#151 Posted by johncallahan (566 posts) -

Wreck-It Richard is so awesome.

#152 Posted by Peacemaker (1104 posts) -

I saw the Ted talk player and though, wow, she's really pretty. Then I saw the title and it all made sense.

#153 Edited by peritus (1013 posts) -

The GDC Talk is super interesting! Thanks for that.

*edit: The fact that we are all talking about the TED bit that i feel most people usually dont watch proves the validity of her point. Wich is pretty interesting. Cool.

#154 Posted by SytheSteelhorn (6 posts) -

Honestly, I don't think you're playing Fire Emblem wrong restarting chapters. What I found alluring about the series is the threat of death, the tension I feel each turn, wondering if I'm doing something stupid. Even when I restart the chapter, the tension is still there. I played XCom differently because for me, the tension was different, stemming from the lack of resources rather than characters. Characters just became another resource for me and I had no problems accepting their defeat.

#155 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

I wonder how many people that are offended/disgusted by the fact that video games fund gun manufacturers will actually boycott games.

@Senno said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Senno said:

Absolutely brilliant Eurogamer article. Yet one thing bothers me about it. Call of Duty is routinely suggested that it is sold to children. I hope that is not the case. The horror and the horrible act of bringing to death someone at the end of a gun is nothing compared to the carnage and delightful glee that can be seen on a childs face as they play that title. As a name brand, it has a responsiblity to ensure that children aren't playing their product. Something as simple as monitoring it's online multiplayer (which I've heard is full of screaming adolescents anyway) and banning them.

*pounds head* No it does not!

Call of Duty has no more responsibility to make sure that children aren't playing it as Captain Crunch has a responsibility to make sure kids are eating healthy. This is a free society, one in which you unfortunately have personal responsibility. And if you have children, they are not the responsibility of people you don't even know. The television is not supposed to make decisions about what your kids should be watching, YOU ARE. And remember that an M rating doesn't mean it's illegal to watch or play, it's illegal to sell to a minor. Do you suggest Gamestop employees look at every adult buying an M rated game suspiciously, question them whether or not their kid or their little brother is going to play this copy?

It makes me crazy to see people who believe they're being progressive and free-thinking advocate the removal of civil liberties they're not directly using at the moment.

To absolve themselves of responsibility isn't fair to the children. At the very least, they should take complaints about that kind of activity very seriously. I'm not absolving the parents or even the childs responsibility in this - nor in the retailers. Note that I stated that I hoped it wasn't being sold to children. Children shouldn't be playing that game, let alone buying it. And if they are playing it, the developer should have in place a system that can weed them out. And the parents should be admonished for their ignorance.

Ahn... Why? Why should the developers take care of the children? I mean, if it wants to do so, fine, but ultimately, that decision should come to the parents. The parents should teach about those games, and research about them too. Children are different, and simply saying "Children shouldn't play games like that" is ignoring how different children react to the game. My little sister(10 years old) plays No More Heroes and MadWorld, both pretty violent games, but she hates violence in the real world. Even though there are matters for which she's clearly not mature enough, she can handle violence in video games, so why should she stop playing?

In the article, they mention the kid played Call Of Duty in the house of a friend and that the kid wanted to buy guns in the future because of it. So his parents should teach him how to be a responsible gun owner, specially because he already saw the consequences of bringing a gun in a school. I believe his grandfather was trying to teach that to him, but his statements("You don't get a life by shooting at a person") shows he clearlys does not understand about Call Of Duty, and, at least in my opinion, understanding about the game can only make the situation better.

TL;DR - I believe the answer is better parenting, not blind regulation by the industry/government, specially because children are different.

#156 Posted by SatelliteOfLove (1369 posts) -

Clint Hocking's talk from GDC 2011 is still relevant today.

This was one of the interviews/blogs/speeches/articles/etc that clued me into just how willfully ignorant the relative majority of developers talked themselves into being after 2006. Such untoppled truths were not superceded, just ignored, and around that time, you started seeing men and women like him "waking up" to those laws still holding sway, whether they're obeyed or not. Thankfully, the malaise is lifting in places it was thick as fog until recently.

@Brodehouse said:

@fartGOD666 said:

@Brodehouse said:

Call of Duty has no more responsibility to make sure that children aren't playing it as Captain Crunch has a responsibility to make sure kids are eating healthy. This is a free society, one in which you unfortunately have personal responsibility.

Hahaha you're going to hate the way you used to view things once you actually grow up

No, actually I have grown up, and my opinion on the matter has completely reversed because of it. Because taking responsibility for yourself is pretty much the definition of growing up, and expecting that it's the media corporations who need to safeguard your children is the opposite. And "they need to do more to protect our children" is the same finger-waggling, Helen Lovejoy-esque caterwauling and moralizing to remove the rights and responsibilities of adults that it was during the temperance movement.

Combine this with shitty parents (in the biological sense only) and voila!

#157 Posted by Kosayn (452 posts) -

Fire Emblem is long enough and challenging enough, typically, that I will only let a dude die to avoid a 45-minute or longer backtrack. They give you enough of each class that you can afford a few casualties, but each of those limits your potential links and makes the game harder. I'd save 'ironman' for new game + personally.

#158 Posted by FengShuiGod (1486 posts) -

The only problem with indirectly funding arms dealers is the monetary power that gives them to exert their influence w/r/t the military, but that speaks more to the problem with corporations and government than it does some inherent problem with marketing guns to consumers. That I just don't have a problem with.

#159 Posted by FengShuiGod (1486 posts) -

@Senno: "The horror and the horrible act of bringing to death someone at the end of a gun is nothing compared to the carnage and delightful glee that can be seen on a childs face as they play that title."

Really? Having joy at the representation of violence is worse than killing someone?

#160 Posted by FieldCommanderRick (55 posts) -

We can't even agree that we shouldn't market guns to kids?

#161 Posted by bunnymud (717 posts) -

@Alex_Carrillo said:

@Antithesis said:

@Hailinel said:

@Antithesis said:

@Hailinel: The implicit design of something has little to do with how it is actually used. I get enjoyment from running a slick ar15 in 3 gun competition the same as a porche gt3 owner gets enjoyment from taking his car out on track days. An irresponsible or unstable person could use my 3 gun rig to hurt or kill people, and irresponsible person in a porche gt3 speeding on a highway could cause an accident and hurt or kill people.

A responsible driver won't kill anyone by driving their car unless there is an accident. A responsible gun owner could still injure or kill, based on the nature of their occupation.

While it might seem farfetched, it's not impossible for someone to be against the idea of funding a gun manufacturer with their own money (where profits go to the publisher/developer that licensed the rights to the models) while also buying and playing video games that prominently feature gun use.

I can understand not wanting your money to go to a weapons manufacturer if you aren't into the whole gun thing. People just need to realize that licenses for firearms are the same as licenses for anything else, some money has changed hands to have that thing appear in a game.

People do realize that and they're disgusted by it. That's kind of what this whole thing is about. A bit of reading comprehension would do you well.

BAN ALL PRODUCT PLACEMENT IN EVERY GAME!!!!

Alas, that will never be.

#162 Posted by bunnymud (717 posts) -

@sissylion said:

@Mr_Misery said:

What does that Cameron Russell video have to do with video games?

It doesn't. Patrick is just posting the TED talk he's going to watch/has watched for the week because he finds it interesting and wants to share.

Giant Patrick Blog

#163 Posted by George_Hukas (1317 posts) -

Lists..

#164 Posted by takkun169 (43 posts) -

@bunnymud: The most twisted part of having these guns in games is who is paying whom. If a publisher is looking to get a bit of money for product placement, the contact Coke or Nike or whoever, depending on the type of game. Then said company pays the publisher so for that product to feature somewhere hopefully prominently, inside the game. Ta-da, everyone is happy (well, except for us who are being advertised to because, lets be honest... it rarely fits well).

The people who commented for that article, all said that they essentially see their product being included in these games as advertising to young prospective buyers. So why are the publishers paying the gun manufacturers to advertise their products? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I were some one who ran a company that had to pay to have my product included in a game, I would be super fucking pissed. But this may be the best way to get these licensed guns out of games. Start making the gun manufacturers actually have to pay for their advertising. First off, they would be beholden to certain rules as far as what ways they can advertise (alcohol and tobacco companies sponsor racing teams but cannot be included in games because they cannot advertise their products to children). Secondly they may not be so ready to actually have to pay out for that sort of thing.

Game publishers need to open their eyes to the fact that they are paying to advertise some one else's products.

#165 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2775 posts) -

I like that fairwell letter from Brian Reynolds on leave Zynga.

#166 Posted by Largo6661 (335 posts) -

great stuff as per usual Patrick

#167 Posted by Lyfeforce (376 posts) -

I've just watched that TED talk three times in a row. Holy freaking wow.

#168 Posted by JoelHulsey (70 posts) -

Wait, there are only 177,000 black and Latino men in New York??? Where in the hell is she getting her statistics?

#169 Edited by emilknievel (70 posts) -

I must say, that Chris Taylor video was rather moving.

#170 Posted by Fleshfeast (57 posts) -

@Korosuzo said:

@Fleshfeast said:

I'll watch this TED talk later out of curiosity, but I'm instantly skeptical when someone tells me something isn't important, but has it or plenty of it. Don't trust a pretty person to tell you looks don't matter, don't trust a rich person to tell you money doesn't matter. I find it hard to believe that you know it doesn't matter, when you've never had to deal with not having it.

I was curious too. It's short, about 8 minutes or so, and interesting if nothing else. Her perspective is actually quite insightful and something little girls who want to be a model should watch. She's just one of the few who won the genetic lottery and realizes that.

Yea I watched it last night. The title implied that she was going to explain why being good looking doesn't matter. She was actually saying the opposite, and also talking about how the life of a model isn't quite what it seems.

#171 Posted by Slag (4400 posts) -

@patrickklepek: The last link (XNA story) is broken. leads to the zynga story

#172 Posted by Alkaiser (361 posts) -

What world does Cliffy B live in? He might as well have been clanking pots together while he said this in the mirror.

What next, is David Jaffe going to say that fucking shouldn't be in videogames while screaming into a paper bag in a soundproof room?

Is Peter Molyneux going to chide game developers for overhyping their games?

#173 Posted by ICantBeStopped (401 posts) -

Where's Unprofessional Fridays?

#174 Posted by Hailinel (24830 posts) -

@ICantBeStopped said:

Where's Unprofessional Fridays?

Last night's was a long one. It's probably taking longer to process and upload.

#175 Edited by ribbs (15 posts) -

@takkun169: They pay for the brand name gun licenses for the same reason EA pays a shit ton of money to the NFL for the Madden games. Sure you can make a football game with generic teams and players, but anybody who actually follows football will want real teams/players for their video game.

#176 Edited by Draxyle (1854 posts) -

The TED talk is fantastic. I've studied in graphic design, and going through that you begin to realize that absolutely nothing you see in any media form is truly real. 99% (hyperbolic) of everything is "constructed" or photoshopped to look better than reality. The other 1% is when they deliberately want the people to look worse, like in those gossip magazines.

It's had a reverse effect on me when I see that kind of stuff. I'm more visually interested in flaws than perfection nowadays, because when everything "looks" perfect, it becomes boring (like that fantastic Twilight Zone episode, "I'm beautiful! Just like everyone else!"). Those models do nothing for me because I already know they're completely fake. That woman looked better to me in her "natural" photos because I could see an actual human being in there.

It might not be all that related to videogames, but it kind of is. We have the power to make anything look like anything; and what we choose to make with that ability is sometimes disappointing.

#177 Edited by Palaeomerus (355 posts) -

Disregarding actual Barret M82's, don't semi-auto BMG .50 (.guns chambered for 50 caliber Browning machine gun ammo) "anti-material" guns run around $6500 at the very low end (Serbu) and the single round bolt action ones(Serbu, Amrmalite) come in at around $3000. The ammo is like $4 a round. $40 fills the ten round magazine. I'm sure the price drops if you buy 100 rounds or more maybe to $3 a round. They need to be fired from a bipod. They are awfully loud.

I frankly doubt many of those get sold because they are similar to a very expensive gun that showed up in a video game or movie. It's a rich man's toy like most big bore guns.

#178 Posted by patrickklepek (4623 posts) -

@Rxanadu said:

The "XNA is no longer supported" link directs me to the same article about Brian Reynolds' farewell letter from Zynga.

Does anyone have the link talking about the lack of support for XNA by Microsoft?

Fixed, sorry!

Staff
#179 Posted by BombKareshi (996 posts) -
@patrickklepek: But it's still wrong...
#180 Posted by Inquisitor (235 posts) -

@Mr_Misery said:

What does that Cameron Russell video have to do with video games?

QFT. This TED talk stuff seems interesting on its own right but......

#181 Posted by hanktherapper (378 posts) -

I actually watched the entire Chris Taylor interview. I like that guy. I still don't like his games. I find them boring but I want to root for him. He's a good guy.

#182 Posted by Pudge (886 posts) -

You're doing what pretty much every Fire Emblem player does as they play through the game, which makes your segment on the last Bombcast where everyone took a shit on Casual mode that much more painful. I feel that Casual mode solves the problem of the constant restarts and keeps you in the story. The permadeath is a great hook in theory, but no one is going to willingly let their favorites die if they can help it, and the game would be lose story and become a slog if it did what XCOM does.

#183 Posted by medacris (660 posts) -

When the new Fire Emblem came out, I felt guilty at not having played the series, and then I remembered the "if you lose a unit, they're gone forever" mechanic and that that was part of the reason I hadn't gotten into the series before. I think sometimes I don't trust myself not to screw up on something like that.

Little Inferno is a game I really want to play, and yet I still don't like fire irl, just like...I think video games have actually made me very certain I never want to own a gun. Weirdly enough.

#184 Posted by x0mb13 (32 posts) -

The best part of that Ted talk is that it has about 900k views, 9x as many views as any other video featured on their front page. Why? Because it has a hot chick on the thumbnail and looks are everything after all haha.

#185 Posted by squiDc00kiE (352 posts) -
@Lorbst

Giantbomb is the cutest!

Science says...
#186 Posted by KogX (13 posts) -
Online
#187 Posted by Turambar (6784 posts) -

Regarding losing your strong characters and thus not being to finish the game, Fire Emblem, at least on normal difficulties, actively prevents that from happening by constantly giving you new characters every few chapters. These characters have rarely been the best in terms of stats, but on normal difficulty, they are more than enough to carry you through. At the risk of scaring you off the franchise, may I suggest you check out www.serenesforest.com, and check out the spreadsheets of growth rates for characters in the games, the percentage chance that a character may gain stat points upon level up. While it might not help you in playing the game, seeing all the math (and RNG) behind the game should be interesting.

Also, since you posted a video of Awesome Games Done Quick 2013, may I suggest a future story. Speed Demo Archives have been hosting charity marathons for years, for various things from autism to cancer. This latest marathon was so successful, it raised over $400,000, more money than all previous marathons combined. I'm sure talking to them and writing about how it all came together would make for an interesting story.

#188 Posted by FirstBossCutman (65 posts) -

Worth Reading has become one of my favorite features on the site.

#189 Posted by Devil240Z (3368 posts) -

you are awesome. Worth Reading is great. Keeping me sane while I'm waiting for Unprofessional Fridays to go up.

#190 Posted by redelectric (160 posts) -

@Inquisitor said:

@Mr_Misery said:

What does that Cameron Russell video have to do with video games?

QFT. This TED talk stuff seems interesting on its own right but......

Quit Fucking Talking.

Not everything has to be gaming-centric. Get Expanded.

#191 Posted by Krystal_Sackful (810 posts) -

Arms companies licensing their iconic products in video games for money? Oh god, I'm sooooooo disturbed.

#192 Posted by Inquisitor (235 posts) -

@redelectric said:

@Inquisitor said:

@Mr_Misery said:

What does that Cameron Russell video have to do with video games?

QFT. This TED talk stuff seems interesting on its own right but......

Quit Fucking Talking.

Not everything has to be gaming-centric. Get Expanded.

I'd expect it to be at the very least gaming-peripheric. If i wanted to get expanded i'd certainly find my own destinations.

#193 Posted by SharkMan (656 posts) -

sucks that it looks like chris taylor lost his mind from this, i mean that video makes him look like he is barely holding it together. all their games were great minus supcom 2.

#194 Posted by Sunjammer (915 posts) -

I reckon Simon Parkin is about as good as games journalism gets these days. Every single time that guy gets published it's fantastic work, even when I don't agree with him.

#195 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -

That article on gun licensing in games was amazing. I usually have a number of tabs with various video game stories open at any given time, to get to when I feel like reading them. I just read that whole article now. It was gripping and thought-provoking.

#196 Posted by Hailinel (24830 posts) -

@Inquisitor said:

@redelectric said:

@Inquisitor said:

@Mr_Misery said:

What does that Cameron Russell video have to do with video games?

QFT. This TED talk stuff seems interesting on its own right but......

Quit Fucking Talking.

Not everything has to be gaming-centric. Get Expanded.

I'd expect it to be at the very least gaming-peripheric. If i wanted to get expanded i'd certainly find my own destinations.

Well, not every TED Talk is about gaming. Hell, the vast majority of them aren't. So as long as Patrick includes TED Talk videos in Worth Reading, there will likely be material off the subject of video games.

#197 Posted by JimmyEcho (14 posts) -

that speed run was pretty damn impressive =)

#198 Posted by redelectric (160 posts) -

@SharkMan said:

sucks that it looks like chris taylor lost his mind from this, i mean that video makes him look like he is barely holding it together. all their games were great minus supcom 2.

I think he was handling things pretty well, alll things concidered. He's got thirty people's lives on his shoulders right now.

#199 Posted by Terrorbite (28 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Dezztroy said:

What's so different about real guns appearing in games compared to, say, real cars?

By paying for the license to use real gun models in their games, developers are effectively funding weapons manufacturers.

I don't see the problem, even if citizen of a country couldn't privately own guns the gun manufacturers would still be around to make money off the governments of the world, so who cares if they make money of video games?

#200 Edited by happymeowmeow (205 posts) -

Interesting articles this week: the Simon Parkin, Christopher Dring and 1 year old Clint Hocking talk were all good stuff.

Searching for greater meaning in the things we do, it's part of being human. There's a strange dissonance in video games (or I should say the people that play them) between wanting to just enjoy a game and trying to get something more out of the experience. Not saying it isn't possible to have both, but spending any amount of time on enthusiast websites (especially this one) makes it seem like people want one or the other.