving -- again, companies like Activision or EA are doubling down on big games that target the core audience. A lot of the breadth is coming in through the indies, but it seems like big package games are heading the other way.
PM: That's right. The bets get bigger and bigger, and the quality... I think that we have got a long way to go on the quality of Fable, and you just have to take a deep breath, knuckle down, and do it. If you look to the quality of a computer game just ten years ago, it is astounding, the difference. That's not going to stop anytime soon. What we thought of as being breath-taking, awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping graphics of something like Half-Life now seems incredibly retro. It's just... Take a deep breath and move forward.
It is getting a lot more process-orientated -- and it has to get a lot more process-orientated -- because you're dealing with so many balls you have to juggle in the air. Mocap is really here now, and it's here to stay.
That leads you to make a game in a completely different way because you can't experiment so much with mocap. You've got to have a short list, and if you've got voice talent in your games you can't mess them around and say "Try this line."
...
To that end, you demoed Milo, and there was some back-and-forth on whether it was going to become a product itself. It became more of an R&D effort to increase technology internally. Is that what we sort of arrived at?
PM: I can't say anything about Milo. I've got in such trouble -- an amazing amount of trouble, like standing in the corner of the room and being shouted at sort of trouble. I've always been cheeky in the past, and I've always pushed the boundaries of what publishers would like me to say, but this is literally standing in front of a court and being stripped down repeated times. (Laughs)
...
This is me, personally: I don't think we've quite squeezed enough out of our existing tech. I saw Battlefield 3, and it just goes to show that there are still surprises on the visual side; so I don't think there's that pressure yet. It is a big game of bluff, of course: who's going to come first out of the gate will probably be the forcing function for everybody else. The 360 was, of course, the first out of the gate before. It's an exciting time. I agree; five years is quite a long time, but you can see things like Kinect and Move extending the console cycle, just as EyeToy did back in the PlayStation 2 days.
...
I look at Fable III, and it's hard to be completely honest without offending people; but I know, when I read in the middle of a review that said the quality just wasn't good enough, I actually agree with those reviews.
...
At GDC 2010, you gave a speech about all of the things you were going to bring to Fable III to increase its reach, and you talked about your goal of hitting 5 million units. But it seems that Fable III didn't quite reach the goals that you'd hoped for, at least perhaps creatively.
PM: Yeah. I think last year we were just on the cusp of possibly getting everything we wanted in the game, or possibly having to come down and edit very heavily to finish the game in what was two years. You have to remember that, you know, Lionhead -- especially me -- has never created projects in less than two years. This was the first time we ever did that.
Just after that point, we then sat down, and, partly because of the way that we worked -- the process, the way that we designed, and the way that we crafted -- meant that the game came together very late. That is one of the things that we're changing; that is just such an old school way of working.
You have these ideas called pillars, and then you rush away and develop these pillars. About nine months before the game is due to be finished, you've got to bring that whole thing together and then -- "Oh, wow! The game's this long!"
Every game, unbelievably, you sit down: "Good grief! It's twice as long as I thought it was going to be!" You just can't afford that in terms of development when you're developing by the second.
So when we came down to it, the edit -- I think the ruling section in Fable was the one that really suffered a lot here. The edit was very harsh and hard to actually make the game fit.
That being said, I still think it was a good game! I just don't think it was a great game that took us to 5 million units. I know I probably should say it's a great game just respective of whatever it was, but the Metacritic score was sort of low-'80s. I think I'm pretty ashamed of that, to be honest, and I take that on my own shoulders, not the team's shoulders. I think that, when you have something like that, which you can feel as a kick in the teeth, you have to pick yourself up and fight even harder.
That being said, it still sold millions and millions of units, and it's probably going to net out, with the PC version, closer to the 5 million than perhaps you would think; but it's not the dream. It didn't end up being the game that I dreamed it would be, because I thought the mechanic of the ruling section were really good ideas. I thought they were good ideas, but we just didn't have time to exploit those ideas fully.
I've been here before, and it just means that you've got to make whatever you do next twice as good. You're going to make the process and the planning process much, much better because, in the end, that's where you really suffer.
So you're chasing a moving target.
PM: Yeah, you're chasing a moving target. God, it would be so lovely to talk about an example here, but I can't; but I think there are some very, very obvious things that you should do if you're a studio like Lionhead -- very simple and obvious things.
I'm not breaking the confidentiality by saying this: you've got to look at the quality of what you make, and you've got to ask yourself, in all honesty, "Is it good enough?" Or should you be doubling down and saying, "We're really going to surprise people with the quality of what we make"?
You should say that about the uniqueness of what you're making, as well. I hate the fact that people know what to expect from something like Lionhead. "We know what Fable's going to be; we know what's coming next from Lionhead." I hate that idea. We should, again, double down on freshness and originality without sacrificing -- because often originality can sacrifice quality -- without sacrificing quality.
We should take a deep look at what people really enjoy about the experiences that might have made and try and focus on those rather than focus on the gimmicks, which we kind of love to develop. That is being a little bit self-critical, but I think that there's times that you have to be self-critical. I think the worst thing that could have happened to Fable III is if it sold 4.99 million, because I think that would have made us slightly complacent, and complacency is always the worst place to be, in my opinion.
In particular, something that interests me about Fable is that you talked about things like making leveling and taking it from an abstract into the way your character develops. Moving things out of the GUI and putting them into the game concretely, thinking that would make the game more comprehensible. How did you find the reaction people had to those sorts of changes?
PM: This is absolutely an example of everything I just said. So just take that example. I thought the idea of leveling outside the GUI, but leveling in the environment and the world was actually quite a good one, but I'm not sure...
The real dream of that leveling process was that, as you went through each gate, there would be these tough choices for the player. Which chest should I open? This one or that one? The feeling that you're going through the game at your own pace, but having to make these tough choices, was never actually realized.
This is another thing where the process of us doing the game -- the game came together so late that we had so little time to balance and refine what those chests meant and the leveling-up implications of it; there was just a few weeks to do it. That meant that what could have been a great mechanic turned out to be a good idea.
I don't think that good ideas are a reason to do something; I think it has to feed into the overall experience to be a great idea. I liked the idea of not pressing the pause key and going to some abstracted GUI; I think that worked reasonably well, and people didn't argue about it.
The dream was that there would be an intelligence about that place, which was led by the John Cleese character, which made it feel really alive; and again we didn't have the time to craft that into what that dream was.
It's because of those things that, now, when we approach development, it's very different, because we want to know precisely how long the experience we're crafting is up front, rather than waiting to the end, so that we have a clear idea how each of these mechanics is used, how they're meted out, how they're exploited, and how they're really used to amplify the whole drama of what that is.
So we've got a very, very different process of designing now, which means that, this time around, if we did have a Journey to Rule or if we did have -- I'm not saying that I'm giving you any clues there -- then it's going to be part of that golden thread that we're making up to the player. We've spent a long time thinking about that and doing our research on how you can have a creatively-led production process and how you can take the complete randomness out of the way that a lot of ideas are developed and evolved.
I'm not reading all that. But glancing at the bolded text, I got a good laugh out of this.
The real dream of that leveling process was that, as you went through each gate, there would be these tough choices for the player. Which chest should I open? This one or that one? The feeling that you're going through the game at your own pace, but having to make these tough choices, was never actually realized.
Those stupid guild seals were handed out like candy. It was only a 'tough choice' early on and even then you basically only needed to pick the ones that made the game easier so you could get more seals faster.
And making like half of the chests be really stupid shit like clothing dyes cut down on the angst quite a bit.
Fable 3 just wasn't particularly good. At least he acknowledges it.
How can people hate the guy? I love that he's able to look at Fable 3 and just go "yep, we had to cut a bunch of stuff out and I'm just not proud of it."
edit: The biggest crime with Fable 3 was reducing Reaver down to being The Guy Who Tells You To Do The Bad Thing. Such a wasted opportunity there, and a painful destruction of a brilliant character.
I'm not reading all that. But glancing at the bolded text, I got a good laugh out of this.
The real dream of that leveling process was that, as you went through each gate, there would be these tough choices for the player. Which chest should I open? This one or that one? The feeling that you're going through the game at your own pace, but having to make these tough choices, was never actually realized.
Those stupid guild seals were handed out like candy. It was only a 'tough choice' early on and even then you basically only needed to pick the ones that made the game easier so you could get more seals faster.
And making like half of the chests be really stupid shit like clothing dyes cut down on the angst quite a bit.
Fable 3 just wasn't particularly good. At least he acknowledges it.
That is a major problem with pretty much every Fable; they treat XP/seals and gold like they are super-rare or hard to grind things that should be a major concern about getting/losing when making choices... when they aren't at all.
I personally enjoyed Fable 3 though. I'm not blind to the fact that the first two Fables far outstip it, but it kept me entertained until the end, and I though Fable 3 had a few good, if horribly wasted/utilised, ideas.
How can people hate the guy? I love that he's able to look at Fable 3 and just go "yep, we had to cut a bunch of stuff out and I'm just not proud of it."
edit: The biggest crime with Fable 3 was reducing Reaver down to being The Guy Who Tells You To Do The Bad Thing. Such a wasted opportunity there, and a painful destruction of a brilliant character.
To me, Peter will always be that kid down the street you knew when you were 6 who's covinced (you that) that he has a robot that is 100ft tall and can take out whole armies, but when you finally go to his house, you find out the armies are toys, and the robot is normal toy size, but is at least a pretty cool Transformer. You can't really fault the kid for getting so excited about stuff like that, to the point you're kinda envious of him for it :P
Foefaller on
0
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
Fable 3 had a bunch of excellent ideas that it hilariously squandered and blundered in equal measure
People hate him because they can't get over Black and White and/or how the first Fable didn't live up to his pre-release hype even after he said many mea culpas for cutting content before it released.
Now it's just a meme everybody thinks is still clever.
And Reaver sucked anyway. I'd have been happy enough if he'd never appeared in Fable 3.
He certainly shouldn't have been in Fable 3 in the capacity in which he featured. The hedonistic bastard of Fable 2 would never let himself become some lackey to the king, whose sole purpose being to tell you which is the more profitable/evil of two decisions.
The pages of his diary that you find around his mansion in 2 are brilliantly acted, too. Such a waste.
Being the devil's advocate hardly seems like 'royal lackey' to me. It seems more like they brought back the character because everybody 'loved' him in Fable 2, but didn't want him to be a significant feature. Then, when it came time for that year long wait, they needed somebody to take the greedy side and just gave it to him.
Either they didn't think players would understand the concept of a devil's advocate (which is probably true) and couldn't give it to a nominally good NPC (Sir Walter would've been ideal) or they really thought it was an effective use for the character. I vote for the first choice.
People hate him because they can't get over Black and White and/or how the first Fable didn't live up to his pre-release hype even after he said many mea culpas for cutting content before it released.
Now it's just a meme everybody thinks is still clever.
And Reaver sucked anyway. I'd have been happy enough if he'd never appeared in Fable 3.
Well, he still has a habit of being way to excited about his alright or bad ideas. (Such as the "Dog interface" in fable 2).
I mean, shit, when's the last time CliffyB honestly said something douchey? Yet people still love to get pissed off about him. It's just how this industry works: we like our scapegoats. (At least when they're not complete monsters like Kotick. )
How can people hate the guy? I love that he's able to look at Fable 3 and just go "yep, we had to cut a bunch of stuff out and I'm just not proud of it."
Yeah, I don't get the Molyneux hate either. I'm not a fan of his games, but he seems like a genuinely nice guy whose major flaws are being too ambitious and optimistic.
I find it easy to avoid the vortex of that site by just thinking it's like Maxim magazine without the chicks. Pretentious drivel masquerading as humour. One or two 'articles' and I've had my fill.
But then, I thought Cracked was better when it was a third class Mad magazine knockoff.
I wouldn't actually defend it, it's stupid. But it's not like, for example, an RE4 save permanently stuck in New Game +. It's more like having all the characters in a fighting game permanently unlocked, and as I said in another thread I have never felt the desire to erase my fighting game saves so I can unlock everything again for shits and giggles.
The only thing it affects is the second hand market, and only purists like us at that. Dudebros would probably be happy to start with a full range of options for playing online.
Speaking of that, I wonder how that'll be set up. Online profiles? They'll probably have to be editable at the very least.
I wouldn't actually defend it, it's stupid. But it's not like, for example, an RE4 save permanently stuck in New Game +. It's more like having all the characters in a fighting game permanently unlocked, and as I said in another thread I have never felt the desire to erase my fighting game saves so I can unlock everything again for shits and giggles.
The only thing it affects is the second hand market, and only purists like us at that. Dudebros would probably be happy to start with a full range of options for playing online.
Speaking of that, I wonder how that'll be set up. Online profiles? They'll probably have to be editable at the very least.
This isn't a fighting game though - this is a story driven game, correct?
I wouldn't like starting God of War with a maxed out Kratos.
SkyGheNe on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't actually defend it, it's stupid. But it's not like, for example, an RE4 save permanently stuck in New Game +. It's more like having all the characters in a fighting game permanently unlocked, and as I said in another thread I have never felt the desire to erase my fighting game saves so I can unlock everything again for shits and giggles.
The only thing it affects is the second hand market, and only purists like us at that. Dudebros would probably be happy to start with a full range of options for playing online.
Speaking of that, I wonder how that'll be set up. Online profiles? They'll probably have to be editable at the very least.
This isn't a fighting game though - this is a story driven game, correct?
No, Mercenaries 3D is the multiplayer / arena-combat focused game. Revelations is the story driven game.
So Bloomberg has a profile of some video game company or another contemplating an IPO and doing other stuff. Some people might find it interesting, some not, whatever. We all chill.
“We’re working on a number of new concepts, but we’re fully aware that ‘Angry Birds’ is probably going to be the dominant brand we have for quite a while,” Rovio CEO Mikael Hed said in an interview at Rovio’s new office down the street from Nokia in Espoo, featuring living-room-style areas for laptop working and bird cartoons stencilled on the walls.
In March, Rovio received $42 million in funding from investors including Skype Technologies SA co-founder Niklas Zennstrom’s Atomico Ventures as well as Facebook backer Accel Partners. It’s “very possible” that Rovio will seek another venture-capital round before eventually holding an initial public offering, possibly in two to three years, Hed said.
Firms that get early-stage venture capital typically give 20 percent to 40 percent to their investors, said Nordea Bank analyst Sami Sarkamies. Based on that, the March deal valued the game maker at as much as $210 million at the time.
“If they are able to replicate the success of ‘Angry Birds’ with other titles, it may be a candidate for an IPO but with one title it’s difficult,” said Sarkamies. “The risk of not being able to do it and getting into trouble later on may just be too high.”
...
Writers are developing a script for a full-length “Angry Birds” film that would fill in the backstory of the birds and pigs. Rovio has spoken to major movie studios and is working with partners of the caliber of Walt Disney Co. (DIS)’s Pixar to produce and distribute the movie, Hed said.
“We are working on the mythology with the movie script and we don’t want to shape the mythology too far until we have that one nail in place,” the CEO said. “We’ve seen too many movies based on games that have not performed well.”
The company said today it appointed David Maisel, former chairman of Marvel Studios, which produced the “Iron Man” films, to be special adviser and executive producer of “Angry Birds” movies. A veteran of Hollywood agencies, Maisel led the sale of Marvel Entertainment to Disney in 2010.
I wouldn't actually defend it, it's stupid. But it's not like, for example, an RE4 save permanently stuck in New Game +. It's more like having all the characters in a fighting game permanently unlocked, and as I said in another thread I have never felt the desire to erase my fighting game saves so I can unlock everything again for shits and giggles.
The only thing it affects is the second hand market, and only purists like us at that. Dudebros would probably be happy to start with a full range of options for playing online.
Speaking of that, I wonder how that'll be set up. Online profiles? They'll probably have to be editable at the very least.
This isn't a fighting game though - this is a story driven game, correct?
No, Mercenaries 3D is the multiplayer / arena-combat focused game. Revelations is the story driven game.
Posts
See that Eurogamer article I linked for precise details of how meticulous and pedantic people can be in worrying over how a game will be perceived.
You should buy it and keep it sealed and sell it new for $100 in a few years.
Capcom thinks we're idiots?
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Man... Brown can take on the board of education and win, but can't take down big business?
...and here is the full opinon mentioned... all 92 pages of it.
Huhwhat? This was a good decision, a win for our side. How does big business fit into this or are you arguing from a "Why won't someone think of the children" angle?
I also started up a thread here in D&D if anyone wants to talk about it over there.
Meanwhile, today's comic is totally for us. And slightly NSFW.
"Of all people"? Scalia has historically been one of the most pro-free expression justices on the Court; he sided with the majority in the flag-burning and corporate donation cases, you know. Scalia deciding against the state is probably the least surprising thing about this ruling.
It's a pretty funny joke. Gov. Brown of California as opposed to the guy from Brown v. Board of Education, the case about segregation and how it was not allowed.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
Ah, I get it now. I still think of the case as Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association.
I'm glad someone else got it.
At least in this case, he's become the most subtle troll you've ever seen.
lolsaxandviolins
And, of course, Clarance Thomas is insane.
lolsceneandnotherd
Do not engage the Watermelons.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6415/peter_molyneux_on_building_the_.php
Those stupid guild seals were handed out like candy. It was only a 'tough choice' early on and even then you basically only needed to pick the ones that made the game easier so you could get more seals faster.
And making like half of the chests be really stupid shit like clothing dyes cut down on the angst quite a bit.
Fable 3 just wasn't particularly good. At least he acknowledges it.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
edit: The biggest crime with Fable 3 was reducing Reaver down to being The Guy Who Tells You To Do The Bad Thing. Such a wasted opportunity there, and a painful destruction of a brilliant character.
That is a major problem with pretty much every Fable; they treat XP/seals and gold like they are super-rare or hard to grind things that should be a major concern about getting/losing when making choices... when they aren't at all.
I personally enjoyed Fable 3 though. I'm not blind to the fact that the first two Fables far outstip it, but it kept me entertained until the end, and I though Fable 3 had a few good, if horribly wasted/utilised, ideas.
EDIT:
To me, Peter will always be that kid down the street you knew when you were 6 who's covinced (you that) that he has a robot that is 100ft tall and can take out whole armies, but when you finally go to his house, you find out the armies are toys, and the robot is normal toy size, but is at least a pretty cool Transformer. You can't really fault the kid for getting so excited about stuff like that, to the point you're kinda envious of him for it :P
Now it's just a meme everybody thinks is still clever.
And Reaver sucked anyway. I'd have been happy enough if he'd never appeared in Fable 3.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
The pages of his diary that you find around his mansion in 2 are brilliantly acted, too. Such a waste.
Either they didn't think players would understand the concept of a devil's advocate (which is probably true) and couldn't give it to a nominally good NPC (Sir Walter would've been ideal) or they really thought it was an effective use for the character. I vote for the first choice.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Well, he still has a habit of being way to excited about his alright or bad ideas. (Such as the "Dog interface" in fable 2).
I mean, shit, when's the last time CliffyB honestly said something douchey? Yet people still love to get pissed off about him. It's just how this industry works: we like our scapegoats. (At least when they're not complete monsters like Kotick.
Yeah, I don't get the Molyneux hate either. I'm not a fan of his games, but he seems like a genuinely nice guy whose major flaws are being too ambitious and optimistic.
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire,
OK I just wasted over an hour on that site, thanks man.
;-)
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Really, Capcom? I swear to god if this starts a new trend for companies I'll be pissed.
But then, I thought Cracked was better when it was a third class Mad magazine knockoff.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
The list keeps getting longer.
Now, if they only let you play through, say, Mass Effect only once and then you'd have to buy a new copy for further playthroughs, now that'd be evil.
The only thing it affects is the second hand market, and only purists like us at that. Dudebros would probably be happy to start with a full range of options for playing online.
Speaking of that, I wonder how that'll be set up. Online profiles? They'll probably have to be editable at the very least.
This isn't a fighting game though - this is a story driven game, correct?
I wouldn't like starting God of War with a maxed out Kratos.
No, Mercenaries 3D is the multiplayer / arena-combat focused game. Revelations is the story driven game.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-26/-angry-birds-staying-power-under-test-with-ceo-hatching-movie-before-ipo.html
Sweet merciful crap.
I gather there are skills to unlock, though.