Maybe they did this in last year's game, but holy crap did they re-time all the animations for moves? 2K14 has a lot of stuff carried over through the years that either have janky animations or weird timings that make them look bad, but I recognize a lot of moves here from the older games that actually look fluid and normal.
It's like, while they're busy complaining about this not being the same weird fantasy game that will never exist every year, there's a lot of subtle improvements you wouldn't really notice unless you've played the previous games a lot.
It's crazy; it's almost like this is an annual sports game or something.
And to answer your question, almost all the moves were re-done last year for 2K15, what they couldn't get to they did this year while adding a lot of new stuff.
Oh, and a lot of the NXT guys did their own motion capture, so wooo.
@mlarrabee: IPs are not static anymore. Every time you connect to the Internet, well, every time I connect to the Internet, I get a fresh one from my ISP. The only way IP bans work is if they target an entire block, and then you have a ton of innocent people caught in the crossfire. It's a scorched Earth approach that, while effective in some situations, doesn't really work on the kind of scale we're talking about.
As for ISPs wilfully handing over billing information... wow. That's... man. That is quite possibly the single biggest breach of consumer trust any ISP could commit. I mean, if Comcast or whoever runs the telecom cartel in the US wants to commit suicide, sure, that's a good way to do it but... man. I don't even want to go down that road.
I agree with your general sentiment, though, both in terms of free expression and tighter recourse for legal breaches, but I think as of right now there's no real recourse. Whatever decision gets made has to be balanced with the concern for private individuals, and I don't think we as a society have the tools for precision targeting just yet.
It was great back in the day when anonymity could be seen as the go to answer for a lot of the garbage online but Facebook and Twitter have shown people are willing to sign their names next to total garbage.
I think the problem is that a lot of people joined the Internet with the rise of Facebook that previously only ever used it for email, and as such were not prepared for what kind of assholes lurk in the outlaw territories of the Internet.
I mean when I was growing up and my family got Internet for the first time, I was told, repeatedly, never to give my real name or any personal information that could be used to track my identity (child predators were the big concern then, you see), and I don't see kids today getting that same speech. The fact of the matter is that anonymity on the Internet can be a godsend. I probably wouldn't have survived school if I couldn't disappear into the ether and talk with random people about what music sucked or what video games I should play. Cyber bullying really bothers me personally because it's just not even fair.
You've got kids who get bullied at school, they come home, they go onto the Internet, and they're still getting bullied. It's horseshit. It's fighting dirty. When kids go home they should absolutely not have to deal with that stuff for the rest of the day, and they wouldn't have to if they didn't get facebook or twitter and slap their real names all over it.
That probably sounds like victim blaming, but it's really not. As of right now, the only way to protect yourself from potential hate mobs both in real life or from sects of the Internet is to be anonymous. Have an online persona and a real life persona, and never, ever cross the streams. Maybe that sounds like too much work for a lot of people, but it's the best you can do at this point.
I don't know. I just don't see human behaviour changing any time soon, and I'm skittish about legislation because A) it's unenforceable due to the Internet not being centralized in one country and B) giving up your freedom in exchange for someone not being an asshole is open to oh so much abuse by government bodies.
The longer I stay on the Internet, the closer I come to being convinced that the anonymity needs to vanish. I'm not convinced yet, but studies upon studies have shown that people feel so much freer to be scumbags when their names and faces aren't available.
Read your facebook feed sometime, read somebody else's. Abolishing anonymity will not change anyone's behaviour. People feel comfortable enough to be dicks because they can, free from consequence. It will remain so with or without a fake name or avatar.
So what do you do? How do you implement ramifications and consequence for what is at most words on a screen? Exactly how do you police 7 billion people for good etiquette? I'm asking, seriously, because if you can come up with an answer that works you will be a billionaire.
@deathofrats360: Do twitter and facebook have measures in place to block and report harassment?
Simple yes or no will do.
You underestimate the tenacity of people with plenty of time on their hands and an axe to grind. While those measures might work on a small scale for people like us, if you're a Zoe Quinn or an Anita Sarkeesian and have a loosely-organized group of assholes trying to make your life miserable those measures are inadequate.
Then the proper response is to make better tools to combat the harassment. The fact of the matter is that you're not going to round up every asshole who gets a kick out of pissing people off into a forced labour camp to work off their sins. That's just not going to happen, especially when it's becoming easier and easier for the layman to bounce their signal all across the world. The harassment public figures receive now is no different than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. The only thing that's different is that it's public, now, and everyone can see it.
There's really nothing that can be done aside from building better tools. Apparently Twitter is trying something now. Who knows if it'll work.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but there are things in this life where you just need to suck it up and move on with your day. Harassment for public figures is one of those things for as long as you're a public figure. Does it suck? Sure it sucks, but until better tools are implemented the best you can do is ignore it.
I used to think that way but after seeing people getting swatted, after seeing people doxxed and having all their information (phone numbers, CC numbers, addresses) and their families information dumped online, after people ringing in bomb threats to universities, after people taking photos of themselves waiting outside people's houses and tweeting it; it's terrorism.
It's designed to terrorize people.
SWATing is dangerous. SWATing can get people killed. I am totally on board with stiff penalties in terms of jail time. I'm sure it sounds like it'd be fun to call in a SWAT team on somebody and ruin their day, but so many things can go wrong that everyone's safety is not worth the cost of a few chuckles. Funny in Punked? Sure. Not so funny in real life.
As for doxing, it sucks, but it's harassment, not terrorism. Calling in bomb threats? Again, harassment, not terrorism. The reason they are harassment and not terrorism is because the threats themselves are untenable. The proper response to a bomb threat is to roll your eyes. It's only ever considered credible if the person threatening has given precise and accurate details about the facility that they are threatening to bomb. Otherwise, nobody cares because it's either a prank or someone who's really salty about one thing or another.
Never heard of anyone tweeting pictures of somebody's home before, that's new to me, but again that's harassment. Harassment and terrorism are two different things both legally and linguistically, and I don't know why certain individuals feel the need to escalate the danger. Harassment is bad enough, calling harassment terrorism is just asking for people to roll their eyes and forget about you.
Tangentially related, but look at Occupy Wall Street. For a few moments the people protesting had the world's attention, and then instead of focusing in on the facts and why they were there, they decided to try and use OSW as a platform to speak about every possible thing wrong with society. It was hyperbolic and ultimately just annoyed people into not paying attention. The lesson is that if you want this stuff to be taken seriously, you can't go hyperbolic. Public Relations is more important than the truth, and the fact of the matter is that everybody lies. Everybody. The public will swing in favour of the guy who has the better PR firm in that case.
The sad part is, I can't even tell who is doing this shit anymore. Anti-, Pro-, some random trolls, I have no idea.
The thing is, it ultimately doesn't matter who called in threats. It really doesn't, because the end result is that SXSW buckled and they gave in. They washed their hands of the whole affair and haven't realized that they're opening themselves up to even greater bullshit in the future. The golden rule of the Internet used to be "don't feed the trolls." Ignore them and they go away. Both sides of this issue are too raw and too damn sensitive to ignore the random drive bys and focus on what actually matters.
Come on, man. I know hyperbole is the big thing these days but Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The IRA was/is a terrorist organization. ISIS is a terrorist organization.
Comparing actual terrorism to a few pissed off geeks on a message board? That's downright delusional.
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'terrorists' but real people were chased from their homes in terror by those ginned up by the hashtag movement's nebulous goals of 'journalism ethics' - a mindset replete with war imagery and (metaphorical) calls to arms. Sloughing harassment off as 'geeks on a message board' lines up with the blinkered 'The internet isn't real' ethos of channers and the like.
The Internet is not real. If anyone is harassing me I can very easily sever the line of communication to what's bothering me. Everyone has that power. You have that power.
I'll say it again: someone being an asshole on twitter is not terrorism. Harassment, yes, but terrorism? Hysteria like this does nothing for anybody. Unless you like drama, in which case by all means.
Come on, man. I know hyperbole is the big thing these days but Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The IRA was/is a terrorist organization. ISIS is a terrorist organization.
Comparing actual terrorism to a few pissed off geeks on a message board? That's downright delusional.
Sorry, would "terroristic threats" have been preferable?
Not sure why you're picking at me on that one point in my post, but sure, if it will help, I'll edit it to clarify that I mean the hate group's threats were terroristic, not actually made by a state-recognized terrorist organization.
Because to the uninitiated you sound like a crazy person harping on about nothing of consequence. You bring something like that to a person that matters in the real world and the best reaction you can hope for is a barely contained snicker. Comparing angry geeks to actual terrorists is silly, no matter if you believe the threats are credible or not. I'd link to a video explaining why, but it's really not safe for work, or even not safe for life, but chances are if you've ever seen a beheading video then you know the difference between people being mean on twitter and actual terrorists.
Just a little perspective, duder. That's all I ever ask from anyone.
Oldirtybearon's comments