[X] My Assistant

[Wesley Street]

So, apparently the bad guys in this game were SUPPOSED to be the Chinese, but were changed to North Koreans because of publishers being nervous?

Same thing that is happening to the Red Dawn remake?

A little of that. And a little of it not making sense that the Chinese would invade us seeing as how we're major trading partners. But mostly the producers not wanting to piss off potential Chinese buyers.

[CanRay]

What about Korean and Japanese buyers?

Australian buyers are just screwed with anything isn't G-Rated apparently.

[Wesley Street]

One point three billion potential consumers vs. 175 million... If I was a good little capitalist I know which group I'd be okay with honking off.

[Yerameyahu]

I dunno why everyone always pretends to be tweaked about this stuff. I'd play a game where you shoot evil Americans, or as an alien/fantasy race against humans, whatever.

[Wounded Ronin]

I dunno why everyone always pretends to be tweaked about this stuff. I'd play a game where you shoot evil Americans, or as an alien/fantasy race against humans, whatever.

Lol, yeah. I can see it now. Noam Chomsky gets involved in the script of a video game featuring cutscenes of Americans, who are universally portrayed as fat belligerent cowboys, who appear in Ethiopia and begin tying up innocent civilians so they can stuff Big Macs in their mouths while punching them in the crotch, before hosing down all the local objects of cultural significance with fire trucks converted to spray high fructose corn syrup.

[Yerameyahu]

I think I've already seen that. New ground, c'mon!

[CanRay]

The US Invasion of Canada for it's oil, hydro-electric dams, and other natural resources?

[Yerameyahu]

I'd buy that for a dollar.

[CanRay]

I'd pay full price for that. Of course, it'd be a drinking game where the US Soldiers are sent home without uniforms or equipment because they were taken away while they were all passed out drunk... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Sengir]

The US Invasion of Canada for it's oil, hydro-electric dams, and other natural resources?

Isn't that part of the Fallout backstory?

[Stahlseele]

yes and no.
technically, CHINA invaded and US of A COUNTER invaded and then stayed there and took it all . .
or something like that at least . . maybe the US of A counter invaded first and then china decided to invade before the US of A got it all to themselves . .
And then somebody threw the first nuke and it all became academical from there on . .

[CanRay]

The US Invasion of Canada for it's oil, hydro-electric dams, and other natural resources?

Isn't that part of the Fallout backstory?

Yes, it is. 'Ronto ("Toronto") is mentioned in Fallout 3's DLC, as well.

[Stahlseele]

Ahh, Operation Anchorage . . such a nice dungeon crawl with horribly over powered gear ^^

[CanRay]

Nope. The Pitt.

[Stahlseele]

Whut?
Pittsbourrough?
Operation Anchorage is the Chinese Invasion . .

[CanRay]

"The Pitt" mentions 'Ronto as one of the cities that's jealous of the full might of The Pitt. As well as a place where they get fresh "Meat".

[Stahlseele]

Ah, okay.
Been quite some time since i actually played F³ . .
New Vegas pretty much has me burned out. Of course, i pretty much played that one for one month straight <.<

[CanRay]

I burned out my PS3 with Fallout 3. Let's just say it was good therapy for me, and a good stress test of the PS3. Luckily, I still had three whole days to call Sony for a replacement unit.

I'm eagerly awaiting DLC for New Vegas, however.

[Stahlseele]

Yah, that's probably going to sucker me into playing again too . .

[Wounded Ronin]

On the subject of griping about multiplayer centric development...

I am thinking in the lines from the play Macbeth where things are going contrary to nature and the world is going mad. I just found an article with some publisher comments about Mirror's Edge.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-...edge-fell-short

EA Games boss Frank Gibeau told Develop, "First-person parkour across buildings is fun, but to be blunt, Mirror's Edge's' execution fell short."

"What I learned from Mirror's Edge is that you have to execute, you have to spend more time on a game to ensure it's polished, and you need to have the depth and persistence of an online game," he explained.

"There were issues with the learning curve, the difficulty, the narrative, and then there was no multiplayer either."

I just got Mirror's Edge on a steam sale. I love it. It's got an artistic visual presentation, and it manages to make jumping puzzles (mostly) fun. Maybe the combat is a little rough around the edges but I respect the originality and the vision of the game designer and enjoy focusing on what the game does differently. The reason I didn't buy it originally when it came out was because I had no freaking idea from the TV ads what the hell the game was about. I thought it was an Assassin's Creed ripoff. If they had just said it was single player only attempt to implement free running from a first person perspective in a video game, I would have bought it.

The same guy also had some stuff to say about Dead Space.

"It made money for us, but didn't hit expectations. We felt like we had an IP that struck a chord, and one that hit quality, but again it missed multiplayer modes.

"So when we re-worked Dead Space [for the upcoming sequel], we looked at how to make it a better idea, how do we make the story more engrossing, how do we build Isaac as a character, how do we make this game a success online."

Apparently game execs hate games that have a learning curve and that don't have multiplayer.

What the hell is up with everyone wanting multiplayer? I generally don't like multiplayer. I played multiplayer from the days of DikuMUD, and from the days of Marathon on Macintosh computer labs in school, but it doesn't interest me anymore for the most part, because I would rather focus on the vision of the game designer in terms of what they realize for the game than focusing on quasi-social interaction with the boy-men who play multiplayer while constantly exhibiting poor sportsmanship, bizarre misplaced elitism (i.e. vote kicking a guy for not using exploits or for being new to the game), cheating, and rage-quitting.

Rage-quitting says it all. Someone doesn't have the maturity to handle not doing well in a game so they quit. It is the most disgusting exhibition of immature empowerment-fantasy-seeking behaviors. I used to play Left for Dead and Left for Dead 2, and I always went the distance. You wouldn't quit a soccer game or a marathon halfway through just because you weren't winning, and I feel that's just extremely basic character and maturity.

For that reason I prefer single player detail, challenge, and atmosphere nowadays.

Goddamn it. Only multiplayer swill from here on out.

[CanadianWolverin...]

Lol, yeah. I can see it now. Noam Chomsky gets involved in the script of a video game featuring cutscenes of Americans, who are universally portrayed as fat belligerent cowboys, who appear in Ethiopia and begin tying up innocent civilians so they can stuff Big Macs in their mouths while punching them in the crotch, before hosing down all the local objects of cultural significance with fire trucks converted to spray high fructose corn syrup.

Wasn't that the Saint's Row games? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[CanadianWolverin...]

On the subject of griping about multiplayer centric development...

I am thinking in the lines from the play Macbeth where things are going contrary to nature and the world is going mad. I just found an article with some publisher comments about Mirror's Edge.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-...edge-fell-short



I just got Mirror's Edge on a steam sale. I love it. It's got an artistic visual presentation, and it manages to make jumping puzzles (mostly) fun. Maybe the combat is a little rough around the edges but I respect the originality and the vision of the game designer and enjoy focusing on what the game does differently. The reason I didn't buy it originally when it came out was because I had no freaking idea from the TV ads what the hell the game was about. I thought it was an Assassin's Creed ripoff. If they had just said it was single player only attempt to implement free running from a first person perspective in a video game, I would have bought it.

The same guy also had some stuff to say about Dead Space.




Apparently game execs hate games that have a learning curve and that don't have multiplayer.

What the hell is up with everyone wanting multiplayer? I generally don't like multiplayer. I played multiplayer from the days of DikuMUD, and from the days of Marathon on Macintosh computer labs in school, but it doesn't interest me anymore for the most part, because I would rather focus on the vision of the game designer in terms of what they realize for the game than focusing on quasi-social interaction with the boy-men who play multiplayer while constantly exhibiting poor sportsmanship, bizarre misplaced elitism (i.e. vote kicking a guy for not using exploits or for being new to the game), cheating, and rage-quitting.

Rage-quitting says it all. Someone doesn't have the maturity to handle not doing well in a game so they quit. It is the most disgusting exhibition of immature empowerment-fantasy-seeking behaviors. I used to play Left for Dead and Left for Dead 2, and I always went the distance. You wouldn't quit a soccer game or a marathon halfway through just because you weren't winning, and I feel that's just extremely basic character and maturity.

For that reason I prefer single player detail, challenge, and atmosphere nowadays.

Goddamn it. Only multiplayer swill from here on out.

Because game publisher and developer execs are idiots when it comes to game design - they have business model vision, not game play vision. They are convinced that the only way to keep their physical copy from ending up on the used game market or being pirated is to use systems that don't work, thus the multiplayer and DRM gets the sweat and treasure spent on it, on top of the incredibly wasteful advertising to audiences that generally don't give a shit. As a general rule, these trip A execs are hugely risk averse as they try to eke out every possible cent of profit, irregardless of its impact on the gaming experience, and that even goes into how they approach DLC and why so many sequels get made as opposed to new IP. The more the console dev license and kits cost, the more there is focus on graphics fidelity, and the more marketing focus groups determine what bullet points sell - the more this ridiculous, multi-million development driven by execs in their corporate towers will get. They want to make movies basicly and call it a game because you get to hit a few buttons while you are on the rails, sheesh.

But as they shy away from the areas that made gaming great, they create space that Indy Developers are moving into. How easily these morons forget the games industry crash that happened in the 80s when the glut of sequels and shovel ware hit the shelves. Thank god for digital distribution on the PC and how it has allowed Indy Devs to flourish with more focus on how games are fun.

Oh, and I watched a few different Let's Play of Homefront ... Freedom Fighters is a way better game. IMHO, Homefront is Call of Duty fan fic ... trashy, flat fan fiction. I'm definitely not buying this crap.

[Doc Chase]

I dunno why everyone always pretends to be tweaked about this stuff. I'd play a game where you shoot evil Americans, or as an alien/fantasy race against humans, whatever.

That's what Deus Ex was. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
Or portions of CoD: MW2.

[CanRay]

"Hey, why doesn't my fancy sight light up any longer?" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Doc Chase]

"Hey, why doesn't my fancy sight light up any longer?" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

You aren't a man until you pull a knife out of your own chest and impale the dude who stabbed you in the first place in the eyeball.