jmic75's forum posts

#1 Posted by jmic75 (271 posts) -

Honestly PC gamers should be less concerned with graphical options when it comes to FF XIII, they should simply not buy it because it wasn't a very good game, not because of graphical options, that's just the icing on the turd cake that is FF XIII.

#2 Posted by jmic75 (271 posts) -

I have the same problem, but worse than that when i hit a button in game my screen went black and completely unresponsive, couldn't alt tab out, couldn't get to task manager had to hard restart my computer, when I rebooted the game this problem occurred.

#3 Edited by jmic75 (271 posts) -

Mathematical dickishness:

Internet trolls > Annoyed gamer > Phil Fish > people that mistake "your" for "you're" > Me for getting angry over grammar > Everyone else


#4 Posted by jmic75 (271 posts) -

Well great, they imply if it doesn't get funded Muir will die....if I don't donate I'm a murderer.

#5 Posted by jmic75 (271 posts) -

Something I missed was the way the city is suspended in the original trailers, it clearly uses hot air instead of the method that is used in the final game that combined with (as TheMasterDS said) the huge difference in Elizabeth's powers is it possible that the dimensionality that is prominent in the final game was not a huge story point in the original?

#6 Posted by jmic75 (271 posts) -

I used crows to distract the minions and just wailed on her with RPG ammo.

#7 Posted by jmic75 (271 posts) -

Towards the end of the game you come to Finkerton's brother's music store and find a audio log that explains all of the anacronistic music in a smart way.

#8 Edited by jmic75 (271 posts) -

Gotta say I wasn't a huge fan of the ending. It's also really depressing when you think about it, it's pretty much the plot to The Butterfly Effect, and a more recent movie who I won't name as its too soon for spoilers, but its even more depressing because at least in those movies they kill themselves to save someone else. In Infinite you kill yourself, which in effect kills your daughter, the very person you were sent to save.

If it was up to me I'd have just gotten out of there with Elizabeth and gone back to our home universe, all the other universes be damned. There's an infinite number of them in half of them you'll save the day and get away, in others New York will be razed, but for all you know in those universes a meteor might hit the earth and wipe everyone out anyway, you can't control everything, nor should Booker have to take responsibility for alternate dimension Comstock.

It's also confusing as to how drowning booker would even stop all comstock universes from being created, he isn't being drowned in all universes at the same time, nor would all versions of him choose to be drowned.

#9 Edited by jmic75 (271 posts) -

I went back and looked at old demos for Bioshock Infinite and I can see why the game was delayed a few times, they radically changed it.

Almost nothing in this 2010 demo is in the game in any form (other than the weapons, handyman and the crow and electric powers)

This is much closer with segments that actually occur in the game, however the story must have changed late in development as it appears to focus more heavily on patriotism as the theme of the game (which does still exist in the final product) but religion, which is the driving force in the final game city does not exist anywhere (no posters of the prophet etc). The Lincoln mask is the most indicative of this, he is celebrated here with a mask, but is vilified in the final product. The celebration of the US and the founding fathers is a bit odd to have remained prominent in the final game as Columbia separates from the states, as the city rejects what it has become.

I was a bit disappointed by the lack of dynamic social situations, factions and impactful choices that were promised throughout development (eg you could save a man from an execution but he may turn out to be a terrible person later on).

Do you like the changes that happened from the first shown media about the game?

#10 Posted by jmic75 (271 posts) -

@MildMolasses said:

@jmic75 said:

@MildMolasses said:

@thabigred said:

I've always had nothing about respect for our northern neighbors. I can't respect this.

Except for the part where he is an employee of the federal government and he's bitching about his decent paying, tax-funded job with great benefits which involves interacting with tax-payers concerning taxation. He was "club-fed" employee. It takes remarkable skill to get fired from government agencies. Maybe if his frustrations could take a more artful turn into metaphor and allegory he wouldn't lose his job, but they didn't.

He did all this while off the job, was making commentary on all call centres jobs and did not at any point say it was about his current job nor did he even mention his current job. At what point is something like this infringing upon free speech? If I post on a social media site that I hate Mondays should I then be fired for implying that working at company X on Mondays suck? What difference does it make that he was a federal employee? Everyone bitches about their jobs at some point no matter what job you have.

Except it wasn't a comment to his friends on facebook, it's something he's offering to the public. I know he doesn't specifically mention the CRA, but it's really not that big of a stretch to assume a lot of this is coming from his (then) current job. A job which happens to be funded by tax-payers. He is getting paid to deal with these people. That's the job. If he hates it so much, find another job. And if he can't go without making his complaints about the people he is supposed to offer a service to into a public spectacle, then he shouldn't have the job. There are enough people who will take the overpaid government job and shut the fuck up about it

As an employee he had two responsibilities, perform his job competently while on the clock, which he did, and not say anything negative about the company that could adversely hurt their operations. Considering it's the CRA you can't argue that they'll lose money due to the game, you could argue it could hurt their reputation, but ultimately firing the guy only supports their reputation of being a soulless humourless branch of the government. However again he never names the CRA, the game involves a generic call centre, the journalist assumed it was based on working at the CRA and wrote the article as such (without even talking to Mr. Gallant) if anyone caused harm to the CRA it was the journalist.

When asked about why he didn't just use a pseudonym Mr. Gallant wrote: "The game doesn't identify CRA, isn't directed at CRA, and really doesn't involve CRA. I didn't see the need to hide behind a pseudonym. I'm proud of what I made." Clearly he was acting in good faith when he made a game about call centre jobs in general, or at least claims as such; it would be very hard to prove that any negative effect was due to the game and not due to the unconfirmed assumptions of a article.

That aside you seem to have an unhealthy disdain for public employees. You also seem to be under the assumption that people can just up and leave the job they have just because they don't like parts of it. That's not really how the world works and Mr. Gallant has said that part of the reason why he made the game was to ease his frustration over having to continue to work at call centre jobs in order to get by. I'd much prefer a humorous, harmless game to some of the much more destructive ways some employees take out their frustration. Ultimately his firing was an over reaction by the minister, most likely assuming everything in the article was true, because really he gets canned over "possible compromise of tax payer information" yet no one has been held accountable for the hundred thousand student loan files that have gone missing?